DO NOT FORBID SPEAKING IN TONGUES (1 Cor 14:39)

XXXX takes stance against Pentecostal/charismatic doctrine

So says Paul: “DO NOT FORBID SPEAKING IN TONGUES” (1 Cor 14:39)

I recall Justice Sunday I and II. These were events where the leaders of the SBC came together to rally other Southern Baptists against the “tyranny of the Judiciary” where particular leaders in the government are appointing small groups of people to decide on important cultural issues without the blessings of the American people.


1) I do believe that they will no longer hire any professor that affirms the Scriptural practice of “private prayer language” whether that professors practices it or not or whether that professor refrains from promoting it or not. However, I do believe that all the current professors who practice private prayer language will be okay as long as they do not promote them.

“As it concerns private practices of devotion, these practices, if genuinely private, remain unknown to the general public and are, therefore, beyond the purview of XXXX Seminary.”

I take the above statement as a true policy and my experience with SWBTS suggests that they will not act upon anyone unless that person does publicly make a statement in support of the Biblical practice.

So while I disagree with this policy, I do believe that any current professors’ jobs are threatened … over this issue.


2) I am somewhat concerned about the growing hostility towards the issue of “private prayer language” for the following reasons:


- “Private prayer language” concerns the intimate relationship between God and the believer who is worshipping Him (1 Cor 14:2). No one other than Christ has the right to either dictate or mediate the relationship between God and Man. Such an effrontery not only ignores Protestant Reformation theology, Baptist distinctive theology, but places such dictators in the position of usurping the position of Christ.

- “Private prayer language” is the result of an experiential and emotional worship of God. Essentially, in this personal worship, the individual believer’s spiritual contact with God results in an overflowing of the senses to the degree that the brain’s speech abilities “overflow”. Essentially, it is the Spirit “speaking” emotionally to God in reaction to what God has done (1 Cor 14:2, 14). Now just like in a normal conversation, the individual does not have to speak (either in “tongues” or otherwise). Thus the individual engaged in “private prayer language” does not have to do so. If any charismatic tells you that he cannot help himself and that it is all the Spirit’s doing, then this person is wrong. Neither God nor His Spirit ever violates an individual’s freedom and autonomy; to do so would negate the intimate relationship between the two persons involved. Nevertheless, as Paul clearly teaches, “private prayer language” edifies the individual (1 Cor 14:4). Indeed, “private prayer language” is an edifying experience which is also the result of an edifying experience. To prevent believers from having an edifying experience is both negligence and hubristic. To this effect, the SBC leadership might as well tell everyone to not pray, worship, read Scripture, disciple, minister, repent or do anything else that brings edification to the individual believer.

- Paul specifically encourages other believers to “speak in tongues” (1 Cor 14:5, 39). Indeed, Paul; does state that “prophesy” is a greater gift than “tongues” but this still means that “tongues” is a gift. Indeed, Paul does not teach that “tongues” should not be a part of Christian worship services. In fact, if “speaking in tongues” is accompanied by an interpretation, such a practice is encouraged (1 Cor 14:5). Why? If I experience a blessing from God that is edifying to me, correct? Now if I tell others about that blessing from God, such a blessing edifies the body. Therefore, to forbid or even discourage “private prayer language” is not simply negligence and hubristic but directly contrary to the teachings of Paul in the Scriptures.

- Those who are either practicing or advocating “private prayer language” are doing so in accordance with the specific, clear, literal teachings of Scripture.

- Because these SBC leaders are both in clear violation of the Scriptures and are ignorant in this matter, we who are following the Scripture must ignore these SBC leaders in this specific matter (1 Cor 14:37-38). Really, how clearer can Paul be? “Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues” (1 Cor 14:39)

3) And the above is what is so disconcerting. Many in the SBC are continuing to explicitly and directly and openly disobeying Scripture and encouraging others to do so. And this not a matter of different hermeneutics. These SBC leaders are violating their own hermeneutics when they not simply teach against alcohol and “private prayer language” but actually force others to ignore the Scriptures. Say what you will about liberal believers ignoring Scripture; they never force others to do so. With the conservative leaders, they are not satisfied with simply ignoring Scripture they want everyone to agree and do likewise even if they must do so by force. I imagine that they have a guilty conscience and think they will feel better about their actions if everyone is on their page. It’s the typical sort of peer pressure one sees among homosexuals, drug addicts, etc. in our culture: they feel guilty so they try to force everyone to agree with them so they can feel better.

