Nazarenes and glossolalia

[Kevin Rector]

So I've been a Nazarene my whole life. I've heard lot of people talk about speaking in tongues. Usually it's been in the vein of "this one Nazarene preacher started speaking in tongues and the DS had to go and remove him since we don't do that." Or sometimes it's even more implicitly stated about how we don't do that.

So I looked it up in the bible, and some believers did it. So I looked it up in the manual of the Church of the Nazarene, and you know what, I couldn't find a single mention of speaking in tongues in our manual. Maybe Hans can point it out if I just missed it (since he knows the manual better than almost anyone).

Which leads to my question(s), Nazarene folk just know that "we don't do that". It's understood and sometime it's stated explicitly. But what's the theology behind that. Do we believe that the manifestations of the Spirit that seem to be in scripture just went away. Does that fact that the manual is silent on the topic give us the freedom to teach it.

I've never spoken in tongues, never encouraged anyone to do so, so please understand I'm asking this as an interesting question and nothing more.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

So I looked it up in the manual of the Church of the Nazarene, and you know what, I couldn't find a single mention of speaking in tongues in our manual.

903.9. Evidence of Baptism with the Holy Spirit

The Church of the Nazarene believes that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth and to the subsequent work of heart cleansing, or entire sanctification, through the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

We affirm that the one biblical evidence of entire sanctification, or the infilling of the Holy Spirit, is the cleansing of the heart by faith from original sin as stated in Acts 15:8-9: “God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.” And this cleansing is manifested by the fruit of the Spirit in a holy life. “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires” (Galatians 5:22-24). To affirm that even a special or any alleged physical evidence, or “prayer language,” is evidence of the baptism with the Spirit is contrary to the biblical and historic position of the Church. (1997) --emphasis mine

Certainly not spelled out as a, "thou shalt not," but this addresses the topic...

Wilson

[Kevin Rector]

Ok, so we have an affirmation that speaking in tongues is not a required evidence of the filling of the Holy Spirit. Great. That's settled and I agree 100%.

So what about the rest of the tongues that "we don't do" yet have no manual statement about it.

[Hans Deventer]

Ok, so we have an affirmation that speaking in tongues is not a required evidence of the filling of the Holy Spirit. Great. That's settled and I agree 100%.

So what about the rest of the tongues that "we don't do" yet have no manual statement about it.

There is no manual statement on that. Which, I have to admit, I consider a dishonesty in our church.

All there is, is a statement by the BoGS in 1976 regarding this issue. It was printed in the Herald of Holiness and I've had a copy of it but I can't find it anymore. Perhaps I got so upset about it that I burned it one day, don't know.

[Ian Gentles]

Maybe question is, do we have any of the gifts of the Spirit?

[Kevin Rector]

Maybe question is, do we have any of the gifts of the Spirit?

Before we can get to that Ian we need to have a Wesleyan/Holiness theological discussion about the gifts of the Spirit. What are they, who gets them, what are their purpose, are they needed in modern times, etc. It seems our denomination has just sort of avoided the topic on an official level, and our theologians have not addressed it and it's just an understood that good Nazarenes don't do it and if you want to do it you should leave the COTN.

A letter from the BOGS in the '70s that you can't readily get your hands on hardly constitutes an official position of our denomination and could never be considered binding.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I'm all for less statements in the Manual. I wouldn't want to see one added just so we can chime in on a non-essential.

I was asked to "state my position on speaking in tongues" in a recent questionnaire for the path to (through) ordination. I said something along the lines of: I am not in a position to bring judgment about a specific instance (though I honestly admit that I imagine I'd have my guesses...), but I affirm that God does some things that I don’t understand nor have experienced.

I've never heard the audible voice of God either, and that's in scripture way more than speaking in tongues. Am I less holy?

[Ian Gentles]

Yes, it amazes me we havent got any real position on the gifts of the Spirit, very confussing!

[Oliver Phillips]

Ian, here is the 2002 Statement:
BOARD OF GENERAL SUPERINTENDENTS’ STATEMENT
December 2, 2002 *



From time to time the Board of General Superintendents has been asked the question, “Do Nazarenes believe in the acceptability of neo-Pentecostal manifestations such as being slain in the Spirit, shaking, incessant laughter, and other similar phenomenon? Are these acceptable forms of worship in the Church of the Nazarene?”
As you know, the Church of the Nazarene made a decision many years ago to disassociate itself from classical Pentecostalism by removing the name “Pentecostal” from the Church of the Nazarene. This was not done lightly. The early Holiness Movement in the United States soon became divided over the issue of tongues-speaking and other Pentecostal manifestations. The Church of the Nazarene felt led by the Spirit to place its emphasis on a changed life as being the evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. We did not then, nor do we now, accept tongues-speaking or prayer language as being evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Nor are these practices accepted in our churches.
We make no condemnation of those who practice such things. In fact, we are always grateful for all good men and women everywhere who are accomplishing objectives that advance the work of Christ. However, these phenomena are not a part of our accepted worship experience. This is not who we are. This is not what we do. Where such arises, it is the responsibility of the pastor to explain gently our identity and worship practices and to suggest that those who insist on involvement with neo-Pentecostal manifestations relate to those churches that support such practices.

It is also the responsibility of our district superintendents and general superintendents to support our pastors as they deal with these delicate issues. Obviously, it is easy to be misunderstood when informing our people that such is not acceptable. Therefore, we want to be cautious and Christlike in providing our people with the information that indicates a lack of support for such practices. Again, this is not part of our identity; this is not who we are. It is strongly felt that by ignoring such practices or even supporting them, we are sowing seeds for the divisiveness that has historically accompanied such activities. Let us be strong and clear in this matter and not fail in our responsibility to clearly declare what we are and what we are not. At this point, we would not suggest long debates or endless discussions but rather a clear, gentle, and simple declaration that this is not a part of the Church of the Nazarene.

Board of General Superintendents

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Thanks, Dr. Phillips, I was unaware of that statement.

But I don't understand its place. Can someone explain to me what this means? (I understand the point made, I don't understand the nature of the statement.) Is this an interpretation of the Manual? What place do statements like these from the GSs have?

[Jon Twitchell]

I knew I had read something more recent than 1976. I'm curious how similar this 2002 statement is to the 1976 statement.

Also, I have the same question(s) as Jeremy. I'm not entirely clear what this letter means. It seems to go well beyond the statement in the Manual--which does not define our worship practice in this regard.

Is it a statement of opinion (i.e., pastoral guidance) issued by the 2002 BGS? Are such opinions/statements legally binding upon DS's and Pastors? Could the 2007 BGS issue a statement that was markedly different than the 2002 statement?

Or is this, as Jeremy suggested, a binding and legal interpretation of our Manual statement? If so, does the General Assembly have opportunity to review and/or approve such a statement when it next convenes? I know that in the UMC, only the General Conference can speak on behalf of the denomination... but we clearly have a different structure then they do.

[Randy Wise]

Thanks, Dr. Phillips, I was unaware of that statement.

But I don't understand its place. Can someone explain to me what this means? (I understand the point made, I don't understand the nature of the statement.) Is this an interpretation of the Manual? What place do statements like these from the GSs have?

Management is stating the subject is not up for debate and they aren't seeking opinions on the subject:)

Randy

[Jon Twitchell]

Randy... I pretty much agree with your "reading between the lines" interpretation of the letter. The tone of the letter was certainly "top-down" and left little room for discussion on the topic.

My questions (and Jeremy's (I think)) have less to do with the interpretation of the statement itself, but a polity question regarding the nature of the letter--pastoral advisement or binding legal interpretation.

As best as I can tell, here are the relevant paragraphs in the Manual:

318. The Board of General Superintendents shall be the authority for the interpretation of the law and doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene, and the meaning and force of all provisions of the Manual, subject to an appeal to the
General Assembly.

323. The Board of General Superintendents shall have authority to do anything else in the service of the Church of the Nazarene, not otherwise provided for, according to the dictates of its wisdom, in harmony with the general church order, and subject to the church Constitution.

If this letter was, in fact, a legal interpretation, then according to paragraph 318, it would be legally binding, unless the 2005 General Assembly challenged the letter. (I'm not quite sure how that would work...neither am I sure if the 2009 GA would be able to challenge it).

If, however, it was a pastoral advisement, or an "opinion paper," then it doesn't really have legally binding authority.

At least, that's how I interpret the Manual... but I'm no legal expert! :)

[Hans Deventer]

Ian, here is the 2002 Statement:
BOARD OF GENERAL SUPERINTENDENTS’ STATEMENT


Thanks Oliver. Now I hope they have the guts to present a resolution to the GA to make it official, in stead of keeping it hidden only to be pulled out when people are to be confronted.

[Hans Deventer]

Management is stating the subject is not up for debate and they aren't seeking opinions on the subject:)

Randy

Too bad.

307.11. All official acts of the general superintendents
shall be subject to review and revision by the General Assembly.

[Ian Gentles]

Nothing ever seems to move fast in the old church does it? lol

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Greg Gates]

I hope that American Nazarenes stay clear of the topic. I don't sense that American Pentecostals are as confident as they used to be on it and I feel that American Nazarenes lost a lot spirituality fighting it. Both groups still have a longs ways to go before they begin to get near the happy medium again.

[Ian Gentles]

Glossolalia yep, but other gifts of the Spirit?

[Randy Wise]

Too bad.

307.11. All official acts of the general superintendents
shall be subject to review and revision by the General Assembly.

That doesn't change what I see in their statement.

"Truth"

Randy

[Jon Twitchell]

Too bad.

307.11. All official acts of the general superintendents
shall be subject to review and revision by the General Assembly.

Hans,

You've been around longer than I. How would an "official act" of the BGS be brought to review/revision by the GA?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Some that speak in tongues are very good Christians. Some are taught to practice saying a phrase over and over until their tongue gets twisted, to the point, that they sound as if they are speaking in unknown tongues. Dwayne has seen this done.

