Worth Green, Th.M., D.Min.
We come now to the most dramatic and colorful gift, also the most divisive: tongues and the interpretation of tongues. Let me begin by sharing with you a number of images from my past—I have firsthand knowledge of each of these instances and conversations. These are specific instances. Please do not draw general conclusions from them.
First, let me take you to a little Southern Baptist Church just outside of Quantico, Virginia. Elayne and I were in attendance with two of our friends, Dock and Carol Jean Dockery. It was our second Sunday, and the Dockery’s first. Suddenly, in the middle of the service, a woman sitting just in front of us stood up and started jumping up and down uttering unintelligible grunts and groans at the top of her voice. The pastor stopped his sermon and said, “Uh-oh, the Holy Sprit has sister so-and-so again.” He was visibly embarrassed, as was most of the congregation
Second let me take you to a large and beautiful Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. I was attending a Sunday evening service to hear Dubois “Seven Last Words of Christ.” At the end of the cantata, and it was wonderful, they lowered the lights in the sanctuary and all the members of the choir started singing in unknown tongues. The image that came to me was a visual one. The sounds reminded me of sparks flying up from a campfire to melt away against the night sky. Though this instance disturbed some of the people who were with me, for me it was an altogether agreeable experience. I would not have sought it out, but I found the end result quite lovely.
Third let me introduce you to a Marine by the name of Staff Sgt. R________. Originally from Puerto Rico, he had recently returned to Camp Lejune from a visit to his parents new home in New York City. He knew I was a Christian, and that I was headed to seminary in the near future. He came to me and said, “Well, Lieutenant, I finally did it. I went to my parents church in Spanish Harlem and I spoke in tongues for them so they would know I was a Christian.” He was smiling broadly. I sensed mischief was afoot. I asked, “You faked it?” He smiled and said, “Yes, it was easy.”
Fourth let me ask you to look at man on his knees desperately seeking a touch from God. Suddenly he is absolutely convinced that God is real, and present. He experiences what he will later call “an immersion in liquid love. ” He is so overwhelmed by the totality of this experience that he begins to pray to God in a language not his own. He tells me that he has now used his “prayer language” for many decades.
(Note: One of the great theologians of our day, Wolfheart Pannenberg claims a similar experience, without the tongues. It may also be akin to the August 13th 1727 Moravian Revival, during which Zinzendorf said they had an experience of God of which they had been hitherto ignorant.)
Let me make a final introduction. The person in question has been a friend for more than 25 years. He is a devout and committed Catholic. Knowing he was once a part of the Charismatic Movement in his church, I asked if he still participated. He responded, “No. I am a graduate of the movement. I am glad that I had the experience, but I could not continue to live in it.”
Now let us set these experiences against the backdrop of the New Testament. I believe that the New Testament recognizes two kinds of tongues, and both involve miracles of communication.
The first are the tongues of Acts. They are a miracle of God’s communication to humankind. You know the story. In Acts chapter 2, the disciples are filled with the Holy Spirit and begin to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gives them utterance. They are in Jerusalem. It is the feast of Pentecost, and Jerusalem is filled up with devout Jews of many nations. As the disciples speak, many of these “foreigners” begin to hear the disciples as if they were disciples are speaking the various languages of their native countries. Some are amazed and ask, “How can this be—-all these men are Galileans?” Other obviously do not understand anything at all. They accuse the disciples (and others?) of being drunk on new wine.
I believe that the description of the events of Pentecost in Acts 2 represents a “reversal of Babel.” The story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9 explains, or at least seeks to explain the origin of this worlds many languages: According to the text, at one time there was just one language, with only a few words. Men came together to build a tower. They were building successfully, when God destroyed the tower and caused the confusion of languages. We are told in so many words that God did not want humankind working together too closely (“they are one people with one language”) or making progress too quickly (“this is only the beginning…nothing will be impossible for them”). For some reason, God did not want humankind’s oneness rooted in our own accomplishments. God wanted the division of the nations and languages. We certainly have that today. Though sources disagree, according to one source I trust, at present there are c. 6,000 known languages spoken in this world. 28 % of them are spoken by 1,000 people or fewer. 52% of them are spoken by 10,000 people are fewer. 83% of them are spoken by only one nation. One wonders how much better off humankind would be if there were only one language? Or perhaps it would have been easier to enslave us. We can only speculate. Never-the-less, In the story of Pentecost, God reverses Babel. God gives a miracle of communication and enables people to speak one language all can understand. It is a clear statement that those who belong to the kingdom of God have better communication than those who do not. It is the gospel that God wants to unite humankind, and nothing and no one else.
