Tongues in the Church of the Nazarene

[Billy Cox]

One insinuated that the Church of the Nazarene lost its authority when it banned speaking in tongues

I think this is actually close to the truth. Don't get me wrong...the Church of the Nazarene had to repudiate the practice of speaking in tongues in order to maintain theological and organizational integrity. Where it went wrong was in using McCarthy-esque techniques to squash the tongues faction.

It's really alot like Peter presiding over the divine execution of Ananias and Sapphira for fudging their giving records. Maybe Peter had the moral high ground, but his disproportionately heavy-handed response introduced 'great fear' to the early church. Likewise the tongues-scare made fear an enduring legacy in the Nazarene Church. I think it caused irreparable harm.

[Ryan Scott]

Likewise the tongues-scare made fear an enduring legacy in the Nazarene Church. I think it caused irreparable harm.

Although probably no more harm than any of the other stupid things we've done, right? I mean that happened in 1972, I think. Even me as a Seminary student with history degree and an unhealthy penchant for reading the Manual didn't even know what he was talking about. I had to go look it up. Granted, I'd always wondered why we freaked out so thoroughly about speaking in tongues and the research explained that more thoroughly. I'm just not sure it was any different than any of the other unhealthy responses we've had to things over the years. We carry a lot of scars.

[Billy Cox]

Although probably no more harm than any of the other stupid things we've done, right? I mean that happened in 1972, I think. Even me as a Seminary student with history degree and an unhealthy penchant for reading the Manual didn't even know what he was talking about. I had to go look it up. Granted, I'd always wondered why we freaked out so thoroughly about speaking in tongues and the research explained that more thoroughly. I'm just not sure it was any different than any of the other unhealthy responses we've had to things over the years. We carry a lot of scars.

I don't think this was a singular event confined to 1972, or maybe that was simply the date that someone dumped a boulder into the pond and unleashed a tsunami that is still being felt today.

Case in point... For most of my childhood I attended a church on the Southeast Oklahoma district until my family moved to Houston in the early 80's. A short time after that, the church I had attended descended into an all-out war over the issue of speaking in tongues. Yes, the tongues people were driven away eventually, but it's like defeating the terrorists and killing most of the hostages in the process.

Another case... In the 90's, the pastor at my church saw a dear colleague and confidant 'removed from ministry' for foolishly mentioning to the DS that he couldn't say with 100% certainty that speaking in tongues was not a genuine manifestation of the Holy Spirit. For my church, tongues has never been an issue (that I know of), but fear has a way of becoming an organizational habit.

Even if the tongues issue in particular isn't the boogeyman that it used to be, fear is still very much an undercurrent within Nazarene circles.

[Billie Goodson]

I don't think this was a singular event confined to 1972, or maybe that was simply the date that someone dumped a boulder into the pond and unleashed a tsunami that is still being felt today.

Case in point... For most of my childhood I attended a church on the Southeast Oklahoma district until my family moved to Houston in the early 80's. A short time after that, the church I had attended descended into an all-out war over the issue of speaking in tongues. Yes, the tongues people were driven away eventually, but it's like defeating the terrorists and killing most of the hostages in the process.

Another case... In the 90's, the pastor at my church saw a dear colleague and confidant 'removed from ministry' for foolishly mentioning to the DS that he couldn't say with 100% certainty that speaking in tongues was not a genuine manifestation of the Holy Spirit. For my church, tongues has never been an issue (that I know of), but fear has a way of becoming an organizational habit.

Even if the tongues issue in particular isn't the boogeyman that it used to be, fear is still very much an undercurrent within Nazarene circles.

There was an issue with tongues in the COTN? After 26 years, I still learn something about our denomination every day.

[Hans Deventer]

There was an issue with tongues in the COTN? After 26 years, I still learn something about our denomination every day.

An issue? Billie, many a pastor was fired immediately when it even became known that (s)he spoke in tongues privately.

[Ryan Scott]

Another case... In the 90's, the pastor at my church saw a dear colleague and confidant 'removed from ministry' for foolishly mentioning to the DS that he couldn't say with 100% certainty that speaking in tongues was not a genuine manifestation of the Holy Spirit. For my church, tongues has never been an issue (that I know of), but fear has a way of becoming an organizational habit.

This is really where we've failed. I remember growing up with the understanding that people who spoke in tongues should be treated the same way we treat witches or devil worshipers. Not that those ideas were expressed directly, but that was my impression of how horribly bad these people were. I think enough people in leadership were scarred by those early battles they instinctively reacted poorly.

Obviously the demonization of people is wrong. We've arrived at an intellectual position that says "speaking in tongues may be fine, but with limits and certainly not in our congregations." I'm not sure how sound that position is, but its less of an issue because there are plenty of places where speaking in tongues is welcomed. I know of at least one instance on our own district where someone was allowed to keep their congregation and credentials despite admitting to the DS "I think we should speak in tongues, but I won't so long as it's not allowed here." To me that's at least progress.

[Billie Goodson]

An issue? Billie, many a pastor was fired immediately when it even became known that (s)he spoke in tongues privately.

