"Private Prayer Language" And Dictating An Individual's Personal Relationship With God

A friend posted the two following questions on his blog. I thought they were very good questions and here is my answer in toto.

1. Do you believe people today are gifted with "speaking in tongues?" I do not mean speaking in foreign languages, but speaking a spiritual language, a prayer language even, which is understood only by the Holy Spirit?

2. Would you become a member of a church where it was acceptable for people to speak in such a tongue, even if they did not do it in public?


You have raised some good questions. Allow me to offer my “dime-a-dozen” opinion. Let me forewarn: the more I thought about this issue the madder I got at recent individuals who feel the need to come between a person and God.

To answer the first question: from a conservative standpoint, why not?

Luke records in Acts 2, 10, 19 that the church spoken in tongues. In Acts 2, Peter states that this “tongue speaking” was the result of God having the anointed Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit (Luke refers to this event in Luke 3:22 and 4:1). In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus gives the Scriptural basis for this anointing by citing Isaiah. In Acts 2:16-21, Peter gives the Scriptural basis for the anointing of the Jesus’ disciples (and the subsequent “tongue-speaking” by citing the prophecy of Joel. In Acts 10, when the Gentiles receive the anointing by the Holy Spirit and the subsequent “tongue-speaking”, Peter states that the Gentiles have now received the anointing of the Holy Spirit just as they had at Pentecost.

Now in Acts 19, Paul repeats for the Ephesians what Peter did for the house of Cornelius in Acts 10. In Acts 18:1, Paul goes to Corinth and in Acts 19:1, Apollos goes to Corinth. In Acts 18:19, Paul goes to Ephesus and in Acts 18:24, Apollos goes to Ephesus. This appears to be one the methods that Paul and Apollos cooperatively employed when ministering to Gentile churches (1 Corinthians 3:6 – “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase).

What is interesting is that in both Christian communities, we have “tongue-speaking” where Paul and Apollos have both been. It is probable that Paul initiated the “tongue-speaking” in Corinthians as he did in Ephesus.

Paul touches upon “tongue-speaking” in 1 Corinthians 12, 13, 14 and its chapter 14 that is the most relevant to this issue.

In 14:2, the apostle Paul writes, “For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.”

In 14:5, the apostle Paul writes, “I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.”

What Paul is stating in the this chapter is that “tongue-speaking” is edifying to the individual person worshipping God but that in public such a practice is pointless because no one can understand the person. If a person is going to “tongue-speak” in public than he needs an interpreter, otherwise no one knows what he’s saying.

Yes, I do believe that this is a spiritual gift that people receive today. I know a few professors at seminary who speak in tongues in their own personal prayer time with God.

I know that the traditional, conservative view of tongue-speaking is that it no longer occurs, but based upon the doctrine sufficiency of the Scripture as held by conservatives:

1) The Scriptures never state that these gifts reach a cessation point. In fact, according to Peter’s use of Joel in Acts 2, this gift is evidence that the last days are here. If “tongue-speaking” then stops, one could reason that these “last days” are no longer the “last days”. And that would contradict Scripture.

2) According to 1 Corinthians 14:5, Paul encourages “tongue-speaking” for all believers.

Are we going to say that Paul only meant these words for just that particular church at that particular time? Are we going to say that this was a practice that was for the church at that time but that it does not apply to us as Bible-believing, inerrantists who believe in the sufficiency of the Scriptures?

Okay, then. We can then use that methodology for the rest of that chapter and in verse 14:34 in particular:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”

Now many conservatives believe that this verse prohibits women from being senior pastors. But Paul only meant these words for just that particular church at that particular time. This was a practice that was for the church at that time but that it does not apply to us as Bible-believing, inerrantists who believe in the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

Now I don’t interpret 1 Corinthians 14:34 in the way many conservatives do so I do not have the problem they do.

Now here is where I get passionate:

To answer the second question: a church allowing such a practice in a person’s private time with God would not cause me to not attend that church or become a member. In fact, I would stop attending a church that told the individual “despite what the Bible says, you cannot use ‘tongues’ while praying to God in your private time.”