Some have said that “private prayer language” or the contemporary practice of “speaking in tongues” should not be equated with the practice that is recorded in the Scriptures. The idea is that this contemporary is not the same as the NT practice and thus it can be either ignored or eliminated by the Church. However, there is no evidence or indication (Scriptural or otherwise) that these two phenomena are anything but identical.

But if some argue that this practice is not the equivalent of the NT practice, there are three questions that they must answer before they inflict their will upon the relationship between God and Man:


1) What is the true NT practice regarding “speaking in tongues”?

Up till now, the SBC leaders who are so dogmatic about this issue have yet to identify this NT practice or even to make any differentiation between various charismatic practices. There is a blanket statement which condemns all charismatic practices without making admission that one can perform “tongues” as the NT teaches. Of course, such general condemnation apart from Scriptural authority is nothing new. Their treatment of alcohol consumption and women in ministry shows a similar Scriptural ignorance. Though they are quick to condemn that which they consider to be wrong, they are silent on what they affirm. The pessimism in me argues that they are silent because they want to give themselves room to wiggle given the political winds. The optimism in me simply admits they are Scripturally ignorant. Nevertheless, how can they legitimately condemn and eliminate “private prayer language” without any argument other than “trust us”? Possibly they hold to the view that charismatic gifts have ceased but they do not make an argument for this either. Some have said that “speaking in tongues” should be equated with experience at Pentecost in which everyone heard their own language. However if this was so then 1) why would Paul say that no one understands what is being said? 2) why would an interpreter be needed? 3) why would non-believers think everyone is mad because they do not understand? Really, these are two similar but still different phenomena.


2) What is the experience that so many Christians believe to be the NT practice of “speaking in tongues”?

If “private prayer language” is not the NT practice, what then is this phenomenon that so many believers from so many various Christian traditions (Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, etc.) are experiencing? Why is it that so many SBC leaders (SBC agency presidents, agency trustees, professors, pastors, etc.) are themselves experiencing it? What is it they are experiencing?


3) How do we identify authentic NT “speaking in tongues”?

If the practice in the NT which people presumably then have erroneously identified as “private prayer language” is something different than what is now being practiced, then how would the true incarnation of this NT practice be identified? How do we differentiate between “true private prayer language” and “false private prayer language”?

I believe that we shall never hear the answers to these questions from the people who desire to interfere with the relationship between God and Man by prohibiting “private prayer language” and the people who agree with them. Why?

1) They do not know the answers. They have no idea what the Scriptures say about this issue. Need proof? Every time they want to make a point about anything they support it by Scripture or tell everyone to not disagree with them because they are only doing what Scripture teaches … except in this case (and also with alcohol). Also, there has not been any real debate upon this issue – rather those who seek to prohibit “private prayer language” have consistently attempted to shut up anyone who questions the legitimacy of their actions and beliefs. A quick not for the future: if a particular party with a point of view about a Biblical issue must force their views upon others and seeks to silence contrary arguments, then that’s a pretty good indication that such a party really doesn’t have a good argument for their POV – and they know it!

2) They do not care what the answers are. This is true. The fact of the matter is that too many of the people who want to prohibit “private prayer language” (and those who agree with them) are doing so not because of what the Scriptures say but because they simply do not like “private prayer language”. Such an idea is bolstered by their similar actions with regards to alcohol consumption.

3) They do not have to answer these questions. These people have the power to force people to do what they will and because they don’t like “private prayer language” (or alcohol) they are using their power to prohibit it regardless of whether such an idea is Scriptural or not. They do not have to follow Scripture. They do not have to convince other people to agree with them. They can completely ignore all contrary arguments and disagreements and force their will upon all. All they have to do is appoint the “right” trustees and then tell these trustees to do X and these trustees will dutifully do X despite what the rest of us think. Is this not the case?

Yes, I recall Justice Sunday I and II. These were events where the leaders of the SBC came together to rally other Southern Baptists against the “tyranny of the Judiciary” where particular leaders in the government are appointing small groups of people to decide on important cultural issues without the blessings of the American people.