Thanks Hans. Interesting is about all I can say. The things you learn.... Of course, I also only learned within the past few years who John Wesley was, so obviously, my education in the denomination is pretty lacking. As I learn certain things (not necessarily this item) I wonder if that ignorance is really such a bad thing.

[Ryan Scott]

There was an issue with tongues in the COTN? After 26 years, I still learn something about our denomination every day.

This is sort of what I meant in that, while a sad period in our history, is something we'll grow out of. When most people don't know or don't remember the mistakes, we may have a chance to move on. Granted, there is still animosity and hurt in parts of the denomination that continues to be a struggle - much the same way our practice of segregation and then forced integration hasn't helped race relations any.

[David Troxler]

...

Case in point... A short time after that, the church I had attended descended into an all-out war over the issue of speaking in tongues. Yes, the tongues people were driven away eventually, but it's like defeating the terrorists and killing most of the hostages in the process.
....

Billy,
Great word picture.

This could be akin to letting the wheat and tares grow together until harvest. However, I don't want to take the illustration to the point that all speakers in tongues are tares and that all non-tongues worshipers are bona fide wheat.

This is one great example of the fallout that can occur.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I was disappointed that the General Assembly (soundly) defeated the well-written revision of the Manual this past summer on tongues. I'm not sure I can find it, but I'll try.

***Edited: Found it...this may be an earlier version, but the spirit is there:
"The Church of the Nazarene does not now, nor has it ever, endorsed speaking in tongues or the use of a special prayer language, or any other exceptional physical or spiritual manifestations, as proof of baptism with the Spirit. While the possibility of the Holy Spirit manifesting itself in such fashion is not beyond the power of God to accomplish, it in no way serves to distinguish those who enjoy the gift of the Holy Spirit from those who do not. Relying on speaking in tongues, or other extraordinary manifestations, as proof of such baptism contradicts the understanding of the Church of the Nazarene and the common Christian experience of the last two millennia. While we cannot prohibit such rare and exceptional movement on the part of the Spirit, should the Spirit see fit so to act, the Church of the Nazarene does not recognize such activity as something to be approved, endorsed or encouraged, as it is contrary to our understanding of God as desirous of making Himself known to His people in clear and understandable ways."

Actually...this may even be stronger than what actually resulted. Does anyone know if the resolutions are still anywhere on the web? They're obviously not on NN anymore, and www.gacorlando.com is down (Twitchell...do you have that backed up somewhere?).

[Paul DeBaufer]

Although probably no more harm than any of the other stupid things we've done, right? I mean that happened in 1972, I think. Even me as a Seminary student with history degree and an unhealthy penchant for reading the Manual didn't even know what he was talking about. I had to go look it up. Granted, I'd always wondered why we freaked out so thoroughly about speaking in tongues and the research explained that more thoroughly. I'm just not sure it was any different than any of the other unhealthy responses we've had to things over the years. We carry a lot of scars.

Ryan, if you don't mind where did you look this up? I'd be very interested in looking into this as well. Thank you.

[Billie Goodson]

This is sort of what I meant in that, while a sad period in our history, is something we'll grow out of. When most people don't know or don't remember the mistakes, we may have a chance to move on. Granted, there is still animosity and hurt in parts of the denomination that continues to be a struggle - much the same way our practice of segregation and then forced integration hasn't helped race relations any.

Could it be argued that losing the memory could cause us to fall into the same circumstances again?

[Dennis Bratcher]

We carry a lot of scars.

That's because we are all human. And a good refutation of "sinless perfection."

One of the problems of 19th and early 20th century holiness is that we claimed too much and therefore placed expectations far too high. The reality of life did not match what we claimed. That is part of the present crisis of holiness theology.

That is the value of penitential prayer within holiness theology, not as an action but as an attitude.



Most merciful God, we acknowledge that you are our God and that we have covenanted to be your people. But we confess that there are times when we fail to live out that covenant in the dailyness of our lives. We miss opportunities to love others. We allow fear to make us small in our faith. We allow the shadows of doubt to obscure the brightness of your presence. Sometimes, we follow the desires of our own heart instead of seeking your presence.

Holy God, forgive us for what we have done and for what we have left undone. Remind us again of your presence near us and in us. Free us from guilt, shame, and self-doubt. Help us to see you in the moment-by-moment possibilities to live with integrity, to act courageously as your people, and to speak the love of God in all of our words and actions.

For the sake of your Son Jesus Christ, have mercy on us and forgive us; that we may delight in your will, and walk in your ways, to the glory of your Name. Amen.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Bob Hunter]

***Edited: Found it...this may be an earlier version, but the spirit is there:
"The Church of the Nazarene does not now, nor has it ever, endorsed speaking in tongues or the use of a special prayer language, or any other exceptional physical or spiritual manifestations, as proof of baptism with the Spirit. While the possibility of the Holy Spirit manifesting itself in such fashion is not beyond the power of God to accomplish, it in no way serves to distinguish those who enjoy the gift of the Holy Spirit from those who do not. Relying on speaking in tongues, or other extraordinary manifestations, as proof of such baptism contradicts the understanding of the Church of the Nazarene and the common Christian experience of the last two millennia. While we cannot prohibit such rare and exceptional movement on the part of the Spirit, should the Spirit see fit so to act, the Church of the Nazarene does not recognize such activity as something to be approved, endorsed or encouraged, as it is contrary to our understanding of God as desirous of making Himself known to His people in clear and understandable ways."