Who are they to tell a person how they should or should not speak to their God? It is a private matter between two persons and they have no business meddling in such a relationship over such an issue.

What next? “Don’t raise your hands in prayer.” “Don’t kneel in prayer.” Don’t stand up in prayer.” “Don’t pray in the morning,” “Don’t pray at night.” “Use ‘thee’ and ‘thou’” “Don’t use ‘thee’ and ‘thou’.”

Now have never spoken in tongues and I really don’t feel comfortable doing so. But I speak to God and He speaks back. AND I TAKE THOSE MOMENTS VERY SERIOUSLY. I can certainly understand that churches would want to prohibit such worship in public ceremonies but to prohibit the use of private "prayer languages" by missionaries … to me that borders on blasphemous arrogance. No one but Christ has the right or authority to mediate someone’s relationship to God. To do so is to assume Christ’s work as your own.

Yes, the trustees of the International Mission board have decided that since the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as "private prayer language," then any individual who does practice “tongue speaking” or "private prayer language" cannot be a missionary.

Now the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is completely silent on this issue. It does not speak about it either “tongue-speaking” or "private prayer language". But let us examine the IMB trustees’ universal dictate upon all Southern Baptist missionaries’ personal and private prayers to God … with highlighted commentary.

1. Prayer language as commonly expressed by those practitioners is not the same as the biblical use of glossolalia. [It’s just spelt the same way. And most of the trustees agreed to this blanket dictated interpretation despite the wishes of the delegates to Southern Baptist Convention.]

2. Paul’s clear teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding. [“So if we do not understand what you and God are discussing in your private prayer time we must assume that it is not prayer.” You’ll notice they do not cite Scripture here. I suppose 1 Cor. 14:2,5 is considered irrelevant, then.]

3. Any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures. [Notice they are not doing so.]

4. In terms of general practice, the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as "private prayer language." [That is the general spiritual experience of most Southern Baptists; but any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures.] Therefore, if "private prayer language" is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC. [Well, most Southern Baptist do not raise their hands in prayer; if “hand-raising” is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC?]

Here is an instance where a small group of men have taken it upon themselves to interpret Scripture (without 2000 BFM or convention approval) and decided to prevent any missionary from serving who privately worships God in a manner in which they do not. Here we have a small group of individuals who are claiming the right of the majority to tell minority individuals how they should and should not pray (not in public) but in private. This is a really serious turn of events. How can one legislate the lifting of one’s voice to God?

Speaking of “lifting of one’s voice”, the new IMB program is called Lift Up Your Voice.

How does Jerry Rankin, President of the IMB describe it:

“Those who are called to the mission field sacrifice everything they have —lives of personal comfort and safety —to bring the precious message of Jesus to those who don’t know Him. Those who stay behind play a crucial role in furthering the kingdom. Lift Up Your Voice is a special invitation for your church to lift up hearts, minds, and voices in prayer and devotion in support of missionaries and for the lost around the world. Lift Up Your Voice. It will change your life. It will change your church’s life. It will change the lives of others.”

Of course, Rankin has gotten in trouble recently for admitting that he uses "private prayer language". Following such a revelation, the IMB trustees decided to dictate a ban on "private prayer language".

It appears that, in order to get enough votes among the trustees, some of the lead trustees began to “lobby” other trustees out of session, which is a violation of trustee rules. When one individual trustee began to raise problems over these illegal “lobbying” tactics, the trustees have now decided to seek to remove this individual trustee from the trustee board.

For what cause has this trustee been accused of that he deserves removal? He has “broken trust and [been] resistan[t] to accountability."

At some point, these prideful resurgent fundamentalists are going to have to be accountable to someone for their un-Christ-like behavior.

And to those who believe that “tongue-speaking” is demonic … you better be very careful. Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 12:31 when they proclaimed that the work of the Holy Spirit was the work of demons:

“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the [Holy] Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men.”