Tongues and public worship
You can't help but notice that one of the recent hot topics of discussion in the blogosphere has been the debate between charismatics and cessationists. I started writing a post on prophecy which I haven't finished yet but this post by Mark Heath caught my attention. I think there is a great deal of confusion over the issues of tongues, and inparticular their use in worship and in witness.Tongues in Acts
The gift of tongues seem to have been part and parcel of early church life, and speaking in other tongues was part of the church at its inception (Acts 2:1ff). There is however a remarkable difference between the gift of tongues at Pentecost and (seemingly) the gift of tongues found at Corinth and indeed in modern charismatic-pentecostal circles.
The apostles do not speak in the unintelligble spiritual babble that Paul instructs the Corinthians in the correct use of. Rathe we find that:
"...there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome both Jews and converts to Judaism Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" (Acts 2:5-11)
Under the power of the Holy Spirit, the apostles 'declare the wonders of God' in other human languages in a way that is fully intelligible to their hearers. This then leads into Peter's public sermon and a large scale conversion to Christ by those who hear the preaching. The sending of the Spirit and speaking in tongues seems to be a complete reversal of the damage done at the Tower of Babel, and Good News of God is made intelligible even for those who do not speak the native tongue of the apostles. The gift of tongues here is very different to the gift of tongues we find at Corinth and in the modern church. It is connected not with worship or private devotion, but with mission and witness. It is an eschatological sign which heralds the good news that the blessings promised by God will no longer be restricted simply to one ethnic group, but that now the Gospel is going to be declared to people of all nations, as Jesus has already instructed the apostles back in Acts 1:8. I think this missional aspect of tongues has almost entirely disappeared from view, and in this way it can help the cessationists make their case that tongues has ceased. For the record I disagree with most cessationist approaches to the debate, but the lack of any obvious existence of tongues functioning in this way might seem to strengthen cessationist claims that God's Spirit no longer operates in this way. I've heard numerous apochryphal anecdotes about people speaking in tongues in the mission field so that their converts were able to understand the Gospel in their own language, but the lack of emphasis on tongues as a) actually speaking intelligible human languages and b) connected to mission in many charismatic circles means that this Lukan emphasis on tongues has largely been neglected, and so our present understanding of the gift and practice of tongues is at best unbalanced.
Tongues in Corinth
The gift of tongues in Corinth does seem to be rather different to that which we find in Acts however. I don't want to discuss the whole issue, but simply focus on the relationship between tongues and public worship that Mark raised in his post.
We have looked briefly at tongues in Acts 2, but compare 1 Cor 14:2 with Luke's account of tongues in Acts:
"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit."
The manifestation of tongues here is completely different to what we find at Pentecost. This is certainly no intelligible declaration of the wonders of God in other languages, it is a private affair between a believer and God. Paul certainly affirms speaking in tongues to God (see 1 Cor 14:14-18 for instance), but it should be made clear here that the issue in Corinth is not 'the doctrine of tongues' in some general sense, far less the issue of whether or not Paul expected this particular gift of the Spirit to carry on after he and his apostolic colleagues had died and/or completed the canon of scripture. The issue here seems to be twofold: firstly, Paul is concerned with intelligibility in the utterances of the congregation and secondly with the impact that the practice has on those outside the church.
Having already spoken of the importance of building up the church in love, Paul is keen to avoid the use of spiritual gifts which are thwarting the Corinthians from reaching that goal. Consider 14:6-12:
"Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church."
"What is the point in spekaing in tongues", Paul is saying, "if none of you can understand what is being said?" It does not edify the church or instruct anyone, how is it contributing to building up one another in love? Love builds up (1 Cor 8:1), and speaking in tongues and understanding 'all mysteries' without this edifying love is useless (1 Cor 13:1-2). The pursuit of love and the desire for spiritual gifts go together, so speaking in a tongue that is unintelligible to other believers and also to unbelievers is working against this purpose. This is why Paul prefers prophecy over tongues, because it will instruct and edify the church in a way that unintelligible tongues cannot.
Signs for believers and unbelievers
So tongues are good for an edifying private prayer between a believer and God, though clearly prophetic words of instruction are infinitely preferable in public worship. The issue does seem to be complicated somewhat in 14:20-25:
"Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. In the Law it is written:
"Through men of strange tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"
It seems that having just said why uninterpreted tongues are not
useful or profitable in public worship, Paul is now saying that they
are a 'sign' for unbelievers. Mark suggests that tongues act as a sign
to outsiders, confirming their outsider status and thus creating a
hunger in them for more. Perhaps this is true in some instances, but
I'm going to have to disagree with Mark on this one. The key to
understanding the way in which tongues are a 'sign' for unbelievers is
by referring back to the quote which Paul (with a slight re-working to
prove his point) quotes from Isaiah 28:11. In the Isaiah passage, God
warns Israel that even if he warns and rebukes them through the lips of
foreigners, it will be of no use to them because they will not
understand what is being said to them. The same is the case with the
unbelievers present in the worship of the Corinthians. They will not
understand what is being said to them, and so tongues function as a
negative 'sign' to them, it makes the truth of God inaccessible, which
is not what God intends (contrast this with Acts 2). Understanding the
sign as a negative rather than a positive helps eliminate any apparent
contradiction in Paul's line of thought throughout chapter 14.
So in what sense then is prophecy a sign for believers? From
14:24-25 it seems that in actual fact, prophecy would be a very good
sign for unbelievers, causing them to become convicted (a better
ttranslation that 'judged' in the NIV) and to acknowledge God. Yet Paul
says that prophecy is a sign for believers. Again this is an apparent
tension that is quite easily cleared up if we examine the Corinthian
situation a little more closely.
The church in Corinth is not in good shape. The Corinthians consider
themselves to be super-spiritual (perhaps this is why they delight so
much in speaking in tongues?) yet are steeped in immorality and are
bringing judgment on themselves (11:27-34). If they listened to
prophecy and instruction, they would not be in the mess that they are.
Tongues has been unable to bring this badly needed correction, but
prophecy would have been able to. This being the case, prophecy acts as
a sign for believers - warning them and correcting them about their conduct.
That is not to say of course that in the broader scheme of things, prophecy is for believers only. The biblical record and indeed the rest of 1 Cor 14 show that this is not the case, but the Corinthian problem has been making unintelligible tongues (which are not useful for unbelievers) more prominent than prophecy (which is necessary for both believers and unbelievers alike).