Actually...this may even be stronger than what actually resulted. Does anyone know if the resolutions are still anywhere on the web? They're obviously not on NN anymore, and www.gacorlando.com is down (Twitchell...do you have that backed up somewhere?).

I think this is a very peculiar statement and perhaps confusing. I like certain elements of it, but it does not bring forth the clarity needed to be helpful to the Church at large. And perhaps that is why it was soundly defeated. Granted the tongues issue is a very difficult one to manage on a number of fronts. Having read the statement several times, I get the impression the writers want to leave the door open to the possibility of tongues, but not endorse it even if it is truly of the Holy Spirit. That seems odd. If something is of the Holy Spirit, I want in on it. Just sayin. This seems to be a departure from Dr. John Knight's little booklet entitled, "What the Bible says about Tongues Speaking." As I recall Knight clearly states that speaking in tongues as we know it today is not consistent with the Bible and the early Church.

Is this the "not forbid, but not endorse" approach? Is that the intent?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

If something is of the Holy Spirit, I want in on it. Just sayin.

Well when you get that figured out for good, be sure and let the rest of us know how. I'd love to be able to box up that fire and stick the wind in our pockets, but biblical and traditional history shows us that we don't exactly "contain" nor "endorse" the Holy Spirit.

What on earth would it mean to "endorse" the Holy Spirit?

Doesn't the Holy Spirit endorse us?

It drives me crazy that modernity continues to stake claim and hold on our theology: "If we can't figure it out, throw it out."

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Well when you get that figured out for good, be sure and let the rest of us know how. I'd love to be able to box up that fire and stick the wind in our pockets, but biblical and traditional history shows us that we don't exactly "contain" nor "endorse" the Holy Spirit.

What on earth would it mean to "endorse" the Holy Spirit?

Doesn't the Holy Spirit endorse us?

It drives me crazy that modernity continues to stake claim and hold on our theology: "If we can't figure it out, throw it out."

I guess what I'm saying is, I believe our "position" should be: "We have experienced the movement of the Holy Spirit in certain ways. But because we have not experienced the Holy Spirit in ways that others claim does not mean that it is not the Holy Spirit."

[Billie Goodson]

Doesn't the Holy Spirit endorse us?


Why do I have this image running through my head, "I'm the Holy Spirit, and I endorse this person"?



It drives me crazy that modernity continues to stake claim and hold on our theology: "If we can't figure it out, throw it out."

Because if left to the churches, it would be "If we can't figure it out, assign a committee." -- sorry, it is Friday.

[Bob Hunter]

Well when you get that figured out for good, be sure and let the rest of us know how. I'd love to be able to box up that fire and stick the wind in our pockets, but biblical and traditional history shows us that we don't exactly "contain" nor "endorse" the Holy Spirit.

What on earth would it mean to "endorse" the Holy Spirit?

Doesn't the Holy Spirit endorse us?



It drives me crazy that modernity continues to stake claim and hold on our theology: "If we can't figure it out, throw it out."

Um, I wasn't trying to figure it out Jeremy, I don't know where you get that. I am critiquing a statement that I think has some good points but also some liabilities. Moreover, I think the Holy Spirit has the potential to move in some ways that are unusual and outside of our comfort zone. Either way, I think my heart's desire is to be in tune with Spirit, discerning, listening and responding. I think maybe the liability of the Nazarene position is that we have tried to figure it out. As a result, we have closed the door to tongues speaking, period! I don't know that I can go that far. I have always had a few tongues speakers in my Church. I would never be so arrogant as to say, your private prayer language is not of the Holy Spirit. That is between them and God.

[Billy Cox]

This is sort of what I meant in that, while a sad period in our history, is something we'll grow out of. When most people don't know or don't remember the mistakes, we may have a chance to move on. Granted, there is still animosity and hurt in parts of the denomination that continues to be a struggle - much the same way our practice of segregation and then forced integration hasn't helped race relations any.

I see the history on the tongues issue as an undercurrent within the debates over worship style. It must have been a supreme irony to former Nazarenes who pitched their tents with the Assemblies of God, when Nazarene churches started to borrow heavily from the songs and liturgy practiced by the Assembly of God or other charismatic churches. (minus speaking in tongues of course)

I imagine that some Nazarenes had their doubts that we could sing the same songs being sung in those scary charismatic churches without letting the tongues monster back in. :smile:

[Billy Cox]

I guess what I'm saying is, I believe our "position" should be: "We have experienced the movement of the Holy Spirit in certain ways. But because we have not experienced the Holy Spirit in ways that others claim does not mean that it is not the Holy Spirit."

Whittle the statement down to something that will fit on a bumper sticker and then we'll have something viable for the General Assembly to approve of.