I have been taught, that if you tap a person on the shoulder, or wherever, they will cease to speak this way. But, if they do not, maybe that is what God's will is for them. I don't know.
The Generals have no reason, to say more than they have said. What they have said, is sufficient, without getting to the point of putting others down. If we understand the
scriptures, and have an open mind, we ought to understand, whether or not, we should be speaking in an unknown tongue.

[Charles W Christian]

The Board of GS's letter that Dr Phillips refers to sounds like an attempt to interpret the Manual statement to me. The phrase: "That is not who we are," etc., sounds like it is trying to strongly interpret (negatively) the last couple of lines of the Manual statement about tongues being "contrary to the biblical witness," etc., etc.

I'm no lawyer, either, but there are some on Naznet.

And, of course, as Hans points out, all such matters would be subject to GA review and clarification, if someone (a delegate/delegation) chose to bring it to the floor of the GA through proper channels, etc.

Ironically, I was reading somewhere that many Pentecostal/Charismatic fellowships are toning down their emphasis upon tongues, and I know personally of several large Charismatic/Pentecostal congregations (1000 or more in attendance) who do ask their membership and staff to restrict the use of tongues to small group/prayer fellowship gatherings and NOT the public worship services. I think these are exceptions, not the norm by any means, but it makes me wonder if this is not a trend(?)....

Just thinking....

Charles

I'm reminded of a tongue-in-cheek thing I heard once from and older/wiser pastor. The quickest ways to get kicked out of Naz ministry:
3. Have an affair
2. Misuse money
1. Speak in tongues

CWC

[Jon Twitchell]

Greg's reference to "American Christians" caused me to wonder if the BGS letter of 2002 was translated and distributed globally... or just to North American churches, or just to "western" churches, or just to "first-world" churches? I don't suppose anyone here knows, but I am curious.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm reminded of a tongue-in-cheek thing I heard once from and older/wiser pastor. The quickest ways to get kicked out of Naz ministry:
3. Have an affair
2. Misuse money
1. Speak in tongues

CWC

Are you sure that was tongue-in-cheek, Charles?

BTW, I think it's true. The WTS is having quite some talks with the Society for Pentecostal Studies. We're fighting a war that's hardly there anymore. And the issue isn't tongues anyway, it's people wanting their way no matter what. The subject is irrelevant. And I'm far less sure we've won THAT war! And I really wish the generals could equally forcefully say "that's not who we are". :basic04

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

You've been around longer than I. How would an "official act" of the BGS be brought to review/revision by the GA?

:basic05 Good question! I presume, by a resolution.

[Greg Gates]

I regret the decades I spent proving myself right or more honestly proving other fine Christians theologically wrong all the while investing little if any energy in "love each other."

Honestly, if speaking in tongues or beating up those who do could make me be a real disciple of Jesus I would give my life to it... but it doesn't. Therefore I want to dedicate myself to the things that do.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Thanks Oliver. Now I hope they have the guts to present a resolution to the GA to make it official, in stead of keeping it hidden only to be pulled out when people are to be confronted.

Just to be fair, I haven’t seen anyone reference the context in which that statement was issued. It was not issued as a theological statement, nor even a position statement in the sense of drawing absolute lines (although it came to be that), but as a very pragmatic and pastoral position.

In the late 1970s through the mid to late 1980s, in several parts of the USA (and localized in some areas), the issue was not just speaking in tongues as such, but the very militant and aggressive way that it was being promoted. Tongues-speaking was being presented as an absolutely necessary third work of grace that was an inevitable result of being Spirit filled. In other words, if a person did not speak in tongues, then they were assumed to have thwarted the Spirit’s work in their life. The practical result of that thinking was that non-Pentecostals were not really Christians (interesting that this all occurred at the same time that the theological debate about Spirit baptism was raging, centered at MANU and ONU and intersecting at NTS in the conflict between Ken Grider/Richard Taylor [pro] and Rob Staples [con]).

That led to serious divisions within local churches as Pentecostals attempted to take control of local churches and promote their view as the only Christian view. That led to several churches splitting over the issue. The BOGS intervened to try to bring some resolution to the conflict, disbanding at least one church that I know about, and issuing the statement to deal with the issue in other areas.

Unfortunately, it was done in a very heavy-handed and legal way that provided very little middle ground. Sadly, some very deeply committed Nazarenes got caught in the crossfire and were forced out of the pastorate and educational jobs (there was a serious crisis at MANU as several professors were fired for speaking in tongues privately). By the mid 1980s, because of the influence of groups like Vineyard and Church on the Rock, some DSs took a very legalistic approach to the issue. What began as a probably necessary response to dissension (although done too strongly in my opinion) became a destructive inquisition. Thus, the residual questions in BoS and Credentials boards.

As a result, today the topic is so emotionally charged that few are willing to even talk about it, let alone have any serious discussions about the theology or Manual position.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Ian Gentles]

The emphases in tongues has always been wrong and divisive. But a good point was raised by Hans in another thread some few days back, what about gift of healing? There always seems to be confusion on spiritual gifts often resulting in two extreme positions, you are all for them, or totally ignore them! I don't care if i never speak in tongues, it dosent matter to me, but I am concerned that we are missing out with other gifts!

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

This situation has been going on all of my life. I have always known that it was a doctrine that is not taught in the COTN. We all probably know that, so why does more needed to be declared by the Generals. Tell, me the reasons, so that I may understand.
But, even though, I feel this was equivalent to God giving someone the ability to speak in another language, in order to win souls. We have had these situations, when I was growing up, and occasionally when Dwayne was pastoring. there have been times, that several people, that were members believed in unknown tongues, but knew that it was not to be used in the COTN.
A pastor at a very strong and growing Church of God in the city where Dwayne first pastored, told him that he did not believe one had to speak thus, inorder to have the Holy Spiriti.

Those that are very godly and sincere, don't seem to be as militant. But, I guess there could be those that are fanatic about it.
What does the scripture tell us to Forbid not, mean? So, I find myself being very careful, as to what I say about it, for fear of treading on Holy ground, even if I don't feel that God expects us to do this.

[Charlotte Mercer]

From what I have read in the Bible, God doesn't seem to require that all people must have one particular gift in order to know Him. Therefore, I disagree with people who believe that speaking in tongues is necessary if one is to be considered a true follower of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12 seems to tell us that we do not all need to serve the same purpose in order to all be parts of the body of Christ. I believe that God has given us all different sets of gifts, and I believe that our time is better spent learning to serve God with what He has given us than focusing all our attention on the gifts He has given to someone else.

As to whether or not speaking in tongues is biblical, I look to Paul.

"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified."
1 Corinthians 14:1-5

But even as I was reading through to find those verses, I saw others and was reminded that, however important various spiritual gifts may be, none of it really matters if we don't have love. "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

[Barb Bouldrey]

We began pastoring in 1970. During the 70's, as Dennis mentioned, there was an aggressive movement of neo-charismatics to take over churches of denominations and make them "see the light" about this new "3rd work of grace." "A better way." "Better than the old hypocritical established denominations."

In 1976 we accepted a pastorate that had had just such a charismatic split. All the leadership and young families found the gift of tongues in private, secret home prayer meetings and eventually left, leaving our church with a huge debt and all senior citizens.

There were times that visitors would attend our revival services and try to work up speaking in tongues to try to take over our services.

All through the 70's and even up to today, there are groups that teach that speaking in tongues is the REAL gift of the Holy Spirit, not sanctification.

So, if there are groups and now established charismatic and pentacostal churches that are teaching that you cannot have the Holy Spirit UNLESS you speak in tongues, that is CONTRARY to our doctrine of sanctification that teaches that everyone who asks can be filled with the Holy Spirit even if they never speak in tongues.

I have had people from the Assembly of God tell me, "I have begged to receive the Holy Spirit all my life and never gotten it." I know they are telling me they never have spoken in tongues. And that is sad. I always tell them, "We teach, and I have experienced, receiving the cleansing power and presence of the Holy Spirit and I have never spoken in tongues. We believe everyone who asks, receives the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues."

So, you see, it is not an issue of taking a stand against tongues. It is taking a stand FOR sanctification as the work and evidence of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life.

It is better to stand for something than to put down those who do not agree with that stand. There are many genuine Christians who speak in tongues. I have no right to tell them they do not have the Holy Spirit. But they have no right to tell me that I do not have the Holy Spirit because I do not speak in tongues.

We have experience the "tongues war" in our ministry. We have been the rescue squad that had to go in and help a church heal from the wounds inflicted by a tongues split.

If a Nazarene pastor begins speaking in tongues, he is believing something that is contrary to our doctrine of sanctification and SHOULD leave. It is a divisive thing.

And, when you say, "gift of tongues," there are different interpretations of that. Many define it as speaking in unknown words that no man has created. But I know personal friends who were given the gift of tongues as they arrived to serve as Nazarene missionaries. One began speaking French as soon as he arrived in Paris. Another began preaching in the Indonesia language 6 months after stepping foot in Indonesia. That, to me, is the real gift of tongues.

Barb

P.S. and for the historical record, looking at it from an understanding of the English language, the King James Version of the Bible says on the cover page, "Translated from the original tongue." The definition of tongue in 1611 was "language." If you substitute the word "language" throughout the NT where it says "tongues" it make perfect sense...particularly when it comes to missionaries. And when Paul says there needs to be an interpreter, that makes sense, too, when considering it as languages.

[David Showalter]

Barb shares,

If a Nazarene pastor begins speaking in tongues, he is believing something that is contrary to our doctrine of sanctification and SHOULD leave. It is a divisive thing.


Dearest Barb, I acknowledge your position, my position is that the above statement comes more from personal, painful, past experiences than it comes from biblical/historical truth, Christlikeness, and a desire for unity.

[Kevin Rector]

If a Nazarene pastor begins speaking in tongues, he is believing something that is contrary to our doctrine of sanctification and SHOULD leave. It is a divisive thing.

Well, if he begins speaking in tongues in private and does not do it in the worship service and he doesn't teach that it is proof of the infilling of the Holy Spirit then he is strictly speaking not believing something that is contrary to our doctrine, and least not according to the manual or even the statement from the Board of General Superintendents.

