Earlier this year I was asked by a reader to describe my experience of the charismatic gifts. I am now almost finished with this series, and am also reviewing some useful resources for those wanting to find out more about the charismatic.

I have spent more than thirty years of my life in moderate charismatic churches, and these reflections try to summarize that experience. This particular series is not an attempt to justify the continuation of the gifts theologically – I have done that elsewhere and in my debate with Dan Phillips. Nor is this post intended to persuade you - I want you to be persuaded by the Bible, not mere experience!

Instead, here I want to simply answer the question, "What do the gifts look like in practice in places that claim they exist today?" I did, however, begin the series by looking at the context of 1 Corinthians 12 in five posts (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

"To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills." 1 Corinthians 12:7-11

Well, we arrive at the end of the list of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 with tongues and interpretation of tongues. Before we get into the meat of this, I just want to say a couple of general words about the direction of this blog over the last few months, and the future direction. Some of you will be surprised to discover that from now on there will be something of a gear change. Although I am sure I will not totally leave the subject of the charismata, it will certainly not be as prominent here as it has been for awhile now. Some of you probably think that all I ever write about is this one thing! The truth is that I have had other pre-occupations before, and you will now see that I shall have other pre-occupations again!

I will continue to review a few more helpful resources on the spiritual gifts, and if Dan Phillips wants to go one more round with me, I will answer any reply he gives to my last debate post. I am also currently working on a post which will aim to be a hyperlinked and referenced complete list of all the biblical arguments in favor of a charismatic interpretation of Scripture. Some of you may want to contribute to that list - do feel free to drop me a line if so. But, other than that, the focus of this blog will now begin to move elsewhere.

To prove my point, starting tomorrow I will be serializing an exciting interview with a leading Christian figure, and I have a few more up my sleeve over the next few months. Following this first interview, I have some other plans for the blog as well - so keep reading!

Anyway, back to spiritual gifts. It is worth pointing out that this list in 1 Corinthians is not a complete list of the spiritual gifts, nor does it represent the sum total of the action of the Spirit in the life of the believer. These are, however, with the exception of the so-called "Ephesians Four Ministries," the only controversial ones and represent the more obviously "supernatural." Thus it seemed appropriate to focus solely on them for our purposes - which after all was simply to answer the question of a reader about what spiritual gifts looked like in more moderate charismatic churches. (I hope they didn't give up along the way!)

I don't normally like to address theological points in these deliberately experiential posts, but I thought I would address a quote someone shared which helpfully summarizes an important difference between my own position and that of Lloyd-Jones - this quote is one of the reasons why most people would not consider him a charismatic. My commentator said:

Hi Adrian,

Next time you quote MLJ, please quote and explain the following because it appears to contradict charismatic teaching on tongues:

“The next principle we come to is that speaking in tongues is not something that can be initiated by us. Or if you prefer it, a man cannot speak in tongues whenever he likes. Now this is to me perhaps the most important point of all. You will generally find with people who claim today to speak in tongues that most of them say that they can do so whenever they like. Ask them, “Can you speak in tongues whenever you like?” They say, “Yes, whenever we like,” and they will do it for you there and then. I suggest that puts them in a category outside the teaching of 1 Corinthians 14. This, to me, is one of the crucial points in the differentiation of true speaking in tongues from the counterfeit.”

Quoted from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joy Unspeakable - The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Christopher Catherwood, Ed., Combined edition of Joy Unspeakable (1984) and Prove All Things (1985), Kingsway Publications, Eastbourne, England, 1995 (2003 reprint), "Control of the Tongue", chapter 15, page 278.

Well, there is no point beating around the bush - I think Lloyd-Jones is plain wrong here! There I said it! As Dan Phillips so wonderfully put it in his Reformation Day post, the whole point of sola scriptura is that we do not have to slavishly follow our heroes. This view of tongues as something that is automatic and entirely outside our control is, ironically enough, demolished by a Bible passage that is one that can sometimes bring the average charismatic out in a cold sweat (as it is the only passage in the bible that seems at first glance to contradict something that many charismatic churches do routinely)

". . . tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you . . .

If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace." (1 Corinthians 14:22-33)

We cannot get around it; these words require that there is some element of control in the hands of people. Otherwise, Paul's hearers could have ignored his instructions and then simply blamed God - "He made me do it!" This kind of view of God is as crazy as that described by my friend, Dotun, in Nigerian Officials. Whilst tongues is God's gift, this does not negate man's responsibility for using it appropriately.