[Oliver Phillips]

I have had to help educate our ethnic churches about our position on tongues. This is the dated statement that I have used:

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

[John Kennedy]

It's nice that so many of you have all these warm fuzzy feelings about the tongues situation. The only experience I had with it growing up was when peope who were inclined in that direction, instead of finding a congenial environment, would come into the body and attempt to convert everyone else to it. There was absolutely nothing positive about it.

I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit can be manifested in an incredible number of ways. That's fine. I think a lot you have seen the tongues belief professed by the somewhat more lukewarm Charismatic and neo-pentecostal elements. I experienced the 'on-fire', classic Pentecostal crew up close and personal.

I was put off then, and continue to be put off to this day by the ones who came in, caused dissension and de-Christianized those who didn't subscribe to that point of view. They may well be my brothers and sisters in Christ, but we probably all have relatives that we don't care all that much about spending time with (I know, I've compounded theological heresy with grammatical unbelief by ending a sentence with a preposition).

The resolution cited by Jeremy, IMO, made a lot of sense. Wish there had been something like that around back in the day when my parents and many of their colleagues were having to deal with the issue. It wasn't a good situation. Maybe if some had experience it first-hand the take on it might have been somewhat different.

[Shea Zellweger]

I have had to help educate our ethnic churches about our position on tongues. This is the dated statement that I have used:

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

Gotta say, this is an excellent example of an area where I respectfully but sincerely disagree with the statement by the BoGS. I am not comfortable telling the Holy Spirit how it can or cannot go to work. "Tongues-speaking" churches tend to fall into a trap of telling the Holy Spirit that it's necessary to act in a certain way. Our church (as well as a few Baptist churches I've attended) seems to do the contrary and say to the Holy Spirit "sorry, you can't do that in our church." Now, being "slain in the spirit" or "incessant laughter" or some of the other non-biblical practices on that list, those are one thing. But to categorically say "we do not ever speak in tongues in our church" seems too heavy handed to me. I was actually approached about this issue by my board, because they'd dealt with some interesting situations in the past, and I told them I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the Holy Spirit would move someone to speak in a tongue. However, I went on to say that if there was not someone to interpret, we'd all know the person was faking :D.

There's also the matter of speaking in "the tongues of angels," a la 1 Corinthians, and the speaking in tongues which took place in Acts, where individuals who did not speak certain earthly languages were suddenly capable of doing so, so that the Gospel might be spread to all who were present. If a spanish-speaking individual walks into my English speaking church, and suddenly a person who doesn't know anything more than "Hola" begins addressing that person in fluent Spanish, far be it from me to get in the way of that.

[Shea Zellweger]

It's nice that so many of you have all these warm fuzzy feelings about the tongues situation. The only experience I had with it growing up was when peope who were inclined in that direction, instead of finding a congenial environment, would come into the body and attempt to convert everyone else to it. There was absolutely nothing positive about it.

I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit can be manifested in an incredible number of ways. That's fine. I think a lot you have seen the tongues belief professed by the somewhat more lukewarm Charismatic and neo-pentecostal elements. I experienced the 'on-fire', classic Pentecostal crew up close and personal.

I was put off then, and continue to be put off to this day by the ones who came in, caused dissension and de-Christianized those who didn't subscribe to that point of view. They may well be my brothers and sisters in Christ, but we probably all have relatives that we don't care all that much about spending time with (I know, I've compounded theological heresy with grammatical unbelief by ending a sentence with a preposition).

The resolution cited by Jeremy, IMO, made a lot of sense. Wish there had been something like that around back in the day when my parents and many of their colleagues were having to deal with the issue. It wasn't a good situation. Maybe if some had experience it first-hand the take on it might have been somewhat different.

I attended a 2 day youth revival service where we "learned" how to speak in tongues at least three separate times. In a room of some 800-1000 people, suddenly everybody but a handful of us had the gift of tongues (apparently angels roll their r's a lot), and nobody had the gift of interpretation. Never did go back to that church...

[John Kennedy]

I attended a 2 day youth revival service where we "learned" how to speak in tongues at least three separate times. In a room of some 800-1000 people, suddenly everybody but a handful of us had the gift of tongues (apparently angels roll their r's a lot), and nobody had the gift of interpretation. Never did go back to that church...

Quite obviously you never learned how to say "SHAN-GA-LAH!"

[James Johnson]

Shea, it appears you and I may actualy agree on something! :smilies0262:

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think I agree with Shea in post #23, I will not tell the Holy Spirit what He can or cannot do, what He must do. I think that there are very real manifestations of speaking in "tongues of angels" (however I have not experienced it, nor have I witnessed it in truth.) However, I do not think that in a public worship service it is appropriate. The people that I know that speak in tongues do so in private and I have never witnessed it, I have witnessed changed lives in these same people ad not everyone in the family speaks in tongues and they do not believe t the only evidence of Spirit baptism.