But I understand where you are coming from having dealt with this issue when I was still just a kid running around the church playing hide and seek with my friends during choir practice.

[Hal Paul]

When I was in high school, there was a Christian outreach to my school sponsored by an Assembly of God Church. I attended in part because I had several friends from school that went there as well. They taught that speaking in tongues was evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (sanctification). I didn't have much problem with that except that in practice, they didn't accept that someone had been sanctified until s/he actually spoke in tongues.

The longer I was with the group, the greater the emphasis on obtaining the gift of tongues became. It almost seemed that what was most important to them was the gift. Eventually the group leader started talking about praying in unknown tongues, and prayer languages. This kind of bothered me. It seemed to me that God had created all languages, and mine was English, and that I could pray in English, so what was the point of a prayer language?

The answer as I understand is that sometimes the prayer, or the need may be so intense that my vocabulary may be too limited to fully express myself to God & that is when the Holy Spirit steps in and communicates on my behalf through my groanings. I've been there and can accept that, but what I couldn't accept was when the leader told us that in order to have a better prayer life, we needed to develop our own prayer language. Wait a minute! I thought the Holy Spirit gave it to me, why then do I need to develop it when it will come when I need it most and the Holy Spirit gives it to me?

I was also bothered by the prayer and worship time. It seemed that everyone was praying and shouting out loud using nonsensical noises. The odd thing was, that everyone spoke at once, and no one stepped up to interpret what was being 'said.' Only one time did anyone ever hint at a translation, and all he said is that he though the person next to him had said "I love you, J___." Maybe the Holy Spirit did speak to J___, but there were nearly 40 people in the room at the time, most who were 'speaking in tongues' who's utterances were not interpreted. And what about all those other times we gathered where everyone 'prayed/spoke in tongues' but there was no interpretation?

I also know someone who prayed in tongues once and who feels that at that time God really touched her. But it was a one time occurrence, and she doesn't expect that everyone will speak in tongues, or that tongues is the only way that the Holy Spirit reveals its presence when a person is sanctified. I've also been in prayer gatherings with two Episcopal priests, one in Colorado and one in Korea, who prayed in tongues on occasion when we gathered (maybe it was a memorized prayer in Hebrew or Greek I don't know) yet it did not seem out of place, even though there was no interpretation.


Anyway, here are some ideas on how we might approach "the gift of tongues" other than just saying that it isn't us:


1. Acknowledge that the Holy Spirit, does on occasion give this gift.

2. We should not pursue the gift of tongues, but instead we should pursue the gift Giver and seek his greatest gift which is Love, then accept that God will dispense the lesser gifts as he sees fit.

3. Teach that those who have the gift of tongues as with any gift should not be proud of what God has given them as if it somehow makes them special.

4. Ask that if someone feels led to speak in tongues during worship, that they do so only if there is someone to interpret, and that they not use their gift as license to disrupt the service whenever they like.

5. Encourage all church members to actually study another language (maybe I'm just talking to Americans here) and recognize that God gives the gift of learning languages (tongues), but like many things he gives us, he expects us to apply ourselves as well.

[Hans Deventer]

This situation has been going on all of my life. I have always known that it was a doctrine that is not taught in the COTN. We all probably know that, so why does more needed to be declared by the Generals. Tell, me the reasons, so that I may understand.


Because, dear sister, with all due respect, you again proceed from what "we" have always known. But your "we" isn't the entire CotN. Half of the church came in during the last 10 years!! 50% of "we" do NOT know!

Also, if the CotN feels so strongly about tongues, it should say so in their Manual. Gracious, we have an article of faith on healing! No idea why! I agree with it but it's hardly something that should be considered essential. But we have nothing on tongues except the one statement back in the Manual that it is no proof of being filled with the Spirit. I agree with that, but it does complete injustice to the role this issue plays in our church. Dennis explained people have been kicked out of the church for simply admitting they spoke in tongues in their private prayer life! There is NOTHING in the Manual that even remotely suggests that such a fact alone would be reason to kick someone out of the ministry.

We have no problem stating our views on abortion, euthanasia, alcohol, homosexuality, entertainment etc. etc. in the Manual. What's the matter with this one then? If we feel so strongly about it, say so! Don't hide it in statements that are hard to find!
I don't consider myself an ignorant Nazarene but I never heard of the 2002 statement. That's very strange at least and downright dishonest more likely.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Does not come from Christlikeness or wanting unity? That is an insult and a slap in the face. I believe the Christlike thing for a pastor to do would be to leave and not stay and divide the church.

If John would receive the gift of tongues he would graciously surrender his credentials and go to a denomination or group that believes in speaking in tongues TO PROTECT THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE. I believe the CHRISTLIKE thing to do would be to leave and not stay and cause division in the congregation. And he would leave out of respect for the Church of the Nazarene that he loves.

That is the reason I believe that any Nazarene pastor who begins to practice speaking in tongues should leave BEFORE he is asked to leave: to protect the unity and not cause division.

There is NO WAY a Nazarene pastor could practice speaking in tongues in private and not want to promote it from the pulpit or in his ministry to others. There is NO WAY a Nazarene pastor could continue to be a Nazarene pastor and not cause division in the church while practicing and promoting tongues.

In the past when a pastor has been asked to leave because he now speaks in tongues it is because he promoted it and because it is contrary to our doctrine of sanctification.

There are so many churches that practice speaking in tongues that need pastors. If a Nazarene pastor wants to speak in tongues why can't he graciously resign and go where it is accepted doctrine.

The Old Testament says that God hates those who spread discord and Paul mentions often about protecting the unity of the believer and not causing division.

Yes, I am speaking from personal experience. And personal experience showed me that of the pastors I have known that have left or been asked to leave because of speaking in tongues, all of the wanted to change the Church of the Nazarene into believing and practicing what they now believed and practice. In other words...cause division.

Since I believe our 16 articles of faith are based on the scriptures, I desire to protect our doctrine. Since I try to build the kingdom of God through ministry in the Church of the Nazarene, I do not like things that cause division and hinder the building of the kingdom and hinder my husband's ministry, or hurt the people I love.

Barb

[Hans Deventer]

To me, the whole thing is just a matter of fanaticism. And we've had our share of that as well. One of the early groups that would eventually merge into the CotN, taught that the only true baptism was by pouring. And they actually re-baptised people that had been baptised by immersion! Well, that's a strong view, right? But they still merged with groups that taught differently because they realised this was not an essential. AND THAT IS THE ISSUE!

ANY person who turns an issue into an essential, while it is not, is a divisive person. THAT is the problem. And it does not matter of they try to get rid of a professor because of his views on creation or because of speaking in tongues. Neither are essential, both views can be held within the Articles of Faith of the Church of the Nazarene.

It's not about tongues. It's not about a literal 6 x 24 hours creation. It's not about ........ (and you can fill in the list). It IS about unity in essentials and liberty in non-essentials, and most of all, charity in all. THAT is who we are. And I agree that people who cause division by turning non-essentials into essentials, don't belong among us. But that is a LOT broader than merely promoting tongues.

[Mike Schutz]

I would agree with Dennis' historical description.

Perhaps I am being a bit too political, but I do not see the point of a move to place a statement in the Manual at this time. While it may better describe our position, such a debate would likely force more strident positions to the forefront, when it seems that recently there has been more freedom for pastoral wisdom in individual situations.

I am regularly faced with the task of explaining our position, both to clergy colleagues in our local ministerium, and to those who choose to worship with us. There are some within our worshipping community who use glossolalia as a private prayer language, and for them I pragmatically use "don't ask, don't tell." Others are more forceful, and even believe that our congregation will never be all it can be for God until I stop "quenching the Spirit" by prohibiting speaking in tongues. I do not believe that a more specific Manual statement would be helpful in either case.

[Hans Deventer]

There is NO WAY a Nazarene pastor could practice speaking in tongues in private and not want to promote it from the pulpit or in his ministry to others.

Yes there is. There is NO WAY you can make such broad statements. And hence:

There is NO WAY a Nazarene pastor could continue to be a Nazarene pastor and not cause division in the church while practicing and promoting tongues.

This does not follow.

In our district, there are people who speak in tongues privately. You'll never know unless you'd ask. They don't promote it, don't even speak about it, again, unless you'd want to know. They say, like Paul, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."

I can't have any problem with those people. And unless we would have kicked out the apostle Paul himself, they have a place among us. Not because they speak or don't speak in tongues, but because above all, they pursue love.

And if you say, that can't be, you're denying the very thing we proclaim: the heart filled with love.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Hans,

Making an essential out of a non-essential is probably the most troubling thing I have seen about this issue over the years. Most people who have been Nazarenes and have begun speaking in tongues want everyone else to join them in their new-found experience...making it essential.

Here in this church we have about a dozen people who have come to us from problems in the nearby Assembly of God church. Almost all of them have joined our church now. As each one expressed a desire to join our church, John met with them privately and discussed this issue of speaking in tongues.

In every case each person expressed that they did not believe a person had to speak in tongues to have the Holy Spirit within them, even though they had been raised with that teaching. Only one of them told us she speaks in tongues, but would only do so at home in her private prayer life. She expressed that our church did not practice speaking in tongues and she would respect that. She said that she was also taught that Assembly of God believers were not to go to other denominations and practice speaking in tongues because it would cause confusion and division.

She has been a member of our church 6 years. She is on our praise team. She is a beautiful, sanctified believer and we love her very much. I do not know if she speaks in tongues at home or not. I do not ask her and I do not care. She has not allowed it to be a problem or source of confusion in our services.

Another example: the brother-in-law and sister of one of our new members who came from the Assembly of God church, retired from the pastoral ministry in the A of G and moved to Sikeston. They attended our church for a few weeks and loved worshiping with us. They considered worship with us because they have two sisters who are a part of our church family. BUT, that retired A of G pastor decided it was best if he and his wife attended a church who practiced speaking in tongues because HE did not want to bring confusion or division to OUR church. That is an example of Christlikeness and protecting the unity, to me, from someone on the other side of the issue.