All of which leads on nicely to how exactly tongues and interpretation should be used. charismatics differ in their interpretation of this verse. One thing that most of us agree on is that there are different kinds of tongues - as our passage at the top of this post suggests. The tongues of 1 Corinthians differ from those of Acts 2 as follows:

• In Acts 2 tongues were intelligible by others.
• In 1 Corinthians there is no suggestion that hearers might be present who could understand without a spiritual gift of interpretation.
• In Acts 2 the purpose of tongues is to preach the Gospel and confirm it to unbelievers.
• In Corinthians tongues exist to edify the believer and are seen as a stumbling block to unbelievers.
• In Acts 2 the direction of tongues is towards people (i.e. the hearers hear God's Word declared to them).
• In Corinthians the direction of tongues is Godward, and is seen as a form of prayer.

Thus, I think it is fair to say that the tongues of 1 Corinthians are different from those of Acts 2. Paul himself here speaks of different kinds of tongues. It is at least possible that at different points in this passage Paul is talking about different forms of tongues. I have heard some interpret these chapters by saying that there is a different meaning when Paul speaks about "a tongue" in the singular and "tongues" in the plural.

So to summarize, within charismatic circles there is a clear understanding that there are different forms of tongues and they are used differently.

Thus, there is a "private prayer language" that may in some circles only ever be used by an individual on their own. A number of prominent charismatic leaders speak of using the gift of tongues for prolonged periods in their private times with God. They report it strengthens them spiritually and makes them feel closer to God. They do not simply "empty their mind" at that time, however, and will often simultaneously pray with their minds whilst speaking with tongues. Thus, someone will be thinking of situations or perhaps meditating on an attribute of God or a Scripture and praying in tongues. Often such times of speaking or singing in tongues privately will be associated with receiving another gift of the Spirit such as a prophetic insight or faith for a specific healing.

Some charismatic churches take the instructions about not using tongues publically so literally that no matter how long you attend you will never hear tongues as it is only ever practiced in private personal prayer times. There are many charismatic churches that you could attend for months and years without ever hearing a tongue.

I think, however, that there is a problem with such a view. Paul claimed to speak in tongues more than anyone, and as such I feel it is an anachronism to think that he could have done a whole lot of tongues-speaking like that if he only ever spoke in tongues alone. He, quite simply, in that culture of small houses and community life, would not have been able to find sufficient time, in my opinion, to do so.

Thus, there is another viewpoint that is also increasingly common in charismatic circles. This would see the phrase "in church" as almost a technical term in Paul for when the congregation is gathered and expecting an individual to be addressing them - indeed some go further and suggest that "in church" refers to the church congregation meeting in some kind of authoritative way such as to weigh prophecy. Thus, what Paul is addressing here is people, for example, interrupting a preacher who is speaking to the congregation, or individuals simply proclaiming a message in tongues to the church.

Thus, some charismatic churches would claim that if, rather than trying to listen to a specific person, the whole congregation was to in a sense break down and each simultaneously, but individually, speak to God, they are in a sense no longer "in church." Thus an entire congregation could pray to God at once - some in English, perhaps some in their natural native tongues, and some in a supernatural tongue. This can also sometimes happen in such a way that the congregation sings in tongues - again some in their own natural tongue can be intermingled with this.

A number of churches are becoming less comfortable with this, particularly if unbelievers are present. Thus, in many charismatic churches today you may not ever or only very rarely hear the congregation as a whole singing or speaking in tongues in their main Sunday meeting. In contrast - and this is certainly true of Jubilee Church where I attend - there may be a whole lot of tongues-speaking in the church's prayer meeting, which is not intended to be open to first-time visitors or unbelievers. Thus, there would be times of corporate prayer without any interpretation believed to be required.

In contrast to the private tongues-speaking which many charismatics believe is available for all Spirit-filled believers (even if they do not always receive the gift when baptised with the Spirit) is the public tongues ministry. It may seem strange, but in the average church I have attended, only a tiny selection of those who speak in tongues as a prayer language will ever stand and address the church as a whole in tongues. The thing somehow feels different. There needs to be faith, of course, that an interpretation will be given. The impossibility of guaranteeing an interpreter is one factor that has tended to lead to a decline in public tongues-speaking in many charismatic churches. Interestingly, there is a difference in understanding of what a tongue and interpretation together is equivalent to in the minds of charismatics and Pentecostals. Many Pentecostals expect the interpretation to be a prophecy. The vast majority of charismatics - especially in the reformed camp - believe that tongues (as per this passage and elsewhere in 1 Corinthians) are directed to God and the interpretation is expected to be a prayer. The prayer is often one that seems to lift the worship time into a different level - it is the Spirit helping our worship according to many charismatics.