My only experience with witnessing people speaking in tongues was quite weird. A youth group on retreat rented our facilities for 4 daze. When they arrived on Friday evening the sequestered the kids, kept them up late, played rhythmic loud music. I didn't pay any attention again until Monday when I went to work. My office at the time was the tech booth. I heard them teaching and encouraging these young people in the speaking f tongues, being slain in the spirit, all that Toronto Blessing stuff creating an expectation in these kids that this is what they need to experience. Well young people like to please their leaders and mentors. This teaching and creation of expectation went on for hours-I had to leave. When I came back they had the kids pray for being filled with the Holy Spirit. This is when it got really weird. Kids making odd sounds, falling on the floor, uncontrolable crying. I felt it was all contrived that this was not Spirit filled behavior. I kind f figure since one Spirit indwells us all that He would resonate within me IF this had been a real Spirit driven event. No, concluded, rightly or wrongly, that this was a cultlike manifestation of charismatic teachers leading kids to this experience.

But, I have to leave room for the possibility that there are real events involving speaking in utterances unknown to man.

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea, it appears you and I may actualy agree on something! :smilies0262:

And, oddly enough, it's where I disagree with the Board of General Superintendents... are you SURE you want to be a Nazarene? LOL

[Paul DeBaufer]

And, oddly enough, it's where I disagree with the Board of General Superintendents... are you SURE you want to be a Nazarene? LOL

Can't agree with everybody about everything. Although I have met people that try to do just that--I always feel slimed when they talk to me.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Seems like the BOGS is saying that the Holy Spirit cannot be restricted, and that the insistence that any single manifestation is the evidence is inappropriate in the COTN. Those for whom such insistence is important will likely find other churches where they'll be more comfotable. I tend to embrace that.

They also say that Nazarene churches consistenctly have neither such insistence nor usually such manifestation. That's not opinion, but statement of the way things are, at least to date. Generally, that's not really up for debate.

Curiously, Assemblies of God are moving more toward the position of the COTN, rather than the reverse.

:horse:

[Shea Zellweger]

Seems like the BOGS is saying that the Holy Spirit cannot be restricted, and that the insistence that any single manifestation is the evidence is inappropriate in the COTN. Those for whom such insistence is important will likely find other churches where they'll be more comfotable. I tend to embrace that.

They also say that Nazarene churches consistenctly have neither such insistence nor usually such manifestation. That's not opinion, but statement of the way things are, at least to date. Generally, that's not really up for debate.

Curiously, Assemblies of God are moving more toward the position of the COTN, rather than the reverse.

:horse:

The part that bothered me is the statement "these phenomena are not a part of our accepted worship experience. This is not who we are. This is not what we do." It may not be commonplace in our congregations, but this language makes speaking in tongues sound completely unacceptable. To me, that is going too far.

[Dennis M. Scott]

The part that bothered me is the statement "these phenomena are not a part of our accepted worship experience. This is not who we are. This is not what we do." It may not be commonplace in our congregations, but this language makes speaking in tongues sound completely unacceptable. To me, that is going too far.

What you have quoted is only part of "the statement", and out of context of the entire paragraph. We are different than groups where that is who they are, part of their accepted worship practice, and what they do.

[David Graham]

It's nice that so many of you have all these warm fuzzy feelings about the tongues situation. The only experience I had with it growing up was when peope who were inclined in that direction, instead of finding a congenial environment, would come into the body and attempt to convert everyone else to it. There was absolutely nothing positive about it.

I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit can be manifested in an incredible number of ways. That's fine. I think a lot you have seen the tongues belief professed by the somewhat more lukewarm Charismatic and neo-pentecostal elements. I experienced the 'on-fire', classic Pentecostal crew up close and personal.

I was put off then, and continue to be put off to this day by the ones who came in, caused dissension and de-Christianized those who didn't subscribe to that point of view. They may well be my brothers and sisters in Christ, but we probably all have relatives that we don't care all that much about spending time with (I know, I've compounded theological heresy with grammatical unbelief by ending a sentence with a preposition).

The resolution cited by Jeremy, IMO, made a lot of sense. Wish there had been something like that around back in the day when my parents and many of their colleagues were having to deal with the issue. It wasn't a good situation. Maybe if some had experience it first-hand the take on it might have been somewhat different.

My denomination takes no stand on the issue of tongues one way or the other, providing that our services are conducted "decently and in order".
In my present church there is one person who speaks in tongues (apparently, for I've never heard him..... for him its a private devotional prayer language) and he has never caused a problem.

In our first UCA church, however, was a family who were "on fire" regarding the manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit, and caused quite a few people some consternation by their apparent "proselytising" within the congregation. Two of the people they "worked on" were my two young adult sons, however it actually backfired when at a youth meeting, when the CD player refused to work, one of these people tried casting a demon out of the machine. Both my sons just shook their heads with disbelief and walked away. That person lost all influence with them after that. Eventually, however, these Charasmatic folk left the church, because "we were not lively enough for them", and most people uttered sighs of relief accross the congregation. To my knowledge that church has not been adversly affected by the experience of these people among them, and is a strong growing church with a significant ministry among Sudanese Refugees living in their community.

I personally, don't think that it's wise to come down too heavily against them, for that must surely cause the church to become inwardly focussed and divided (Remember the parable of the wheat and the tares....i.e. if you pull up the tares, some of the wheat will also be uprooted). Instead, we need to teach our people sound doctrine and "the better way"; the way of love via the fruit of the Spirit; especially a love which finds its expression in a vital and effective mission.

blessings,
Dave

[Ryan Scott]

I went to an Assemblies of God service for a requirement in my theology of worship class. After one of the songs, one of the members of the worship team, remained standing and spoke for about 8-10 seconds in tongues. She immediately translated into English what she had just said - it was moving and well placed within the service. Everything seemed to be in order with Paul's instruction in Corinthians. That small moment helped me to better understand the tradition and practice, especially as it fit so well with scripture (I happened to be in a class on 1 Corinthians the same semester).