And his example is how I feel about the issue. I believe he was promoting love. Just as I believe a Nazarene pastor who willing left because of a divisive doctrine would be promoting love.

But, I will now graciously drop out of this discussion because I am starting to repeat my opinion. And I realize that my contribution is no longer productive.

There are many more issues within the church that we constantly battle to try to protect the unity of the congregation. The issue of speaking in tongues has not been a contention in our ministry for many years now.

I have tried to share from my 37 years of being a pastor's wife to help the younger men asking about this issue understand the modern, U.S. history of the issue and how it CAN cause problems and divisions.

Barb

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

Making an essential out of a non-essential is probably the most troubling thing I have seen about this issue over the years. Most people who have been Nazarenes and have begun speaking in tongues want everyone else to join them in their new-found experience...making it essential.

Here in this church we have about a dozen people who have come to us from problems in the nearby Assembly of God church. Almost all of them have joined our church now. As each one expressed a desire to join our church, John met with them privately and discussed this issue of speaking in tongues.

In every case each person expressed that they did not believe a person had to speak in tongues to have the Holy Spirit within them, even though they had been raised with that teaching. Only one of them told us she speaks in tongues, but would only do so at home in her private prayer life. She expressed that our church did not practice speaking in tongues and she would respect that. She said that she was also taught that Assembly of God believers were not to go to other denominations and practice speaking in tongues because it would cause confusion and division.

She has been a member of our church 6 years. She is on our praise team. She is a beautiful, sanctified believer and we love her very much. I do not know if she speaks in tongues at home or not. I do not ask her and I do not care. She has not allowed it to be a problem or source of confusion in our services.

Barb, this is exactly what I meant. Good examples! It is about a Christlike spirit more than anything else. And where that spirit is absent, it's heaps of trouble. And, btw, proving the very truth of our Manual statement.

[Jon Twitchell]

We have no problem stating our views on abortion, euthanasia, alcohol, homosexuality, entertainment etc. etc. in the Manual. What's the matter with this one then? If we feel so strongly about it, say so! Don't hide it in statements that are hard to find!

Hans,

Are you familiar with the phrase "the third rail"?

As in, Social Security is the third rail of politics... touch it and you die?

The phrase comes from electric train systems that utilize a third rail to transmit the electricity from the tracks to the train in order to power the train.

Probably the reality is that for too long, this issue has been considered "the third rail" of Nazarene doctrine and polity.

BTW... I too was asked my position during an ordination interview. Someone must figure that if an ordination candidate can avoid killing themselves on the third rail, that they must be able to negotiate the hard work of pastoring. :)

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

Are you familiar with the phrase "the third rail"?

No, I wasn't. But thanks for explaining. Sounds like taboo. Or a what we call "a corps in the closet".

Probably the reality is that for too long, this issue has been considered "the third rail" of Nazarene doctrine and polity.

Perhaps the time has come to recover from the collective neurosis?

[David Showalter]

Barb shared,

She has been a member of our church 6 years. She is on our praise team. She is a beautiful, sanctified believer and we love her very much. I do not know if she speaks in tongues at home or not. I do not ask her and I do not care. She has not allowed it to be a problem or source of confusion in our services.

David replies,

I have no desire to beat a dead horse, however your statement that you do not know, do not care, and do not ask, intrigues me. If that is your true position with her, how is it you don't extend that same courtesy to professors, teachers, evangelists, and pastors who are not a problem or source of confusion, and who, like your lady friend, are "beautiful, sanctified believers" who are loved very much by some of us who do not hold your same views.?

Once again I acknowledge your position, my position is just a bit different than yours.

[David Rhone]

Thanks, Dr. Phillips, I was unaware of that statement.

But I don't understand its place. Can someone explain to me what this means? (I understand the point made, I don't understand the nature of the statement.) Is this an interpretation of the Manual? What place do statements like these from the GSs have?

Does the term "Holy Writ" have meaning? (calm youselves...this is meant to be funny)

Two questions for you scholors:

1. Is there any Biblical reference regarding "tongues" that implys unintelligble language?

2. What do you know about the word "unkown" that is placed before the word "tongues" in the KJV not being found in the oldest texts?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Well, we have a very godly daughter that prays in a prayer language. She does not cause any problems in the Millington Church of the Nazarene. Over the years, we have had members that believed in this doctrine, that never used it in our church services.
Her husband feels that he is an evangelist to co-workers, people he is around, and I think he is believing like she is, but I don't think he says he has a prayer language, or tries to convince others of it.

Yes, I think it is possible, that a COTN pastor may privately pray this way, and never mention it to his congregation. I was always taught against tongues, partially due to some situations of people seemingly, trying to infiltrate my home church during revival services.

I grew up and was taught strongly against this doctrine, and eternal security. As I grew in age and in the lord, I began to feel differently. Not that I believe the doctrines, but I have had some wonderful Christian friends whose life shone as brightly as any Nazarenes does. I believe that the doctrine may be set in their heads, but that they do not intentionally sin.

I have a brother-in-law that seems to be able to reach up towards heaven-grasp the hand of God, and bring it down to earth. You would just have to know him to see how pure and holy his life is. He and his wife are both ordained. Her mother and father were ministers. He was raised in a Nazarene parsonage, and his wife was raised in a Pilgrim Holiness parsonage. They are in the Church of God of Cleveland, TN, not the one of Anderson, Indiana. They went out into sin, and got back to the Lord in that church.

[Hans Deventer]

Jon, I've been thinking about this. So many people pray for revival to come to the CotN. Do we really expect it to happen unless we learn to face our own dishonesties and do something about it? To actually repent of them?

[Jon Twitchell]

Hans,

Just to clarify... I don't mean to say that I think it ought to be the "third rail." I just think that is the unfortunate reality we find ourselves in.

Just so that we're on the same page, how would you define the dishonesty?

When I was in high school, I remember reading a pamphlet by the Christian & Missionary Alliance denomination, stating their position. I believe the position was something like: "seek not, forbid not." At the time, I liked that position....

It would be nice to actually "have" a position that was better explained then simply "that is not who we are." In many ways, saying "that is not who we are" is like telling a child "we don't do that" without any explanation of why we don't do that other than "because I said so."

[Ian Gentles]

I personally have never seen there was a spiritual advantage in tongues speaking, that it follows a seeking for experience path. I have never seen anyone the better for it!! But i do wonder what others might think?

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Hans Deventer]

Just to clarify... I don't mean to say that I think it ought to be the "third rail." I just think that is the unfortunate reality we find ourselves in.

Ok, clear.

Just so that we're on the same page, how would you define the dishonesty?

Dishonesty in this case is having a rule about things that will get you kicked out of your ministry if you do them, while not stating in your official articles of faith or anywhere else in the Manual that such is the case. That is dishonest.
It is obvious from the Manual that if you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, you can't be a minister in the CotN. But it is nowhere to be found in the Manual that if you confess to speaking in tongues privately, that too is reason to kick you out.

I'm sorry Jon, I just hate stuff like this. I understand the history, both of the emerging of the Pentecostal movement out of the Holiness Movement and of the Charismatic troubles in the 1970's and later, but all of that is no reason not to be honest and open about our position.

[Jon Twitchell]

Thanks, Hans.

I agree. If we have a position, then it ought to be an official position, not a position that you have to somehow know about in order to find and read. As we move toward a global church (no, I don't kid myself into beleiving that we actually function as a global church yet), it will become more important for North American Nazarenes to get over our historical hangups in order to deal with this in a constructive way. It will likely be the case that non-North American Nazarenes will need to lead the way.

[Jamie Wayne]

In our district, there are people who speak in tongues privately. You'll never know unless you'd ask. They don't promote it, don't even speak about it, again, unless you'd want to know.

I can't have any problem with those people. And unless we would have kicked out the apostle Paul himself, they have a place among us.

It should come as no surprise to some that I'd segue from "tongues" to the alcohol issue, but I think that there is something in common with these two practices.

We know that there are Nazarenes who drink alcohol, and we know that there are Nazarenes who speak in tongues or use a "prayer language".

Promoting drinking or promoting tongues is one thing, but what I don't like is the mentality which could promote hiding drinking or hiding tongues.

I drink. I don't try to hide that, because I have nothing to hide about it.

I "have" a "prayer language". I don't try to hide that, either, because I have nothing to hide about it.

I don't promote either, but I don't hide them.

Why does the CotN seem to have this issue of its folks feeling the need to "hide" their activities?

That - in my opinion, is one of the real problems.

Jamie

[Jamie Wayne]

Jon, I've been thinking about this. So many people pray for revival to come to the CotN. Do we really expect it to happen unless we learn to face our own dishonesties and do something about it? To actually repent of them?

I'm convinced that revival (or renewal) is preceded by repentance.

[David Rhone]

Would anyone care to show me the Scriptual basis for a "prayer language"?

[Richard Call]

I have a suggestion: Why not disgard all the past forbiddens and allow everyone who wants to be a part of our "blessed zion" come and join us. If they drink, speak in tongues, are homosexual, are live in lovers, whatever, so long as they are loyal to the church give them the right hand of fellowship and give them a place of responsibility in our church. This is the antithesis of where we have been in the past. It seems if the church takes a position of exclusion for biblical reasons some one wants to challenge it and criticize the church for being narrow minded. Do you want to be a part of a tongues speaking, liquor drinking, homosexual accepting, whatever church? I do not and I will not be. Holiness is a narrow way and few there be that find it. God help us to keep it the way as it should be, clean and free from sin.

Best regards to all.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I have a suggestion: Why not disgard all the past forbiddens and allow everyone who wants to be a part of our "blessed zion" come and join us. If they drink, speak in tongues, are homosexual, are live in lovers, whatever, ....

Are you really wanting to include speaking in tongues in the same list as drinking, homosexuals and live in lovers? Do you really see speaking in tongues the same way you see fornication?

