Interpret, or Be Quiet!
This is the fourth part of a series on speaking in tongues. To get a better context of this article, we recommend reading the previous parts, Part 1: “Speaking in Tongues is Not Magic”, Part 2: “Tongues: An Ancient Problem”, and Part 3: “Putting ‘Tongues’ in It’s Place”.
In the last post, we saw how Paul used the rule of love to prioritize speech in church that is understandable, and that edifies others. That begs the question: what should those who were speaking publicly in tongues do in order to demonstrate the Spirit in a loving way?
Paul provides two options: (1) make sure someone with the gift of interpretation of tongues presents a clear understanding of the content in an intelligible language when you gather, or (2) be quiet and do your tongues-speaking at home (14:28). If the tongues can be effectively ‘interpreted’ (note: not translated, necessarily) for the gathered church, then the effect of the speech parallels prophecy, and is in order (14:5, 26-28). But, if the speaker cannot interpret, and there seems to be no one else to do so, then the Spiritual thing to do (that is, the mature, loving, orderly thing) is to keep quiet, since one’s speaking in tongues will not serve to edify others. Seems pretty straight forward, right?
Are there any exceptions to these options?
But, what about the guy who likes to pray in tongues during worship, and others can overhear him? Or, what about when some in the congregation start to sing out a melody in the Spirit – with some singing English words, but others singing in tongues? And, what about the sister in the front row who always whispers in tongues during times of corporate prayer? Are these things a violation of Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 14?
I think these are very fair and practical questions. I hardly think Paul meant for his instructions in 1 Corinthians to cover every possible experience of the Spirit, or expression of the gifts. After all, his lists of Spirit-expressions are different every time (1 Cor 12:4-10; 12: 28-30; 13:1-3; 14:26; see also Romans 12:3-8), and seem to reflect some ‘off the cuff’ examples and not a complete catalogue of the gifts. Paul is dealing, with a congregation about a specific issue – a misunderstanding of, and overemphasis on, speaking in tongues. I would think that his insights for a church that does not express tongues at all, for instance, might be somewhat different!
So, I think three factors in particular should be considered when answering questions like these:
1. The purpose of the speech in question
Paul’s concern is clearly with those who are speaking to be heard in a corporate setting. That is, he is concerned with people who are trying to communicate through the vehicle of tongues (14:6-12). I don’t think Paul’s gripe is with the guy speaking softly under his breath, or with the woman who articulates a few words in tongues during a powerful worship song. Alternatively, I think many of us have been in meetings with “that guy,” who seems to elevate his tongues-speaking due to his ‘passion’ in the moment, or his desire to be heard as an inspirational fount. I do think Paul would probably put his hand on that shoulder, and remind him that his speaking is crossing a line, becoming unloving, because it has moved from a personal expression of thanks or prayer to a corporate/public distraction that cannot edify, and is therefore out of order.
2. The nature of the moment in the gathering
There are some moments in Scripture where God seems to interrupt the normal operation of a person’s mind and bodily behavior because of the Spiritual intensity of the occasion. 2 Chronicles 7 reveals a moment like this – when fire fell and priests “could not even enter” the newly-constructed temple. Perhaps Acts 2 was such a moment – an entire gathering of believers seemingly burst into speech in tongues at once. Certainly Saul did not willingly fall to the ground in Acts 9, did he? So, I’ll grant you that it may be possible now and then for an entire congregation to be immersed in the Spirit to such a degree that public tongues-speaking erupts out of many people simultaneously. But, by way of counter point, I would just remind you that the temple was only dedicated once. Pentecost, as an era-changing moment, only occurred once. Saul was only brought from death to life through the risen Jesus once. So before we go justifying a repeated practice of simultaneous tongues-speaking, let’s ask ourselves if we are really experiencing moments that compare to these biblical ones, or if we are just getting sloppy with our biblical interpretation and increasingly deaf to the Spirit’s priority of loving service to others in corporate meetings.
3. The responsibility Paul places on the speaker
Something Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:32-33 is very important to this discussion: “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” Paul believes that a person’s speech in the Spirit – whether tongues or prophecy – is subject to the control of the person. That is, the person can speak or not speak; the person can speak in public or privately at home (the clear implication of 14:28, from my point of view). Therefore, maturity in Christ means that our public speaking ‘in church’ should convey the maximum amount of edifying content possible, and the minimum amount (if any) of questionable or confusing content. So, to my mind, calling the entire congregation to begin praying in tongues publicly together stands in tension with Paul’s instruction in this passage. It’s one thing to have the Spirit fall upon the church in an unexpected way and have everyone break into tongues (the ‘exception’ we noted above as in Acts 2). It’s another thing entirely to orchestrate this from the platform. I believe this is where Paul would draw a line. We are responsible for our public speech in church. Contrary to the person who claims that they “just had to speak out in tongues” in the middle of the offertory or whatever, the apostle Paul claims that s/he did not! I think that if our goal is for the maximum number of people to be edified, we’ll refrain from vocalizing tongues for others to hear and prioritize intelligible speech. Tongues is a form of Spirit speech that conveys content when interpreted. But, when it is not interpreted, it is without value to the listeners…because speaking in tongues is not magic.
Is this just a 1 Corinthians thing?
Before I wrap up this series with some comments on the practical components of speaking in tongues, I want to touch on a few passages of Scripture outside of 1 Corinthians 12-14 that can provide insight on the nature and purpose of speaking in tongues. That will be the content of the next post. As always, your feedback is welcome, so let me know if you have other thoughts or questions that can be addressed in the future!