At the same time, I understand the difficulties is poses for congregations and Paul's teaching clearly indicates it's not essential and perhaps not even important or necessary. I appreciate our stand on the issue; I just wish we'd be able to act accordingly and speak with grace about it.

[Ray Lepkowicz]

Billy,
Perhaps I misunderstand your thoughts about Peter and the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira. I did not see Peter doing anything other than revealing what the Holy Spirit revealed to him. While it does seem disproportionate I believe we do not see all of the picture in this episode in the early chruch.

[Shea Zellweger]

What you have quoted is only part of "the statement", and out of context of the entire paragraph. We are different than groups where that is who they are, part of their accepted worship practice, and what they do.

Given the unpleasantness that has come as a result of this debate (I personally know at least two people who were denied ordination or licensing in the CotN because they confessed to speaking in tongues, and from what I've read they're far from the only ones), I think the BoGS would do well to say something more along the lines of what my own pastor once said- "we don't seek the gift, we don't place a special emphasis on the gift, but we don't reject it if God chooses to give it." It's that final portion that, at least as far as I can tell, is missing from "the statement."

[Paul DeBaufer]

my own pastor once said- "we don't seek the gift, we don't place a special emphasis on the gift, but we don't reject it if God chooses to give it."

I sure like this statement and is what I tell people who come to our little church from the more Pentecostal traditions, although not quite so eloquently.

[Susan Unger]

This is really where we've failed. I remember growing up with the understanding that people who spoke in tongues should be treated the same way we treat witches or devil worshipers. Not that those ideas were expressed directly, but that was my impression of how horribly bad these people were. I think enough people in leadership were scarred by those early battles they instinctively reacted poorly.

I grew up hearing that undertanding expressed all the time. Then one day, God showed me that the worst Christian was not a tongues speaker or a Catholic [the other prejudice that I had heard growing up], but a dead one. And since I was sitting in practically dead Naz church [the one I grew up in], I understood what he meant.

Meanwhile, my P/C friends were the only loving, praying Christians I knew in that area. Only once did any of them suggest I ask for the "gift". We had a polite, respectul discussion about it and have remained close friends. Regardless of how they prayed, I knew that when I had a prayer need they were there for me ~ big time. I couldn't have made it through cancer treatment 6 years ago without my friends' praying church. Meanwhile, my childhood Nazarene church practically abandoned me. For me, what mattered then and now is how much love is exhibited, not the tongues issue.

BTW, what thread was it that started this tread? I'd like to find out what we are discussing.

[Jim Chabot]

Seems like the BOGS is saying that the Holy Spirit cannot be restricted, and that the insistence that any single manifestation is the evidence is inappropriate in the COTN. Those for whom such insistence is important will likely find other churches where they'll be more comfotable. I tend to embrace that.

They also say that Nazarene churches consistenctly have neither such insistence nor usually such manifestation. That's not opinion, but statement of the way things are, at least to date. Generally, that's not really up for debate.

Curiously, Assemblies of God are moving more toward the position of the COTN, rather than the reverse.

:horse:

Yes, speaking in gibberish has all but disappeared in the Assembly of God Church near here. I apologize somewhat for the term gibberish, but I cannot describe what I have witnessed in pentecostal churches as "speaking in tongues" The account in acts states that those there heard in their own languages. Paul says that speaking in tongues is a sign for unbelievers, I don't believe that gibberish passes the test. These people may not have known what language they were speaking in, but they were real languages just the same. And forgive my unbelief, but I do not believe that those manifestations I have witnessed were genuine, I believe that this is a contrivance fueled by peer pressure, and I am glad to see the Assembly of God moving away from it.

[Larry Parsons]

I went to an Assemblies of God service for a requirement in my theology of worship class. After one of the songs, one of the members of the worship team, remained standing and spoke for about 8-10 seconds in tongues. She immediately translated into English what she had just said - it was moving and well placed within the service. Everything seemed to be in order with Paul's instruction in Corinthians. That small moment helped me to better understand the tradition and practice, especially as it fit so well with scripture (I happened to be in a class on 1 Corinthians the same semester).

At the same time, I understand the difficulties is poses for congregations and Paul's teaching clearly indicates it's not essential and perhaps not even important or necessary. I appreciate our stand on the issue; I just wish we'd be able to act accordingly and speak with grace about it.
Ryan, I have away question the interpretation of those who does the interpretation. I think there is big difference between speaking in so called tongue at church and the gift of langauge . I remember in langauge school I heard about a guy that could talk to people in their language within 45 min after he been with them.
Thanks
Larrry P

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I think this is a very peculiar statement and perhaps confusing. I like certain elements of it, but it does not bring forth the clarity needed to be helpful to the Church at large. And perhaps that is why it was soundly defeated. Granted the tongues issue is a very difficult one to manage on a number of fronts. Having read the statement several times, I get the impression the writers want to leave the door open to the possibility of tongues, but not endorse it even if it is truly of the Holy Spirit. That seems odd. If something is of the Holy Spirit, I want in on it. Just sayin. This seems to be a departure from Dr. John Knight's little booklet entitled, "What the Bible says about Tongues Speaking." As I recall Knight clearly states that speaking in tongues as we know it today is not consistent with the Bible and the early Church.