Tongues also figure prominently in the conversion stories in the book of Acts. Every time the gospel advances from the disciples in Jerusalem and Judea, to the Samaritans in Samaria, to the Gentiles living in the uttermost parts of the earth, speaking in tongues is the evidence that God has embraced them. This is explicit in Acts 10—in the case of the gentiles, and implied in Acts 8, in the case of the Samaritans. Whether or not these tongues are intelligible to those who hear is a moot point. At the very least, they are the clear evidence that God is embracing the new group. They are God’s miracle of communication to humankind, and to God’s church.
There is a second kind of tongues in the New Testament. I believe that this second kind of tongues is meant to represent a miracle of communication from man to God. I will attempt to justify this statement. These tongues are found in 1st Corinthians chapters 12-14. At least some members of the congregation at Corinth are speaking in tongues. However these tongues are not like the tongues of Pentecost. All who hear them do not understand them, quite the contrary. Paul makes this plain in 1st Corinthians 14:8-11 when he writes:
8b If the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning; 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.
These tongues do not make the communication people easier, but harder. In fact, it makes the communication between people so much harder that Paul says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. In verse 21 of chapter 14 Paul writes:
21 In the law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.
Paul says that in public worship he prefers prophecy—the “forth-telling,” or, perhaps even, the “foretelling” of the Word of God to tongues. He says that he who prophesies edifies others. He says those who prophesy speak to their brothers and sisters for “up-building, encouragement and consolation.” Paul says that, in church, he would rather speak 5 words in plain speech than 10,000 words in a tongue.
One can say a lot in five words. Someone feels isolated and alone in the world, and one can say, “God loves you very much.” That is five words. Someone feels the burden of sin, and one can say, “Christ died for our sins.” Or, “By grace you are saved.” Someone is under conviction, and one can say, “Believe and be baptized.” Ooops! That is four words. Make that, “Please believe and be baptized.” Or, “Believe and be baptized, now.” Someone is filled with loss and grief because of the death of someone near, and one can say, “Because he lives, we hope.” Someone is facing a difficult situation, and one can say, “With God, nothing is impossible.” Or, “Never give up, never, never.”
In the right context all these five-word phrases have great meaning. By contrast, I once sat unobserved in a room with a half dozen Africans all speaking Kiswahili. I am quite sure that I heard them speak at least several thousand words, and yet not one had any meaning for me.
Now one might suppose that we have dealt with tongues, and had done with them.
But Paul is not finished with the subject of tongues. He says that he himself is a practitioner. He says, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” Some people think that Paul is talking about his facility with languages. Most of the time in the New Testament the word “tongues” refers just to one or more of the spoken “languages.” Others think that Paul is talking about tongues as a private prayer language, he is talking about “the tongues of angels.” (Chapter 13:1) Likewise, Paul says, that he who speaks in a tongue “edifies himself.” He says that he, who speaks in a tongue, “speaks in the air,” and “speaks to God, uttering mysteries in the Spirit. “
I have read this passage dozens and dozens of times. For many years now I have been convinced that Paul recognized the validity of tongues as a prayer language, yet questioned tongues as a regular practice in church.
Some will point out that Paul says that “the interpretation of tongues” is also a gift of the Spirit. That is true, but Paul also says, “he who speaks in tongues should pray for the power to interpret.” (1st Corinthians 14:13) Think about the logical conclusion of that: He who speaks in a tongue, and has the power to interpret, can save a lot of time and energy if he simply gives the interpretation of his tongues message first.
Others will point out that, later in the chapter, Paul makes suggestions about how a church gathering should be conducted. He says the service may include hymns, revelations, tongues, and interpretation. He also says “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets, “ (1st Corinthians 14:32) and that all things should be done “decently and in order.” (1st Corinthians 14:40)
As in the case of baptism for the dead (1st Corinthians 15:29) Paul sometimes permits the churches to practice something that he himself might consider less than ideal. Likewise, the apostle has been known to contradict himself, as may be the case with permitting women to speak in church. In 1st Corinthians 11 he seems to permit it in 1st Corinthians 14 he seems to forbid it. Of course, some have suggested that 1st Corinthians 14: 33-36 may be the work of someone who edited the letter after Paul wrote it. Never-the-less, I come away with the feeling that Paul does not put great value on tongues in church. He rates tongues speakers lower than helpers and administrators. Perhaps Paul foresaw the rise of the organizational and institutional church?