In terms of the practicalities of this, one perhaps unfortunate thing is that almost every time this has happened in my experience, the leaders of the meeting fail to explain to the congregation what just occurred. Thus, the tongue is given, someone prays, and the meeting's leaders expect the congregation to know that the interpretation was the prayer given immediately after the tongue. Sometimes there are two or three prayers given by different people, and I certainly can remember conversations that discussed which of the prayers was felt most like to be the interpretation. One of the extraordinary things about this gift is that very often the majority of the congregation DO have a sense of resonance with the interpretation when given that "confirms" it. I have certainly regularly heard - as indeed with prophecy - people say something like - "Wow - when you said that, I was actually about to say exactly the same thing."

The actual gift is a sense of what is being said - it is not a strict or literal translation. I should say, however, that I have good second hand evidence of tongues being given that were identified as a foreign language and translated rather than interpreted.

So there you have it. Lock me up. Call me mad. Do what you want to me, but this is my experience. This is what I have seen and heard. Charismatic experience proves nothing, but it does demand that we diagnose - that we determine from the Bible what we think has been going on. I am convinced that what I have experienced falls within the bounds of biblical norms.

I will at some point share a summary post which will simply list all the biblical arguments in favour of the charismatic position, and in the meantime there will be a few more book reviews, but apart from that, this really is all for now on the charismatic issue.

Come back tomorrow for part one of an interview that I trust will prove very interesting . . . .

UPDATE

Mark Smith shares an interesting article on research that has been done to explore what happens to our brains when we speak in tongues.

I also got this on email-

I read your blog but cannot comment, since I don't have a blog of my own (I'm an oil painter, not a wordsmith). :-) However, if I may, I'd like to submit a question about the exercise of the gifts in the life of a believer, and ask you what you think happens when a believer chooses not to allow them to operate any longer.

Years ago I was quite involved with churches and groups of a decidedly Pentecostal bent, and, over time, became very disillusioned with what seemed to me to be a real abuse of the gifts (everyone had a "word" from the Lord, it seemed). I had received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (A Pentecostal pastor) and spoke in tongues then and thereafter. I never used this gift publicly, only in prayer, or in prayer groups, and (not sure if this is noteworthy) my experience was that my mind was never "empty" during these times, unlike the "tongues" experiences of other religions - as I prayed, it seemed that I would be reminded of people, their needs, and at times I would feel a real sense of urgency as I fellowshipped with God, and my prayer language would alternate (tongues with English). I always felt close to the Lord during and after these times - I never felt as though I was transgressing in any way.

I began to read the opinions of many well-respected theologians who adamantly maintain that this gift is NOT in operation today, and any experience a believer has with tongues is either a fleshly manifestation or an outright deception.

So, to be on the safe side (after all, praying in tongues is not required, right?), I stopped praying in this way some years ago.

And it seems as though my relationship with God has changed. Is that possible? Not that I am not continuing to try to live my life as He wills (I am a devout believer), but somehow the passion, the warmth has seeped from my fellowship with Him. Things have seemed, well, sort of...wooden lately.

Knowing that the problem, whatever it is, lies with me, I have wondered if, by ceasing to pray as I did in the past, I have in fact quenched the work of the Holy Spirit in some way. I wonder if my reaction to the articles I read could be interpreted as a lack of faith that has been displeasing to God?

I have been a believer for a long time, so I already know that "feelings" are subjective and not a good standard by which to measure reality...still, I believe I HAVE felt the presence of God at different times in my life, but it has been a long time since anything like that has happened. (And I know He hasn't, nor will He, leave me, regardless of how I feel.)

I just wish there was some way to REALLY settle this issue, but good arguments have been made for the continuation as well as cessaton of the gifts. I would like to stop struggling with this controversy once and for all!

At any rate - I was wondering if anyone else has had a similar experience. If you have any insight on this, I would greatly appreciate hearing about it.