Is this the "not forbid, but not endorse" approach? Is that the intent?


Um, I wasn't trying to figure it out Jeremy, I don't know where you get that. I am critiquing a statement that I think has some good points but also some liabilities. Moreover, I think the Holy Spirit has the potential to move in some ways that are unusual and outside of our comfort zone. Either way, I think my heart's desire is to be in tune with Spirit, discerning, listening and responding. I think maybe the liability of the Nazarene position is that we have tried to figure it out. As a result, we have closed the door to tongues speaking, period! I don't know that I can go that far. I have always had a few tongues speakers in my Church. I would never be so arrogant as to say, your private prayer language is not of the Holy Spirit. That is between them and God.

Bob, you wanted "clarity," which I read as "make the issue clearer," AKA "figure it out" [so we know where we "stand"]. You didn't like the ambiguity of the statement saying that we neither affirm nor deny it. You called it "odd" because it wouldn't come down completely on one side or the other of an act of the Holy Spirit. Your post seemed to beg for black and white rather than gray (and you found it "confusing"). This is the tenor to which I responded.

[Dale Cozby]

Billy, You guys need to get out of KC. People down here don't have a clue about the CotN, even the people in my church don't havea clue we ever struggled with the pentecostal stuff. It just isn't even on the radar of anyone these days, except a very few that come from that persuasion. Most people in the world think it is weird and people who practice it are strange. I occasionally have to excuse/explain their weirdness in a positive way, so as to not harm the greater Kingdom to new unchurched people who I encounter with questions about it.

[Jim Chabot]

Ryan, I have away question the interpretation of those who does the interpretation. I think there is big difference between speaking in so called tongue at church and the gift of langauge . I remember in langauge school I heard about a guy that could talk to people in their language within 45 min after he been with them.
Thanks
Larrry P

One thing that I have noticed is that in many instances the same phrase is repeated many times in the utterance, yet there is no repetition in the interpretation.

[Dale Cozby]

I apologize somewhat for the term gibberish Don't worry Jim it is just a word in another language/tongue. It means "really cool baby talk"

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Whittle the statement down to something that will fit on a bumper sticker and then we'll have something viable for the General Assembly to approve of.

I actually think we already do have a statement at the very beginning of our Manual that gives my sentiment on tongues, Christians who drink alcohol, prefer one baptismal mode over another, etc.

It's in Article XI:

Article XI. The Church
15. We believe in the Church, the community that confesses Jesus Christ as Lord, the covenant people of God made new in Christ, the Body of Christ called together by the Holy Spirit through the Word. God calls the Church to express its life in the unity and fellowship of the Spirit; in worship through the preaching of the Word, observance of the sacraments, and ministry in His name; by obedience to Christ, holy living, and mutual accountability.
The mission of the Church in the world is to share in the redemptive and reconciling ministry of Christ in the power of the Spirit. The Church fulfills its mission by making disciples through evangelism, education, showing compassion, working for justice, and bearing witness to the kingdom of God.
The Church is a historical reality, which organizes itself in culturally conditioned forms; exists both as local congregations and as a universal body; sets apart persons called of God for specific ministries. God calls the Church to live under His rule in anticipation of the consummation at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

To restate my position:
"Gosh...God hasn't moved us in this way, but we might imagine that God has done so elsewhere in elsepeople."

I have absolutely no problem with any given group deciding whether they will or will not do something specific together within their given group. It's when we begin to force our own understandings of "it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit" upon the rest of the universal Church, wherein we all say, "Jesus is Lord." For sure, there has been and will be need for times when we call each other out, but in areas of tongues, alcohol, worship style, mode of baptism, partisan politics, etc., it baffles me more and more why we get so crazy about differentiation.

[Ryan Scott]

Given the unpleasantness that has come as a result of this debate (I personally know at least two people who were denied ordination or licensing in the CotN because they confessed to speaking in tongues, and from what I've read they're far from the only ones), I think the BoGS would do well to say something more along the lines of what my own pastor once said- "we don't seek the gift, we don't place a special emphasis on the gift, but we don't reject it if God chooses to give it." It's that final portion that, at least as far as I can tell, is missing from "the statement."

Because it's not a part of the statement. We do reject it. It's not a part of our practice or tradition. Now I absolutely believe in being gracious; I'm not about to kick someone out of the congregation or the service, especially if they follow a scriptural practice. That being said, its not something we make a regular part of our worship.