There are those who will remind me that tongues and the interpretation of tongues are quite common in Pentecostal congregations. I can only say that I remain less than convinced of their value in worship. I have heard tongues and the interpretation of tongues when the message was clear, and plain, and edifying. At the same time, the message of interpretation would have been just as effective if employed alone. I have heard people “interpret” tongues by saying what they always say, or what the scripture already says. The only time I ever heard tongues and the interpretation of tongues used in which something new was said, the two speakers, a husband and wife team, asked a gathering of the Full Gospel Business Men’s Association for financial aid. Discernment was there in evidence. The whole assembly unanimously ignored their request. They got breakfast, but little besides.
And now, you ask, what do I think of tongues and the interpretation of tongues.
Here is a brief summation:
1. I recognized two kinds of tongues. The first is a miracle of communication in which God addresses humankind. This includes all the tongues of Acts. The second is a miracle of communication in which human beings address God. Assuming one has the gift, think that this second variety of tongues are best used as a private prayer language. As for me, I think the same thing can be accomplished in prayer even without tongues. In Romans 8, St. Paul says, “the Spirit makes intercession for us in sighs too deep for words.” I believe my sighs, and my complaints, and my arguments with God—-I never win, by the way, may achieve, for me, the same thing that many achieve through praying in tongues.
2. I recognize the value of tongues in private prayer for some, but I question whether they are superior to “normal” prayer. St. Paul himself writes:
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.
Though we sometimes don’t know how to pray as we ought, we ought eventually to learn. I prefer prayer than engages the mind.
3. I do not think that tongues are the definitive mark of being a Christian, or of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Some of the most effective Christians I have known have never spoken in tongues. The 2009 Unity Synod of the Moravian Church stopped short of forbidding tongues in the Moravian Church. Delegates agreed they were scriptural. However the Unity Synod also said that tongues were not the definitive mark of a Christian, and not necessary for a Christian Experience. We know from practical experience that speaking and praying in tongues only become problematic only when one group of Christians—whether tongues speakers or those who reject tongues speaking, begins to think itself superior to another group. This has happened in two provinces of our church, the Honduras Province, and the European Continental Province. It has been the source of great pain in both provinces.
4. I wish I had the gift of tongues that some of my friends have, meaning a facility with one or more foreign languages. I think a second language is the mark of an educated person. In America, many Ph. D. candidates are asked to have command of two foreign languages.
5. I believe that tongues or no tongues is a preference like contemporary or traditional music. I think we need both kinds of congregations. I think people should attend the congregations that meet their needs. I do not regard one group as in anyway superior to the other. I know what I like. I like our current practice. We have members who have the gift of tongues, but they use them as a private prayer language and do not insist on using them in public worship.
Remember some gifts are great gifts for the recipient, but not so great for the people around them. I am reminded of a man who came to visit me in my home, and immediately told me he had come the day before. “You were practicing your trumpet,” he said, “when I heard you, I thought that you needed the practice more than I needed to see you.” My trumpet was a great gift to me, it was not so great for my family and my neighbors. Under certain circumstances, any gift can be like that, even a gift of the Spirit like tongues.
Now some people will say, “Worth, you are just not spiritual.” Let me answer that charge with a story from my past.
I was in a hunting camp in the swamps in down east North Carolina, and another pastor was there. He found out I was a pastor, approached me and asked, “What kind of church do you pastor? “ Then, before I could answer, he added, “I pastor a New Testament Church.” I did not answer his question. Rather, I said, “Really, what kind of New Testament Church?” He said, “What do you mean?” I said, “Well, there are several kinds of churches in the New Testament. Paul enjoyed a marvelous partnership in the gospel with the church in Philippi. However, in Corinth, Paul had to defend his apostleship, and fight to be recognized against the “superlative apostles.” The Corinthians said, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account.” (2nd Corinthians 10:10) So, too, they had a man in the congregation living with his father’s wife (1st Corinthians 5:1-2) , and they actually boasted about it. The other pastor responded, “Ouch, I never thought of it like that.” He never did tell me what kind of New Testament Church he pastored. I told him I was your pastor, and very glad that I was. I never have understood why people elevate a practice beyond good sense when it was so popular in a church like Corinth.
Finis