The first place they send me is Romans 8, of course.
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. (Rom 8:26)This, they tell me, is "prayer language." Clearly. When we don't know how to pray the Spirit intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. That is what it says, right? Well, almost. You'll note that I added a word (because they do). The text does not say when we don't know how to pray. It says, "We do not know what to pray." The implication is "never." If that is correct, then all prayer is the Spirit interceding (which, by the way, I believe) in groaning too deep for words (which I do not take as a literal prayer language). I believe that all effectual prayer is a translation of what I prayed (imperfectly) to what God intended via the Holy Spirit (perfectly). If this text proves a prayer language, it also requires all prayers to be in that prayer language, and that prayer language is "groaning too deep for words." Further, the text says that the Spirit groans, not the person praying. It is not we who are praying here; the Spirit "intercedes for us." This is problematic as a proof-text for a prayer language.
Paul does speak about praying in tongues.
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. (1 Cor 14:2)So, that would be "praying in tongues." What do we learn here? We learn that "no one understands" this. It is only to God. Indeed, Paul argues that praying in tongues does not engage the mind. ("My mind is unfruitful.") So the one praying in tongues doesn't even know what he or she is praying. What else do we know? Paul would prefer not to do it. "I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also." Paul believed that praying "with my spirit" was good, but it was best to engage his mind. (Note, by the way, that Paul didn't think of this as a "prayer language" because he included in the same thought "singing praise with my spirit." Unless we call it a "singing language" as well.) Further, in context, Paul says just before verse 14, "Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret" (1 Cor 14:13). Paul calls on tongues to be interpreted in this context, so when he goes on to say "For if I pray in a tongue ...", he is telling why it should be interpreted -- because praying in a tongue does not engage the mind. Interpret it and you can pray in tongues and engage the mind. (I'd like to see that sometime.) However, if this is a reference to praying in tongues, it 1) also requires interpretation and 2) it is not private (1 Cor 14:12).
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. (1 Cor 14:14-15)
There are multiple references to "praying in the Spirit" (Eph 6:18; Jude 1:20). This doesn't say or require a foreign tongue at all. And, as we've already seen, if this is referring to a prayer language which is "groaning too deep for words" and does not engage the mind, you can't actually pray for anything since you don't actually know what you're praying, but Paul says to be "making supplication for all the saints." That's a problem. Praying in the Spirit is commanded, but that simply requires that we look to the Spirit for the grace and power to pray, the will and ability to pray, the topics, times, and matters to pray about, etc. It does not require praying in a foreign language. We must pray under the influence of and with the assistance of the Spirit of God. That doesn't mean we can't know what we're praying ... ever. Conversely, if we can at times pray in a normal language and "Pray at all times in the Spirit" is this prayer that transcends language and bypasses the mind, then "pray at all times in the Spirit" does not require that "groaning too deep for words."
Multiple people I've heard and even known have told me that their prayer language is private. It is for personal edification (1 Cor 14:4). It is distinct from the gift of tongues in Scripture used in public. People can have this prayer language without having the gift of tongues. These people report that praying in this way edifies them even though they don't know what they're saying. It improves their intimacy with the Lord.
To my friends and others, I apologize. I just don't see it. I don't even begin to grasp praying in a language that I can't understand. I cannot point to it and say, "See? God answered my prayers!" because I don't even know what I prayed. Like Paul, I am not nearly as interested in a warm feeling about God because I prayed "in the Spirit" but would rather pray in the Spirit and in the mind. I am not edified by groaning without any other connection. Anecdotally, I've known too many people who spoke in tongues this way and were edified to a more intimate relationship with God that they later jettisoned entirely. Biblically I see no texts that suggest a difference between the Acts 2 tongues (which were known tongues, even if they were not known by the men speaking them, and not tongues of angels or other unknown languages) and a private prayer language. In the 1 Corinthians text Paul speaks of the gift of tongues (e.g., 1 Cor 12:10) and of this so-called prayer language (e.g., 1 Cor 14:2) all in the same breath without distinction. I don't see a biblical distinction between "speaking in tongues" and a private prayer language. Nor can I find a biblical warrant for a prayer language. It just doesn't work for me.
"But," they ask me (they really do), "what about 1 Corinthians 13?"
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Cor 13:1)Paul speaks here of tongues of angels. Is he not saying that men can and have spoken with tongues of angels? I don't see it at all. Angels may speak and may speak in their own intrinsic language, but this text is not about the possibilities; it's about the futility of the highest gifts without love. I do not assume that anyone can speak with the tongues of angels any more than I assume that anyone can "understand all mysteries and all knowledge" (1 Cor 13:2) or, as an act of generosity, give their bodies to be burned (1 Cor 13:3). I think this is clearly hyperbole, not a description of actual gifts. The point is the importance of love, not a description of actual spiritual gifts.