Wilson

[David Rhone]

I'm still waiting for an anwer to my question---please show me the Biblical basis for a "prayer language".

[Hans Deventer]

I'm still waiting for an anwer to my question---please show me the Biblical basis for a "prayer language".

And then tear it to pieces? No thank you. Keep waiting.

[Hans Deventer]

Why does the CotN seem to have this issue of its folks feeling the need to "hide" their activities?

That - in my opinion, is one of the real problems.

Jamie

It is. And it is because we proclaim ES but then don't trust the ones who claim they have received it.

[Ian Gentles]

I am not for or against prayer languages it really dosent matter to me, weird person that I am! I except that Nazarenes drink, probably far more than we think. Maybe unless drinking is out in open we cant deal openly with dangers of drink instead or pretending it dosent happen here.
However having said above, yes we are a Holiness church and to lose this distinctive would mean we lose ourselfs, our cutting edge! Also, i beleive we have to stand firm on moral issues, immorality destroys, world is looking for firm leadership in such issues.
I like the mention of different cultures in our global church. Yes different cultures, none north American, will change how peoples will view manual and the rules. I already see clearly a difference between Europe and north America on many issues. For instance many European cultures would wonder, "Whats all this about drink, we always have wine with our food!?" I also expect merging cultures, Africa, Asia, South America, will affect the church, on tongues and other issues! Just ask the Anglicans, Africans and South Americans just will not accept the mother churches, the wests, liberalism!

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Dennis Bratcher]

I'm still waiting for an anwer to my question---please show me the Biblical basis for a "prayer language".

How about asking it the other way? Show us the biblical basis for forbidding it.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[David Rhone]

And then tear it to pieces? No thank you. Keep waiting.

Is reading the minds of others some sort of spiritual gift?

My question is honest and my motives pure. Frankly, I'm disappointed in you.

Please, take to the Scripture that teaches us to pray in a "prayer language"

[David Rhone]

How about asking it the other way? Show us the biblical basis for forbidding it.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

Reading your posts over the past several months I have seen that you are thoughtful, educated and kind. I have not seen you seek to answer questions with other questions before. Are you to be the one who answers my very simple guestion?

Sincerely, that same grace and peace right back at you.

[Hans Deventer]

Is reading the minds of others some sort of spiritual gift?

I don't know. But I am very suspicious of obvious answers. I have either to conclude that someone is dumb (you heard of a concordance, I presume), but I have no reason to believe that would be the case, or that (s)he by asking an obvious question, is setting a trap. What is the 3rd option?

My question is honest and my motives pure. Frankly, I'm disappointed in you.

Please, take to the Scripture that teaches us to pray in a "prayer language"

1 Cor 14:14

Well, go ahead and don't disappoint me, that would only add to the total disappointment. But I'd be totally astonished if you didn't come up with some reason to interpret this Scripture differently than one normally would.

I'm sorry, I've been around here a long time. I've lost some naivete.

[Hans Deventer]

Reading your posts over the past several months I have seen that you are thoughtful, educated and kind. I have not seen you seek to answer questions with other questions before.

Pause a while and ponder why that would be.

[David Rhone]

Pause a while and ponder why that would be.

Thank you for the reference. Would that "tongue" be what we would classify as "known" or some sort of ecstatic speach?

[Judy Hamilton]

Hans,

Making an essential out of a non-essential is probably the most troubling thing I have seen about this issue over the years. Most people who have been Nazarenes and have begun speaking in tongues want everyone else to join them in their new-found experience...making it essential.

Here in this church we have about a dozen people who have come to us from problems in the nearby Assembly of God church. Almost all of them have joined our church now. As each one expressed a desire to join our church, John met with them privately and discussed this issue of speaking in tongues.

In every case each person expressed that they did not believe a person had to speak in tongues to have the Holy Spirit within them, even though they had been raised with that teaching. Only one of them told us she speaks in tongues, but would only do so at home in her private prayer life. She expressed that our church did not practice speaking in tongues and she would respect that. She said that she was also taught that Assembly of God believers were not to go to other denominations and practice speaking in tongues because it would cause confusion and division.

She has been a member of our church 6 years. She is on our praise team. She is a beautiful, sanctified believer and we love her very much. I do not know if she speaks in tongues at home or not. I do not ask her and I do not care. She has not allowed it to be a problem or source of confusion in our services.

Another example: the brother-in-law and sister of one of our new members who came from the Assembly of God church, retired from the pastoral ministry in the A of G and moved to Sikeston. They attended our church for a few weeks and loved worshiping with us. They considered worship with us because they have two sisters who are a part of our church family. BUT, that retired A of G pastor decided it was best if he and his wife attended a church who practiced speaking in tongues because HE did not want to bring confusion or division to OUR church. That is an example of Christ likeness and protecting the unity, to me, from someone on the other side of the issue.

And his example is how I feel about the issue. I believe he was promoting love. Just as I believe a Nazarene pastor who willing left because of a divisive doctrine would be promoting love.



Barb

Barb I relate to your contribution to this thread.
I am sanctified, not because I speak in tongues, but am sanctified when I surrendered all to Jesus and he cleaned the places in my heart where i needed His power to do a deep cleansing and this power is what keeps me near to the heart of God......not speaking in tongues

I was experiencing extreme stress as a young mother and wife to a physician, who along with a successful OB GYN practice, had a separate practice..he was one of two abortion doctors in Oklahoma City in the 70's to the early 80s during the time of our 12 year marriage.

Not only was my spirit in turmoil over abortion,and our finances being in part supported with monies from the abortion clinic, i was also deeply grieved with the little lives snuffed out each week.

My prayers over this grievous situation were reduced to tears and I felt so helpless..one would have to have experienced this in their family and my relationship with the Lord and what was happening daily, with protesters and death threats to our family, to really comprehend my feelings at the time.

I attended at that time a church that taught and practiced tongues (to the extreme IMHO)
however I knew I needed something to strengthen me to walk this walk, and decided to pray for God to help me to pray in tongues.
One stressful Sunday nightI went to the altar . The minister asked "what can I pray with you about?"
i replied I want to pray in tongues"
he made no fuss, placed his hand on my head and prayed a simple prayer (in English) and immediately out from my vocal cords erupted, almost as a belch an unintelligible (to me) a language in multiple non repeating syllables, which were also not intelligible to me. This was spontaneous, i did not "make up the language"

Since this occurrence, I have totally backed off from the ardent tongue promoting churches who are adamant that speaking in tongues is a Christian who is a cut above the average Christian. As I know this is not true, from my own testimony to the sanctifying experience I embraced years earlier in my walk with the Lord.
I believe the Christian who lives and responds with genuine love to others is one of the bench marks of the evidence of a person who is sanctified, be they Nazarene, Baptist, Catholic, or any of the many of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

As an example of tongues in my prayer life; when John's second wife was murdered and he,the father to my Shannon and Kris, was immediately jailed for this heinous act.
That night, when the house was finally settled down (numerous friends who were support for Shannon, Tom and Kris were sleeping all over the place) I laid awake, alone in my room all night. I did not sleep one minute, and my prayer alternated back and forth with praying in tongues and a two syllable prayer in English, over and over again..all night long... Jesus!! Jesus!!

When i feel any satanic vibes in persons around me..i find my spirit will spontaneously pray under my breath in tongues. This is just the prayer that rises up from inside me. However I can change this mode of prayer and pray in English for the person or situation to be dominated with the power in the blood of the Lamb of Christ. I encountered several such happenings when ministering in Cambodia in 2006

As in your reply above..essential to me is to love as Jesus loves..and not to promote my prayer language on others.

So , were I to visit your church or even be a member of your church, I would never even allow that I pray in tongues. This is just between God and myself..and this is the most I have ventured to share here with naznet..with sincere prayers that I will not be misunderstood and shunned

Judy

[Ian Gentles]

You wont be shunned Judy thats for sure, thanks for your story! :)

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Hans Deventer]

Thank you for the reference. Would that "tongue" be what we would classify as "known" or some sort of ecstatic speach?

David, I need to apologise. I really don't understand where you're coming from and what your goal is.
I think you can read all of 1 Corinth 14 and reach a conclusion about your question. Why do you ask then?

Here on a theology forum, the assumption is that unless you have some affinity with the subject, you're not likely to post here. So your first question put lots of question marks in my mind (and apparently, not in mine alone). Why is that? Because we've seen happen many times that the way your question was asked, most of the time, is meant to trap people. It's like a chess play. I'll do E6-E7, then he'll do H8-H6 and check mate! E6-E7 looks every innocent and it has to, otherwise the opponent won't fall for it.

So we get suspicious at questions that are too simple, and look too innocent. Perhaps that says more of us than of the one who's asking them, but unfortunately, we've learned some here.

So, my question is, why do you ask these questions if the answers are easily found with a concordance?

[Genevieve Boller]

So I've been a Nazarene my whole life. I've heard lot of people talk about speaking in tongues. Usually it's been in the vein of "this one Nazarene preacher started speaking in tongues and the DS had to go and remove him since we don't do that." Or sometimes it's even more implicitly stated about how we don't do that.

So I looked it up in the bible, and some believers did it. So I looked it up in the manual of the Church of the Nazarene, and you know what, I couldn't find a single mention of speaking in tongues in our manual. Maybe Hans can point it out if I just missed it (since he knows the manual better than almost anyone).

Which leads to my question(s), Nazarene folk just know that "we don't do that". It's understood and sometime it's stated explicitly. But what's the theology behind that. Do we believe that the manifestations of the Spirit that seem to be in scripture just went away. Does that fact that the manual is silent on the topic give us the freedom to teach it.

I've never spoken in tongues, never encouraged anyone to do so, so please understand I'm asking this as an interesting question and nothing more.

I'm going to go a little bit out on a limb (because you all don't really know me yet and this may sound "out there"), but this is my thinking, using an analogy.

