Expert: Australian International Evangelist Matthew Starrs - 1/30/2006

Question
Thanks for the answer. I'm trying to understand what you believe and why. You say that in 20 years of "speaking in tongues" there have only been a few times when you've experiences something miraculous. So, what was happening the rest of the time? Were you just purposely babbling with the hope that you'd experience that miraculous experience again? Are you conscious of your surroundings and what you're saying or are you in a some sort of trance? Why do you do it? What do you get out of it?
   As for 1 Corinthians 14:4, I think it's pretty clear that Paul is warning against the glorification of the false glossalalia that the Corinthians were experiencing. Remember, he said that 5 intelligible words were worth more than "words" spoken in so-called tongues.
   As for the issue of women in the church, can you direct me to the verse where Paul modified his command that women should be silent in church?
     I am not aware of contradictions in the Bible. Are you saying that the Bible isn't reliable? Are you saying that the individual's personal experience should be elevated above the Word of God?

-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
How does the Pentecostal church justify the practice of speaking in tongues? It is quite clear from the New Testament that the gift of tongues involved speaking miraculously in actual foreign languages, not the babble heard in charismatic churches today. In any case, even if were accepted that charismatic churches today do experience the gift of tongues, they are violating every single rule laid down by Paul to the Corinthians pertaining to the exercise of that gift: namely, it is a sign for unbelievers- not believers (so why do Pentecostal churches speak in tongues when there are no unbelievers around), only 2 or 3 should speak at a time, there must be someone to interpret, and women should be silent? How does the Pentecostal church reconcile their practice with those rules?
Answer -
Thanks for your question Johann,
I share some of your contentions, more directed at individuals than an entire movement. There are those who no doubt are emulating a real and genuine experience that others are demonstrating. This happens with every facet of true spirituality, right down to those who say they are christian, trying to live "good" lives, but have never experienced the power of regeneration.

I too am a "babbler", like those you berate. In my 20 years of speaking in tongues there have only been a handful of occasions that would fit the scripture that delegates tongues as a sign to unbelievers. I was totally shocked when these events occurred. I sensed that God was doing something special and felt led to speak in tongues to an unbeliever, but had no idea what I was saying. Afterwards the unbeliever told me what I had said. Talk about a powerful tool for witnessing. Not however something I have any control over to turn on or off. 1 Cor 12 makes clear that the Spirit determines where and when the Gifts are manifested, but one thing we have power over, if we never step out in faith to apply the gifts, they will never be manifest.

You know there are other scriptures about speaking in tongues that you did not mention. Like 1 Cor 14: 4. You need to think about the implication of this verse. It means that tongues is not only a sign for unbelievers, but is actually a personal prayer between the praying person and God. Tongues may be a sign for unbelievers, but they are not a sign for believers. Believers are assumed to be speakers in tongues.

When people in church speak in tongues in church, consideration should be given to the intention of the babbler. Is the tongue simply a person communing with God, or is it a message to the church that requires an interperetation?

You should also consider that we grow in our ability to utilise spiritual gifts with practice. We are also told to desire spiritual gifts. Being imperfect people we will make mistakes in the process. Our attitude can crush that desire if we are too legalistic with people that need encouraging, gentle correction.

The women being silent is a completely different issue, which has been dealt with at length by too many writers. Suffice to say, Paul commends those women that laboured with him in the Word, and at the end of his discussion of rules pertaining to women, he designated these as cultural issues which are not binding on the church. Simply guidelines for operation in the culture of the day.

Furthermore, you must recognise that there are places in the bible where one Apostle forbids a practice, and another endorses the same practice. (Such as James "Don't eat food offered to Idols" and Paul "I am free to eat"), The whole counsel of the Word of God clearly supports the removal of any inhibiting legislation in favour of walking according to the Spirit, thus freeing the follower to rise above the need for the Law. The Law is there as a tutor until we reach spiritual maturity.

Must Go

Blessings!  

Matthew.

Answer
Hello again!

You said:

"You say that in 20 years of "speaking in tongues" there have only been a few times when you've experiences something miraculous."

Actually that misrepresents what I said. What I said was:

"In my 20 years of speaking in tongues there have only been a handful of occasions that would fit the scripture that delegates tongues as a sign to unbelievers."

I do believe that the everyday experience of glossolalia is both scriptural and supernatural. It is not always a sign to unbelievers. There have been times where it was a sign to unbelievers. This is a valid manifestation of the "Gift of Tongues". Usually however, I am alone when I speak in tongues, during my prayer times. As Paul described it, "My spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful". I pray this way by faith. I am not in a trance. I do not think about what is coming out of my mouth. I do not use repetitious phrases or sounds. It is not really "babble". My mind is usually thinking about the word of God, or things that I am praying about. Often while I am speaking in tongues I gain clarity on issues that were unresolved. I sense the presence of God when I pray in tongues.Sometimes I receive assurance from the Lord or revelationof the Word, or personal direction whilst speaking in tongues. The point of my statement above is that the use of tongues as a sign to unbelievers is not the main purpose for tongues, but is certainly one of the purposes of tongues.

Then you said:

"As for 1 Corinthians 14:4, I think it's pretty clear that Paul is warning against the glorification of the false glossalalia that the Corinthians were experiencing. Remember, he said that 5 intelligible words were worth more than "words" spoken in so-called tongues. "

You dismiss the obvious because of your bias. Read the passage again. Paul is talking to the Corinthians about their behaviour in public meetings. In 1 Cor 14:4 he legitimises tongues as a private function in prayer in order that he might contrast it to the benefit derived from the public utterance of prophecy. Whoever speaks in tongues gains a personal benefit, but if you prophesy others will benefit.

Also Paul did not touch on the "glorification" of tongues, neither did he cast doubt on the authenticity of the public performance of tongues (this is your bias coming through again), he only discussed the propriety of the Corinthians application of the gift. There was no doubt in Pauls writing that the utterances were infact the genuine article. Read it again!

You also asked:

 "As for the issue of women in the church, can you direct me to the verse where Paul modified his command that women should be silent in church?"

The concession is given in 1 Corinthians 11:16. It is in regard to covering of heads, and not keeping silent, but if you take the epistle in context the entire reason for the epistle is so that "all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor 14:40).

Finally, you state that you are not aware of contradictions in the bible.

Read on my brother. There are many. Most of them are insignificant, and in no way take away from the meaning of the text. Others highlight the difference in understanding that different writers had. The Bible is actually a true record of a perfect God dealing with an imperfect humanity. He allows our imperfection to come through in the text. Not only a record of our actions, but even differences in the writers recollections and beliefs. Yet through it all, the essential message is conveyed in great power.

The reason there have been so many councils, conventions and courts to decide on how we should best interperet and apply the Word of God is because there is so much room for a diversity of opinion. This is also the reason that there are so many denominations, cults and sects.

Thats why Jesus said that when the Spirit of Truth is come He will guide us into all Truth. If we rely only on intellect we are headed for failure. I suggest you invite Him to resolve your questions.

I am not saying the bible is unreliable. I am saying that are minds are not reliable and we ought to seek the truth the way Jesus prescribed - by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I am not saying that personal experience should be exalted above the word of God. I am saying that your experience should be consistent with the word of God. Clearly if you are not speaking in tongues your experience is not yet what the bible promises. There are a multitude of writers and speakers that will justify their lack of experience with intellectual arguments that have an innapropriate application of scriptures (such as your own writings to me), who will dismiss the reality of what you are missing out on. However the end result is that you are indeed missing out.

Blessings!

Matthew.