In the last post, we saw how Paul used the rule of love to prioritize speech in church that is understandable, and that edifies others. That begs the question: what should those who were speaking publicly in tongues do in order to demonstrate the Spirit in a loving way?
Paul provides two options: (1) make sure someone with the gift of interpretation of tongues presents a clear understanding of the content in an intelligible language when you gather, or (2) be quiet and do your tongues-speaking at home (14:28). If the tongues can be effectively ‘interpreted’ (note: not translated, necessarily) for the gathered church, then the effect of the speech parallels prophecy, and is in order (14:5, 26-28). But, if the speaker cannot interpret, and there seems to be no one else to do so, then the Spiritual thing to do (that is, the mature, loving, orderly thing) is to keep quiet, since one’s speaking in tongues will not serve to edify others. Seems pretty straight forward, right?
Are there any exceptions to these options?
But, what about the guy who likes to pray in tongues during worship, and others can overhear him? Or, what about when some in the congregation start to sing out a melody in the Spirit – with some singing English words, but others singing in tongues? And, what about the sister in the front row who always whispers in tongues during times of corporate prayer? Are these things a violation of Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 14?
I think these are very fair and practical questions. I hardly think Paul meant for his instructions in 1 Corinthians to cover every possible experience of the Spirit, or expression of the gifts. After all, his lists of Spirit-expressions are different every time (1 Cor 12:4-10; 12: 28-30; 13:1-3; 14:26; see also Romans 12:3-8), and seem to reflect some ‘off the cuff’ examples and not a complete catalogue of the gifts. Paul is dealing, with a congregation about a specific issue – a misunderstanding of, and overemphasis on, speaking in tongues. I would think that his insights for a church that does not express tongues at all, for instance, might be somewhat different!
So, I think three factors in particular should be considered when answering questions like these:
1. The purpose of the speech in question
Paul’s concern is clearly with those who are speaking to be heard in a corporate setting. That is, he is concerned with people who are trying to communicate through the vehicle of tongues (14:6-12). I don’t think Paul’s gripe is with the guy speaking softly under his breath, or with the woman who articulates a few words in tongues during a powerful worship song. Alternatively, I think many of us have been in meetings with “that guy,” who seems to elevate his tongues-speaking due to his ‘passion’ in the moment, or his desire to be heard as an inspirational fount. I do think Paul would probably put his hand on that shoulder, and remind him that his speaking is crossing a line, becoming unloving, because it has moved from a personal expression of thanks or prayer to a corporate/public distraction that cannot edify, and is therefore out of order.
2. The nature of the moment in the gathering
There are some moments in Scripture where God seems to interrupt the normal operation of a person’s mind and bodily behavior because of the Spiritual intensity of the occasion. 2 Chronicles 7 reveals a moment like this – when fire fell and priests “could not even enter” the newly-constructed temple. Perhaps Acts 2 was such a moment – an entire gathering of believers seemingly burst into speech in tongues at once. Certainly Saul did not willingly fall to the ground in Acts 9, did he? So, I’ll grant you that it may be possible now and then for an entire congregation to be immersed in the Spirit to such a degree that public tongues-speaking erupts out of many people simultaneously. But, by way of counter point, I would just remind you that the temple was only dedicated once. Pentecost, as an era-changing moment, only occurred once. Saul was only brought from death to life through the risen Jesus once. So before we go justifying a repeated practice of simultaneous tongues-speaking, let’s ask ourselves if we are really experiencing moments that compare to these biblical ones, or if we are just getting sloppy with our biblical interpretation and increasingly deaf to the Spirit’s priority of loving service to others in corporate meetings.
3. The responsibility Paul places on the speaker
Something Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:32-33 is very important to this discussion: “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” Paul believes that a person’s speech in the Spirit – whether tongues or prophecy – is subject to the control of the person. That is, the person can speak or not speak; the person can speak in public or privately at home (the clear implication of 14:28, from my point of view). Therefore, maturity in Christ means that our public speaking ‘in church’ should convey the maximum amount of edifying content possible, and the minimum amount (if any) of questionable or confusing content. So, to my mind, calling the entire congregation to begin praying in tongues publicly together stands in tension with Paul’s instruction in this passage. It’s one thing to have the Spirit fall upon the church in an unexpected way and have everyone break into tongues (the ‘exception’ we noted above as in Acts 2). It’s another thing entirely to orchestrate this from the platform. I believe this is where Paul would draw a line. We are responsible for our public speech in church. Contrary to the person who claims that they “just had to speak out in tongues” in the middle of the offertory or whatever, the apostle Paul claims that s/he did not! I think that if our goal is for the maximum number of people to be edified, we’ll refrain from vocalizing tongues for others to hear and prioritize intelligible speech. Tongues is a form of Spirit speech that conveys content when interpreted. But, when it is not interpreted, it is without value to the listeners…because speaking in tongues is not magic.
Is this just a 1 Corinthians thing?
Before I wrap up this series with some comments on the practical components of speaking in tongues, I want to touch on a few passages of Scripture outside of 1 Corinthians 12-14 that can provide insight on the nature and purpose of speaking in tongues. That will be the content of the next post. As always, your feedback is welcome, so let me know if you have other thoughts or questions that can be addressed in the future!
Posted in Tongues