Let's say we're talking about enjoying food. If you were to come up to me and tell me how wonderfully delicious collard greens are, I would disagree. I don't hate collard greens, or think there is anything particularly WRONG with collard greens, but they do absolutely nothing for me. And if I'm going to put together a meal that I want to enjoy, collard greens won't be a part of it.
If you were to then insist that I could not possibly be enjoying all that food has to offer if I don't make collard greens a part of my diet, I'm going to get annoyed with you. Not because I doubt that you are correct, or think that you are lying--because maybe for YOU collard greens are necessary for any truly good meal--but because I would think you're terribly egocentric.

I think there are many instances in Scripture and in our everyday lives where people are very much "on board" with the Holy Spirit, but in a very different way. For anyone to imply, or to expressly teach, that a person can only truly experience the Holy Spirit in His fullness by speaking in tongues would be implying that my experience (and that of many others) is somehow lacking. I would have a hard time with a church taking this posture, so I guess I would like to see it addressed more plainly in the manual (on the side of NOT teaching it, that is).

Instead, I believe a pastor can be a more effective pastor and teacher, and have much more credibility, if he/she focuses on helping people connect with the Lord (through those methods that are very clearly taught and expected by Jesus during His ministry on earth- prayer, reading scripture, fellowship, and more prayer), and then seeing if and how the fruit of the Spirit are displayed in the lives of the people of the church.

If someone asks the pastor, "Hey, my sister speaks in tongues at her church - can I do that too?" then I think it would be appropriate for the pastor to tell them that it's their prerogative, but that it's not necessary and that we don't do that publicly in the Church of the Nazarene, but that he/she could certainly do whatever they felt best in their own personal prayer time.

I hope I'm making sense...I have a terrible cold and my brain is having to work harder than usual to type this.

[Jon Twitchell]

Reading your posts over the past several months I have seen that you are thoughtful, educated and kind. I have not seen you seek to answer questions with other questions before. Are you to be the one who answers my very simple guestion?

Sincerely, that same grace and peace right back at you.


Just out of curiousity... (and somewhat off-track from the real conversation here), do you really consider "answering a question with a question" the opposite of thoughtful, educated, and kind? Maybe I misread you, but it seems that is what you are saying to Dennis. I'd just like to (gently, if possible) point out that this rabbinical style of teaching was used heavily by Jesus during his ministry as well.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Thanks so much, Judy, for your open heart, and open mindness.
I was raised extremely strict against tongues and eternal security.
But, I do not feel that I have to speak in tongues to be sanctified. But, over the years, God has given me a respect for some precious, sanctified people, that do this.
But, it has been one belief that has cause turmoil, and problems, with people trying to imitate, what they have heard others do, but their lifes did no exemplify what true holiness of heart is. I mean the ones, that try to say things over and over until their tongue was twisted, and they thought they were speaking in tongues. I doubt, in this present day, that the ASOG or the Church of God (Cleveleand, Tn.) do things that way. I don't think you often hear tongues, in many of their churches. It would be the Pentecostal churches-per se, that this would come from-my opinion.

I would imagine that our Generals know people that believe in tongues, that they have confidence in, but do not want the confusion that does exist in this belief brought up at the Gen. Asembly.
will spell check later

[Genevieve Boller]

P.S. and for the historical record, looking at it from an understanding of the English language, the King James Version of the Bible says on the cover page, "Translated from the original tongue." The definition of tongue in 1611 was "language." If you substitute the word "language" throughout the NT where it says "tongues" it make perfect sense...particularly when it comes to missionaries. And when Paul says there needs to be an interpreter, that makes sense, too, when considering it as languages.

Amen! This has always bothered me. It seems evident (to me, anyway) that the languages being spoken on that day were true languages as understood by other people present.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Reading your posts over the past several months I have seen that you are thoughtful, educated and kind. I have not seen you seek to answer questions with other questions before. Are you to be the one who answers my very simple guestion?

Sincerely, that same grace and peace right back at you.

Matthew 21:24 Jesus said to them, "I will also ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, then I will also [answer your question]."

Seems fair to me.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Jamie Wayne]

It is. And it is because we proclaim ES but then don't trust the ones who claim they have received it.

I don't think that I'd trust anyone who claims to have "received" entire sanctification...to me, that'd be sort of like a self-proclaimed saint. Most real "Saints" would certainly hesitate to call themselves such a thing, don't you think?

Why wouldn't such a Saint make such a proclamation?

I suspect it's because to do so might suggest that there's no more room for growth...that somehow God is finished with them...that there is no more need to examine themselves to see how they could be more loving - or more humble.

Am I entirely sanctified?

Frankly, I'm not so concerned about that - certainly not enough to go around claiming that I am; therefore, I reckon that I don't need to worry about anyone not trusting a claim from me to be entirely sanctified. In fact, people who would want to ask if I'm "entirely sanctified" aren't exactly the sort of people that I'd fancy myself associating with anyway.

Yet, the Church of the Nazarene does proclaim entire sanctification...and there are some, as a result, who take seriously such proclamations.

"I'm entirely sanctified."

"Oh? When did you last feed the hungry?"

"But I'm entirely sanctified!"

It's as if entire sanctification is similar to that often proclaimed "personal relationship" with God...as if salvation, sanctification, etc... is about ones relationship with God without even considering the environment - let alone ones neighbor.

There was (maybe still is) a Christian "alternative" band called The Swirling Eddies. They came out with a song called Hide the Beer, in which the chorus goes something like: "Hide the beer, the pastor's here; there's gonna be hell to pay. Hide the beer, the pastor's here; put the R rated movies away."

I better not invite anyone over to my house, because someone might wonder whether I'm "entirely sanctified."

Once again, I think that sanctification has so much more to do with what we do - instead of what we don't do.

...and I think that we need to repent.

The Church is still the Church, and it still is doing the work of Christ...but we need to repent - big time.

We don't speak in tongues...and we don't allow it, either.

Ok, limit how the Holy Spirit is able to work...the Holy Spirit is a gentleman (or gentlewoman...or gentlespirit). If you don't want tongues, then chances are the Holy Spirit isn't going to bless you that way. I'm not promoting tongues in saying that (or at least I don't mean to); my point is simply that we shouldn't be a Church that limits how God is welcome to bless His people. If we shut the door on tongues, then we've shut the door. I certainly don't want the door wide open on anything, because I'm been to Toronto to experience the "blessing", and believe me, I'm probably more critical than most about such manifestations of the Holy Spirit...but at the same time, many have put way too many limitations on ourselves and on God - and, in my humble opinion, that's dead wrong.

In this season of Advent, we proclaim "Maranatha!" - "Come, Lord Jesus!"

That's great...but how about "Veni sancti Spiritus"? "Come, Holy Spirit!"

Oh...sorry, you can come, but we don't welcome all of your gifts...and if you bring those gifts through other people, well, they're not welcome to bless us with those gifts. We don't want all of your gifts. Sorry. But, please, Holy Spirit, come.

What a crock...

Sorry.

It's been a long week.

By the way, if I don't spontaneously combust before Epiphany, I'll become a member of the CotN. Watch out...because all ya'll are gonna have one crazy Anglo-Nazarene on your hands...and if anyone thought that I was critical on the outside, as an Anglican, wait until I join up and can be critical from on the inside.

God help us.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.

Amen.

[David Rhone]

David, I need to apologise. I really don't understand where you're coming from and what your goal is.
I think you can read all of 1 Corinth 14 and reach a conclusion about your question. Why do you ask then?

Here on a theology forum, the assumption is that unless you have some affinity with the subject, you're not likely to post here. So your first question put lots of question marks in my mind (and apparently, not in mine alone). Why is that? Because we've seen happen many times that the way your question was asked, most of the time, is meant to trap people. It's like a chess play. I'll do E6-E7, then he'll do H8-H6 and check mate! E6-E7 looks every innocent and it has to, otherwise the opponent won't fall for it.

So we get suspicious at questions that are too simple, and look too innocent. Perhaps that says more of us than of the one who's asking them, but unfortunately, we've learned some here.

So, my question is, why do you ask these questions if the answers are easily found with a concordance?

It's entirely OK with me if you don't care to answer the question.

As a Nazarene pastor, with some education in my history, I am well aware of the position of our church on the subject and, of course, hold an opinion of my own. Since the use of a "prayer language" is outside of the mainstream of our denominational doctrine and heritage, I am interested in understanding the position of those whose doctrine conflicts with what most Nazarenes believe.

Yes, I am able to read the entire chapter. But you have avoided my question. Is the "tongue" of 1st Cor 14 a known language some sort of "ecstatic" speach. A simple question.

I have no desire to trap anyone, critizise anyone or condemn.

[Judy Hamilton]

I have a suggestion: Why not disgard all the past forbiddens and allow everyone who wants to be a part of our "blessed zion" come and join us. If they drink, speak in tongues, are homosexual, are live in lovers, whatever, so long as they are loyal to the church give them the right hand of fellowship and give them a place of responsibility in our church. This is the antithesis of where we have been in the past. It seems if the church takes a position of exclusion for biblical reasons some one wants to challenge it and criticize the church for being narrow minded. Do you want to be a part of a tongues speaking, liquor drinking, homosexual accepting, whatever church? I do not and I will not be. Holiness is a narrow way and few there be that find it. God help us to keep it the way as it should be, clean and free from sin.

Best regards to all.

Richard...do you place a person with a prayer language as a sinner?
seems your reply tosses all of these, the homosexual,
the person who drinks alcohol and the person who prays in tongues as same-same
and was Apostle Paul in sin when he said, "I speak in tongues more than you all"

the church you seem to desire is one that houses saints

Judy

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Is the "tongue" of 1st Cor 14 a known language some sort of "ecstatic" speach. A simple question.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (A ten-volume theological dictionary of Greek terms) summarizes it's article on the term and its usage in 1 Cor. 14 by saying, "In Corinth, therefore, glossolalia is an unintelligible ecstatic utternace."

Even conservative Wesleyan scholarship agrees. NPH's Beacon Bible Commentary (1 Corinthians by Donald Metz) says, "'No man understandeth him' suggests that the gift discussed here is not the same as speaking in other languages at Pentecost. The man exercising this gift is not speaking 'unto man' but is involved in a personal expression of praise to 'God.''

