Mike's musings

Speaking in tongues - and a "Bible-based ministry"

Yesterday, on the way to Jen and Jake's, I kept an eye out for a church nearby them so that I could attend this morning. The one I ended up going to (on my own, as it happened) was St Luke's, West Norwood. There were around 100-120 people there, maybe more, with another 30 children or so, who joined us towards the end of the service, and seemed to have had a lovely (and, at times, loud!) "Lighthouse crew" meeting (maybe not the right word, but hey) upstairs. The range of ages in the congregation was wide - from teenagers up to around 90, and the mix of race attendance probably mirrors the area fairly closely, with around 60% of the people there being black, at a guess. The rector (Luke) is white, and the curate (Josh) is black, and it was a friendly, happy, joyful set of people, who were very welcoming.

The service was pretty informal, and the format simple:

• introduction, greeting, prayer
• call to confession, confession, absolution
• hymn ("O come, o come Immanuel (sic)"), 3 or so more modern songs, of which I knew all but 1, led by a very competent music group and words projected onto the East wall
• reading (1 Corinthians 14:1-28)
• sermon
• intercessions
• notices
• hymn ("Lo, he comes in clouds descending")
• blessing

I felt that it worked very well, and felt entirely at home: which hasn't always been the case when I've visited churches which might call themselves "evangelical". There were a number of things that made it work for me: the ease with which the children made to feel part of the proces, the wide mix of ages, backgrounds and colours in the congregation, the friendly welcome, and the theology of the sermon.

The sermon - ah, the sermon. Luke, the vicar, preached, for around 37 minutes. And he preached well, and the theology was excellent, and it couldn't have been much shorter. I was very impressed. It helped that there was a Bible in front of every seat, and he walked us through many of the verses in 1 Corinthians 12-14, and some others besides, particularly in Acts. The exposition was clear, he referenced the Greek on a couple of occasions, and theologically very sound.

He preached on whether people should speak in tongues, an(d gave a well-based biblical argument. Here are some of the major points:

• Paul says that he wishes that everyone could speak in tongues
• Paul says that prophecy is a great gift
• Paul makes it clear that not everyone has the same gift or gifts
• Paul says that it's fine to speak in tongues when praying, but that you shouldn't do it in church unless there's someone there to interpret, because otherwise it's unedifying to believers, and confusing to unbelievers (who'll think you're mad)
• speaking in tongues is different to being able to speak another language miraculously (and though the NIV, which we were using in the church, offers "other languages" for "tongues", the Greek may well support his view)
• why do some churches say "speaking in tongues has ceased", when Paul says that these gifts will continue until perfection comes (1 Corinthians 13:10)?
• why do some churches say that, once blessed/baptised, everyone should speak in tongues when the Greek asks a rhetorical question which clearly (based on the specific construction) requires the answer "no": "Do all speak in tongues?" (1 Corinthians 12:30)
• why do some churches allow many people to talk in tongues at the same time (with no interpreter) when Paul is clear that only one should speak at a time, and only with an interpreter, and only two or three should speak at all?

One thing that I wasn't sure could be held to the text was Luke saying that speaking in tongues, when interpreted, is the same as prophecy, but I don't have a big beef with this: what else _would_ it be? Another thing that he said that got me thinking was a story he told about a priest from whom he took a useful phrase: "If I tell you one thing, and the Bible tells you another, believe the Bible." This seems like good advice to me. But it got me thinking. I'm not sure whether St Luke's would say this, but it seems that some Christians with an evangelical background sometimes criticise others for having a faith which is not "Bible-based" enough. You see vacancies listed for churches who want a priest with a "Bible-based" approach. This is good, but it seems to be be suggesting that other people don't use the Bible, and, implicitly, that any thinking that doesn't use _just_ the Bible is suspect. In fact, that's exactly what some people believe, but I just can't go with it. For a start, we have an ideology that has built up over our lives, and it's impossible, _impossible_ to come to any text, let alone (particularly?) the Bible, without a view on it. Our reading of the Bible is usually in English - one of several different translations, mark you - and even those who have some - or even excellent - Greek or Hebrew cannot read it in the same way that those who wrote it - or originally read it - did.

The Aichele I'm reading talks about denotative and connotative language, and the difficulties of translating each, but that's so far away from all of this. The world, and how we understand it and interpret it, has radically changed. We think differently of people who accept slavery, or practice bigamy, or stone others, or have sex outside marriage, or are women and wear their hair short, to name but a few. And that's good. And some of those changes - many most of them - are demonstrably due, at least in part, to the influence of Christianity. And, if you are a Christian, you have to believe that even the ones which aren't _obviously_ due to the influence of Christianity, of individuals, are due to the influence of the Holy Spirit. The Kingdom of God is coming - slowly, it's true, at times - but it's coming, the society moves on. And members of societies change while they do that, and they read differently, and understand differently, and that's good. We need to use the Bible to try to test whether changes are good, and whether we believe that they really are God-given they stand the requirements that we put forward for our faith. Let's use 1 Corinthians 13 to give us those touchstones (again in the NIV translation):
" 1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away."