So I'm stuck here. I love these people who believe in it. I don't wish to discount their experiences. I won't suggest they're demonic or evil somehow. But I just don't see a scriptural call for any believer (let alone all believers) to have a private (or public) prayer language. The texts are not compelling. The reasoning doesn't seem sound. I'm not seeing it.
12 comments:
you are biblical in what you wrote. My mom had a prayer language that I had heard and sounded like some type of american indian dialect. She once said the same to me which i quote from what you printed "It is for personal edification (1 Cor 14:4). These people report that praying in this way edifies them even though they don't know what they're saying. It improves their intimacy with the Lord". I personally dont understand how it creates more intimacy but thats me...
I had a bad experience by attending a church long ago that had me sitting in the pastors office and he making me repeat over and over again gibberish til it would just take over. hmmm. I walked away feeling less than....
I wonder if the text about the tongues of angels is speaking of a language or, as you suggested, is hyperbolic and speaking of simply talking in a holy manner. Like, when we say she has the voice of an angel, we don't mean an actual angel is singing through her, just that it is a supreme voice. When you're talking like a person, or holier than a person, if you have not love, it is fruitless noise.
I see the requirement of speaking in tongues as a detriment to the Church. It comes across as, if you haven't done this, you're not a Christian. That could cause a stumbling block for many, either believers or those that are curious. And we know how God feels about being a stumbling block.
I don't think so, David. 1 Corinthians 13 comes off a discussion in 1 Corinthians 12 about gifts of the Spirit and all. Included (right there at the end, just for context) is a discussion about tongues in particular -- people actually speaking in a language not their own. So when he writes in 1 Cor 13:1 about "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels," I think he intends to be talking about actual "gift of tongues" tongues rather than metaphorical "speaks like an angel" kinds of tongues. Still hyperbole -- not like anyone does it.
I know there are those who actually say, "If you don't speak in tongues, you're not saved." The fact that it violates Scripture, of course, is problematic. I also know those who say, "Oh, no, it's not required for salvation; you're just not as spiritual." Nice. Wrong, but nice (as in "arrogant"). You're right. Satan will even use "spiritual things" to trip up God's people.
Yes, Leigh, I remember an event where I knelt in the front to receive the gift and they told me, "Just talk baby talk and it will come." I still speak only English. (Okay, and a smattering of Spanish.)
I thought it was interesting. One group did a study of glossolalia (the technical term for speaking in a tongue you don't know) and found that in all cases the speaker used the same phonemes (the sounds that we learn growing up to speak our language) as their native tongue. (Phonemes are the reason for accents people have.) You'd think that if it was a supernatural language, you could speak it in the phonemes of that language. I guess not.
When my wife lost her position at our church last year, we took the opportunity to check out some other local options. Two of them were closet AG churches. One of them was very firm on there adherence to the AG statement of faith (Firm adherence to a SOF is usually a good thing). The problem is the AG requires speaking in tongues as proof of salvation. Not only that but these people are pretty militant about it. Needless to say, we moved on quickly despite some other positive things. I definitely agree that tongues is a thing and that like other spiritual gifts, it's not universal.
I was talking to a guy the other day that ran a Royal Rangers club, a Christian club for boys (associated with the AG). I asked him if any church could have such a club. "Yes," he said, "any Christian church. Of course, it must agree with our four basic principles" which, when I pressed him further, included speaking in tongues as a necessity. I didn't know that about the Assemblies of God before.
If you want Awana, you have to agree to their eschatology.
The way he described it to me "All churches can" with the stipulation of "speaking in tongues" with the sense that, "If you don't believe that, you're not a Christian church."
I'm pretty sure most people today actually understand the purpose of the gift of tongues. They seem to make it out to be some spiritual event to bring you closer to God. But the example I remember from Scripture (Acts I believe) was that they were speaking the languages of people around them. It seems that the purpose of speaking in tongues is to cross the language barrier God put in place at Babel. Since most people in the American church speak the same language, there wouldn't be a need for it. I can see it still being used in remote places with unknown people groups, but not here, and definitely not for our "edification". I believe that anyone that claims they do it, especially on a regular basis, is either deceiving themselves or faking it because they think they should. Speaking a fake language that nobody in the vicinity understands simply does not bring glory to God, nor does it build up His people. If I remember right, there is another passage that says if you have a word to say in tongues but there's nobody to translate, keep quiet.
I assumed that. I just think that the “You must agree with our eschatology.”, is such a stupid place to take a stand when it comes to licensing curriculum,
Yes, a lot of groups have stupid places to stand. I agree.
Your last post David, quite agree with you. Whats the point of tongues if there is no interpreter in the church. Still not sure exactly about prayer language. Sounds beautiful but certainly I do not want to try and just "make it happen" by spouting out gibberish. Yep Stan, baby talk thats kind of what the pastor said to me. I too still only speak English and silly sounds to my chihuahua :)
Post a Comment