As a good Nazarene commentary it also says that Paul was showing "that the gift of speaking in tongues, no matter how it is understood, occupies an inferior position. As such it can never be regarded as the necessary or indisputable evidence of ...."

Wilson

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Jamie, in the Bible, Christians are referred to as saints. I have been justified and sanctified, but that does not mean that my head knowledge is perfect, but that with all of the intents of my heart and Christ helping me, I never purposefully or intentionally do anything that I know is wrong.
What was the purpose of Christ' death and resurrection, if we were to continue in intentional sin?
How often do you hear anyone go around boasting that they are sanctified, or how often do you see that fact even posted on Naznet? But, it is not something that we have to hide. Our life will prove it. There is a person or two or possibly more on this board that does not think that I always act Christlike. When I firmly write how I feel about a Christian standard, or way of life, does not mean that I am mad or angry. I stand up for my Lord, and my convictions. I don't expect everyone to live up to my convictions. But, I will admit, that I have a very hard time accepting some of the things people these days, say and do, and still consider themselves acting Chritlike. But, if I could be around them, and we both are Christians, our spirits would bear witness that we had both have been with Jesus, and lived for Him.
I don't have to explain to anyone that I am sanctified, cleansed and purified by His precious blood, and have as near perfect love for others, as the Lord enables me to have, in my human frame. Those that really know me, would verify that I live a life of love and service for the kingdom of God. Thank God. He is our judge.

[Hans Deventer]

I don't think that I'd trust anyone who claims to have "received" entire sanctification...to me, that'd be sort of like a self-proclaimed saint. Most real "Saints" would certainly hesitate to call themselves such a thing, don't you think?

Why would people hesitate to testify to the work of God in their lives? I actually think that is one of the problems we at least in the Netherlands have. And I think the reason is because or our way to static images of entire sanctification.

I suspect it's because to do so might suggest that there's no more room for growth...that somehow God is finished with them...that there is no more need to examine themselves to see how they could be more loving - or more humble.

Exactly. And we both know that is a mistaken suggestion. Hence our need to define ES in more dynamic concepts.



Am I entirely sanctified?

Frankly, I'm not so concerned about that - certainly not enough to go around claiming that I am; therefore, I reckon that I don't need to worry about anyone not trusting a claim from me to be entirely sanctified. In fact, people who would want to ask if I'm "entirely sanctified" aren't exactly the sort of people that I'd fancy myself associating with anyway.

But you're proceeding from a wrong concept, Jamie. BTW, you are free to give it different names, even the Manual does in article X.

Once again, I think that sanctification has so much more to do with what we do - instead of what we don't do.

Exactly. So what's the fear?


...and I think that we need to repent.

Yes. For having a way too limited view of a "Jesus and me" kind of sanctification, that doesn't issue into the "streams of living water" that will flow out of us.

my point is simply that we shouldn't be a Church that limits how God is welcome to bless His people.

Agreed.

By the way, if I don't spontaneously combust before Epiphany, I'll become a member of the CotN. Watch out...because all ya'll are gonna have one crazy Anglo-Nazarene on your hands...and if anyone thought that I was critical on the outside, as an Anglican, wait until I join up and can be critical from on the inside.

You are very welcome among us, Jamie. I like people who think critically, when it proceeds from a heart of love..

But I still believe we should trust more in the truth of what we proclaim :basic05

[Hans Deventer]

Yes, I am able to read the entire chapter. But you have avoided my question. Is the "tongue" of 1st Cor 14 a known language some sort of "ecstatic" speach. A simple question.

See Wilson's post. I agree with him.

The reason for agreeing with that position, though contrary to what our church teaches, is because I value the Scriptures more. And we have reacted more to extreme statements and behaviour regarding this issue, than taken the time to thoroughly and Biblically consider the issue. I've read Greathouse's "Fullness of the Spirit" too, but I have to admit I wasn't too impressed by his dealing with the tongues issue. The mere statement about Jesus: "No speaker in tongues was He" (p 51) was a little meagre.

[Jamie Wayne]

Why would people hesitate to testify to the work of God in their lives? I actually think that is one of the problems we at least in the Netherlands have. And I think the reason is because or our way to static images of entire sanctification.

There is a big difference between testifying to the work of God in ones life and proclaiming that one is "entirely sanctified."

Exactly. And we both know that is a mistaken suggestion. Hence our need to define ES in more dynamic concepts.

Agreed. You and I both know that, but not everyone else does...unfortunately.

But you're proceeding from a wrong concept, Jamie. BTW, you are free to give it different names, even the Manual does in article X.

I may be pointing out a wrong concept, Hans, but I don't think that I'm proceeding from one...and isn't it part of the problem of Article X that it gives it different names?

Labeling "entire sanctification" is part of the problem. Once we've named something, we feel that we can own it, rather than it being something mysterious from God, we tame it...

Exactly. So what's the fear?

The fear is that some people will continue to feel the need to hide things.

I don't hide that I drink because I have nothing to hide.

I don't fear what people will think because I'm not so concerned with meeting their expectations or acting according to their concepts of holiness.

Yes. For having a way too limited view of a "Jesus and me" kind of sanctification, that doesn't issue into the "streams of living water" that will flow out of us.

We need to repent for many things, Hans.

There are too many starving people...too many sick and dying...we've destroyed our environment...we've alienated people. The list goes on and on.

We, as the Church, need to repent and change our ways.

You are very welcome among us, Jamie. I like people who think critically, when it proceeds from a heart of love..

But I still believe we should trust more in the truth of what we proclaim :basic05

I'm welcome until I say something about paying lip service, anyway...

[Kevin Rector]

I'm welcome until I say something about paying lip service, anyway...

I wish you and Hans could sit down over a table (perhaps a glass of wine since you both have admitted to drinking :basic05) and have a conversation, I bet you'd end up being really good friends.

[Ray Brock]

I agree with Genevieve. Tongues were nothing more than languages. The gift was given to the Apostles, including Paul, so that they could communicate with those who spoke a different language. People of other languages from around the known world at that time, were amazed these men could talk to them especially since most of the Apostles were unlearned men. When the age of the Apostles died out so did the gift of speaking in unknown tongues or languages. Today if you want to speak in an unknown tongue you have to go to school to learn that language. The movement today, being sucked into by almost all denominations, is nothing more than playing on peoples emotions and making a lot of money at it, like the so called faith healers who have big meetings and make many big bucks. If you had the gift of healing wouldn't you be going to hospitals amd emptying them out without any big hoopla?

[Ian Gentles]

I agree with Genevieve. Tongues were nothing more than languages. The gift was given to the Apostles, including Paul, so that they could communicate with those who spoke a different language. People of other languages from around the known world at that time, were amazed these men could talk to them especially since most of the Apostles were unlearned men. When the age of the Apostles died out so did the gift of speaking in unknown tongues or languages. Today if you want to speak in an unknown tongue you have to go to school to learn that language. The movement today, being sucked into by almost all denominations, is nothing more than playing on peoples emotions and making a lot of money at it, like the so called faith healers who have big meetings and make many big bucks. If you had the gift of healing wouldn't you be going to hospitals amd emptying them out without any big hoopla?

As to faith healers i agree, go empty the hospitals. However, I still wonder, why pray for sick if there is no healing? I am not sure that gift, the gift of healing has ceased!?

http://iangentles,livejournal.com

[Jamie Wayne]

I bet you'd end up being really good friends.

Nazarenes don't bet. ;)

[Ray Brock]

We are still to pray for the sick etc. God is the one in the business of healing. When we pray for the sick if it is in Gods will that person is to be healed, he will be healed. But what if its not in Gods will. I believe we should pray for all who are sick as we can't answer those questions.

[Roland Hearn]

I may be pointing out a wrong concept, Hans, but I don't think that I'm proceeding from one...and isn't it part of the problem of Article X that it gives it different names?

Labeling "entire sanctification" is part of the problem. Once we've named something, we feel that we can own it, rather than it being something mysterious from God, we tame it...


Jamie,
I appreciate the perspective you bring to much of our discussions. I agree with a lot of what you have to say. I certainly get the point you are making here but I am not sure it is completely right. We could avoid naming the type of encounter with God that brings a person into the deepest of relationships but I fear as people talked about it, and talk they would, they would say something like, "the thing happened to me, praise God I've been, well you know thingied." That would probably get on most people's nerves after awhile. Certainly the theologians in various schools would become a little disquieted by the process.

The reason there is a name is because there is an observable encounter with God at a level that is genuinely transformational. It transcends the conversion experience and brings a person to a state of love and faith that prior to that time they could only dream of. Wesley observed such an experience before he tried to name it. The reason there are many names is because the experience is multi faceted. The Church of the Nazarene settled on the phrase ES because it seemed to be the most comprehensive and at is, at least minimally, biblical. It was certainly used outside of the CON freely as well. As the CON has grown and maintained independent identity the phrase has grown into less use in other parts of holiness circles. I don't know that it is the best way of saying it. I know we need to call this experience with God something so I freely use a variety of terms. I almost never use the phrase ES in public speech or preaching and rarely use it at any other time then that I desire to communicate a concise theological construct. At those times, however, it serves quite well.

[Jamie Wayne]

Roland,

You're right...in order to talk about it, we do need to call it something.

But let's not be ruled by what we call it.

Let's not impose our own standards as to how we measure it.

edit: afterthoughts

It's interesting, also, that mystics from the Christian and Zen Buddhist traditions experience their mysticism from different metaphysical presuppositions, yet when they talk about their experience, even though they use different terms, they know what each other is talking about. There is something about the experience that can't be spoken of accurately, but to those who have experienced it, language is secondary, like the description of a meal on a menu is irrelevant to those who have tasted the item the description describes. In that sense, we should avoid eating the menu instead of the meal, and promote the meal instead of the menu.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm welcome until I say something about paying lip service, anyway...

Sure. If your really insist in walking all over me, I'd be hard pressed to state that I'd enjoy the experience.

It's a pity. I thought we were heading for a good discussion. I guess we can't have that anymore. I apologize for attempting. :basic04

[Kevin Rector]

Sure. If your really insist in walking all over me, I'd be hard pressed to state that I'd enjoy the experience.

It's a pity. I thought we were heading for a good discussion. I guess we can't have that anymore. I apologize for attempting. :basic04

Perhaps Jamie meant it in jest, or perhaps he thought enough time had passed that he could make light of your former conflict.

I would suggest trying not to let this become a wedge between you two again, it strikes me as two people simply talking past each other and both getting upset about it.

Perhaps now I'll take my nose out of your business. :o

[Hal Paul]

Nazarenes don't bet. ;)

Wanna bet? :basic03

[Richard Call]

To all my Naz friends, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

[Jamie Wayne]

Perhaps Jamie meant it in jest, or perhaps he thought enough time had passed that he could make light of your former conflict.

I would suggest trying not to let this become a wedge between you two again, it strikes me as two people simply talking past each other and both getting upset about it.

Perhaps now I'll take my nose out of your business. :o

I am not making light of anything, Kevin - though thank you.

I was just responding to what Hans had said to me:

You are very welcome among us, Jamie.

Oh, I'm welcome alright - just so long as I play by Hans' rules, but if I say things the "wrong" way, after he tells me not to, then I'm no longer welcome.

I said what I meant.

How did Hans respond?

Sure. If your really insist in walking all over me, I'd be hard pressed to state that I'd enjoy the experience.

It's a pity. I thought we were heading for a good discussion. I guess we can't have that anymore. I apologize for attempting. :basic04

He responded with a sad face and an apology...an apology for the pity that we're not going to have a good discussion. After all, it's my fault that I didn't play by his rules by continuing to use the term "lip service."

I appreciate much of what Hans says around here - I really do. I agree with Hans frequently, and I haven't held back on hitting the Thank You button when I do.

However, it seems evident to me that I'm only truly welcome by Hans when I play by his rules. The welcome is contingent - not freely given.

I'm sorry that it came to this. Maybe if Hans and I shared a bottle of wine together over a nice meal we'd come to understand each other better, as it has been suggested, but frankly I'm not really interested. I didn't come here to make friends; I came here to discuss theology in a theology forum. At the point where I felt it wasn't worth the trouble, I took time away, hoping that when I came back that perhaps some of the members here would have grown up a bit. I'm afraid that hasn't happened.

Kevin, you said that you hoped that we would try "not to let this become a wedge between you two again," but the wedge is already there.

I'm sorry that I've taken this thread somewhere else. Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything...but, then again, I'm not about to let the elephant in the room go unnoticed, either. That's not constructive.

[Kevin Rector]

He responded with a sad face and an apology...an apology for the pity that we're not going to have a good discussion. After all, it's my fault that I didn't play by his rules by continuing to use the term "lip service."

To be fair to Hans, when you said that I took it as unnecessary button pushing. I'm sure you're still upset about what happened, and I know that I didn't like it when you took your time off and you weren't around.

But if you know that the term "lip service" is a sore subject with him, there's no really a good reason to use it unless you are trying to provoke him. That's not constructive either.

To be fair to you, I personally thought that Hans got way more bent out of shape in your initial exchange that got the whole thing started, so I understand why it has bothered you.

At some point though we have to let bygones be bygones and move on (this goes for both you and Hans). Even if it's a discussion board we're all still people here. Meaningful relationships are getting built and I'm sure we'd all like you to be a part of that.

I remember very distinctly one day as a child when my friends Rob and Rick were fighting over something. I don't remember what it was, but I do remember that it was an inconsequential thing in the grand scheme of life (one of the reasons I remember it was because usually it was Rick and I who got into it with Rob off to the side). Anyway, I remember sitting there thinking to myself, "self, if just one of them would relent and forgive the other person we could go back to playing basketball instead of sitting here bickering". Before long the fight quit being about whatever it was originally about and started to be about the hard feelings that they were holding towards each other, they kept fighting waiting for the other to apologize thinking that would make them feel better. So anyway, I ended up being very frustrated and I didn't get to shoot any more baskets that day. That's sort of how I feel right now watching two people I like "duke it out".

Sorry if I sound all harpy, but I really want you two to get past this animosity that you both seem to have so we can get back to playing basketball...er talking theology.

[Hans Deventer]

Sorry if I sound all harpy, but I really want you two to get past this animosity that you both seem to have so we can get back to playing basketball...er talking theology.

Kevin, I'd be very willing to make apologies for anything I said or did or whatever. Even if I meant well (and I did), that does not mean I've said it the right way.
But that would solve very little. When I know at forehand to be discussing stuff with Jamie while he's not interested in friendship, that simply isn't the way I want to discuss things. As if knowledge were more important than love. It's not (1 Cor 13:8b).

[Wilson L. Deaton]

But if you know that the term "lip service" is a sore subject with him, there's no really a good reason to use it unless you are trying to provoke him. That's not constructive either.

To be fair to you, I personally thought that Hans got way more bent out of shape in your initial exchange that got the whole thing started, so I understand why it has bothered you.

"Lip service" has more than one meaning making its usage extremely questionable....

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lip_service

Wilson

[Jamie Wayne]

Kevin,

Maybe bringing it up wasn't the best thing, but it was the first thing that came to mind after his heartfelt welcome.

[Jamie Wayne]

Wilson,

We went over the definition at the time, and had I said what I meant with other words, that wouldn't have been acceptable, either. Thanks, though.

[Jamie Wayne]

Kevin, I'd be very willing to make apologies for anything I said or did or whatever. Even if I meant well (and I did), that does not mean I've said it the right way.
But that would solve very little. When I know at forehand to be discussing stuff with Jamie while he's not interested in friendship, that simply isn't the way I want to discuss things. As if knowledge were more important than love. It's not (1 Cor 13:8b).

Who said that knowledge is more important than love, Hans?

Is my motivation for going to a restaurant to make friends with the hostess - or is it to eat?

Why should it seem strange that my motivation for joining a theology discussion be to discuss theology?

If a friendship develops, I'm not opposed to that, but friendship isn't my primary motivation when I go to a restaurant to eat or go to a theology forum to discuss theology.

...so kindly put away your Scripture references and bring them back out when they're applicable to the situation, if you must.

[Hans Deventer]

I don't think there is anything I could say that would make this a useful reply. I would almost want to ask you to stop addressing me, but of course then I'd be again accused of wanting you to play by my rules. I will however refrain from responding from now on, I guess even you would allow me to personally play by my rules.

[Jamie Wayne]

Yup, that's what you did last time, too. If I were to continue not playing by your rules, then you'd leave. Last time, I saved you the trouble, by leaving myself, but this time I'm not going to.

Even your previous post reeks of that mentality:

...that simply isn't the way I want to discuss things.

[Randy Wise]

Would anyone care to show me the Scriptual basis for a "prayer language"?

As far as I know I use english.:) I assume such a teaching is based on 1 cor 14? To be truthful I have never witnessed or experienced such a thing and I know I have the Spirit of Christ in me.

Randy

[Bob Evans]

The general tone of this thread is why I don't come to the theology board very often. However, the topic is interesting so I thought I would weigh in.

We have 450 different churches of all kinds and shapes that support our mission. Several of them put great emphisis on glossolalia and that whole catigory of religious esxperience.

Part of my dutues invovle screening churches for participation in the evening Gospel service and conseqnently the subject comes up. As a mission we ask churches to keep in very simple and basic and we include glossolalia practices as one of the doctrines we prefer that is not emphisized. Interestingly enough we also include entire sanctification and eternal security on this list.

I guess in my mind people need Jesus. They need to pray and read the bible. They need to be a part of their local church. They need to manage their time, talent, and treasure in a God driven fasion. And if they want to seek the experience of glossolalia thats fine but is a not a substitute for the other things that are mentioned and its not the defination of a superior experience. There are a number of things in the bible that happen when the spirit of the Lord comes on a person and to limit it to one experience at the expence of others limits the expressions of the spirit of God in th lives of people.

When I was pastoring the subject came up several times. I tool the following attitude with people in discussion of the experience. Some stayed and some sought fellowship elsewhere.

[Jamie Wayne]

Bob,

I think that it's fair to say that "tongues" is an evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and I oppose the view that tongues is the evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

To be fair, I think that there needs to be a careful balance, as, it seems to me, that going too far in either direction is highly problematic. Insisting upon tongues is going too far, but rejecting tongues is going too far, too.

The CotN, since this is a "Nazarene" theology forum (more or less, anyway), takes the position of rejecting tongues. My problem with that is that Article X on Entire Sanctification speaks to the "fullness of the blessing", but how can the CotN, without hypocrisy, speak of such a "fullness" when, simultaneously, it rejects the possibility of what could be a genuine manifestation of the Holy Spirit?

There is a non-denominational "mega church" near where I live (actually they have two "campuses" nearby), and they have persons in leadership sign a statement that they will not manifest such things as tongues in their church. I respect that they are, in a sense, taking such things seriously, and I think that, in a sense, they are trying to be responsible. It's easier to "ban" this stuff rather than take on the additional responsibility that comes with allowing it. Since responsibility is my biggest problem with churches that do allow it, I'm a big advocate of being responsible, but at the same time, I think that "banning" it is to a churches loss.

We should truly want the "fullness" of the Holy Spirit - and that should be by the Holy Spirit's terms...not ours. Discerning whether a manifestation is genuine or not can be problematic, I understand very well, but I still think that it's better not to limit how the Holy Spirit is "allowed" to bless us.

Having said all of that, Bob, I think that you're absolutely right in saying that people need Jesus and need to read their Bibles and need to be a part of a body of believers. Those things are certainly more important. I also agree with you when you wrote, "There are a number of things in the Bible that happen when the Spirit of the Lord comes on a person, and to limit it to one experience at the expense of others limits the expressions of the Spirit of God in the lives of people."

Merry Christmas,

Jamie