To me, at least when it comes to denominations, this is sort of like homosexuality. We have a denominational stand on such issues - hopefully both tongues speakers and homosexuals would feel welcomed and loved in our congregations, but quite honestly there are other Christians groups that would welcome them more openly and chances are they'll find those congregations. Again, I'm not saying we should send people away or abandon them to others who will have them (that's a less than Christian practice) simply that these interactions are going to be few and far between simply because of the stance of our denomination.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Billy, You guys need to get out of KC. People down here don't have a clue about the CotN, even the people in my church don't havea clue we ever struggled with the pentecostal stuff. It just isn't even on the radar of anyone these days, except a very few that come from that persuasion. Most people in the world think it is weird and people who practice it are strange. I occasionally have to excuse/explain their weirdness in a positive way, so as to not harm the greater Kingdom to new unchurched people who I encounter with questions about it.

That may be in your area. But the last that I knew (and someone can feel free to correct me), the variety of pentecostalism is the fastest growing branch of Christianity in the world. The International House of Prayer is remarkable to me. Check out their 24-7 prayer room here (http://www.ihop.org/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=1000058181) (yes...in KC, live all the time on the Internet, and going since 1999). This ain't just a little group of "strange" old men...every time I tune in, the room has a variety of people, led by young and old, black and white, male and female. I don't "get" all of their experience, but it warms me to know that they are there. And their movement is growing, even in the US (even in Boston!).

Speaking in tongues is indeed strange to me (and to many others, I'm sure). But the people of God is a strange people. We drink the blood and eat the flesh of our Savior, wear the murder weapon of our leader around our necks, and say that he rose from the dead. Is a funky worship language really all that much more strange?

[Shea Zellweger]

Because it's not a part of the statement. We do reject it. It's not a part of our practice or tradition. Now I absolutely believe in being gracious; I'm not about to kick someone out of the congregation or the service, especially if they follow a scriptural practice. That being said, its not something we make a regular part of our worship.


But that precisely is my point. I don't think we have the right to fully reject speaking in tongues. I'm fine with the idea that we shouldn't seek out the gift of tongues. In fact, I don't think we should seek out any specific gifts, we should just pray that God give us the gifts that we need, rather than the ones that we want. But if the Holy Spirit chooses to move in me, and I speak in a tongue that I do not know, be it of angels or of humans, then I'm not going to reject that experience, I'm going to praise God about it, as I will if the same thing happened to you, because God just showed how powerful God is, and to me that's worth celebrating.

As it stands, I see a clear difference between your second sentence and your last sentence. Your last sentence says "it's not something we make a regular part of our worship." Fine. Given the context of the statement, and the tendency of some churches to abuse this gift, I fully understand and accept the rationale there. Your second sentence says quite plainly, "we reject it." that goes beyond "not a regular part" and moves into "not a part at all, whatsoever." That's where I disagree, and that's where I feel we are limiting the Holy Spirit by telling it what it can't do to us, just as our more charismatic brothers and sisters tell it what it must do to them. I believe both sides are too extreme in this instance.

[Shea Zellweger]

The International House of Prayer is remarkable to me. Check out their 24-7 prayer room here (http://www.ihop.org/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=1000058181)

I LOVE the 24 hour IHOP

...no wait, wrong one.

[John Kennedy]

It wasn't the audible unintelligible speech that left such a bad taste in my mouth. It was the self-righteous, spiritually prideful message, sometimes explicit, often implicit, that 'if you had as much of the blessing as we do, you'd be doing this too.' It's wasn't, and isn't, the 'private prayer language' that was off -putting - it was the adamant insistence that their experience should be normative.

Having experienced some of the conflicts, I am somewhat more able to understand some of the consternation Methodists of a century or more ago must have felt in dealing with what soon turned out to be 'departed brethren'.

[Billy Cox]

Billy,
Perhaps I misunderstand your thoughts about Peter and the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira. I did not see Peter doing anything other than revealing what the Holy Spirit revealed to him. While it does seem disproportionate I believe we do not see all of the picture in this episode in the early chruch.

No, you didn't misunderstand. I think we take the absence of editorial comment by Luke to mean that the events of Acts unfolded according to some sort of divine script in which the apostles are in perfect sync with God's sovereign will.

Ask yourself though...can you imagine Jesus declaring Ananias' and Sapphira's lives forfeit? I'm not so sure that the Holy Spirit wanted them dead.

[Rich Schmidt]

No, you didn't misunderstand. I think we take the absence of editorial comment by Luke to mean that the events of Acts unfolded according to some sort of divine script in which the apostles are in perfect sync with God's sovereign will.

Ask yourself though...can you imagine Jesus declaring Ananias' and Sapphira's lives forfeit? I'm not so sure that the Holy Spirit wanted them dead.

This seems to be WAY off-topic for this thread (even though it stems from the originating post)... but I just read Acts 5 again, I don't see anywhere that it was Peter's "disproportionately heavy-handed response" that led to their deaths or caused great fear to spread among those who heard about it. Peter essentially says, "Don't you realize what you've done?!" to Ananias, and he falls down dead. To Sapphira, after hearing her support her husband's lie, he basically says, "What? Your husband died for that, and now you're going to, too." And she fell down dead.

In other words, Peter didn't declare Ananias' life forfeit... but after seeing what happened to Ananias, he (correctly) assumed the same fate would befall Sapphira.

If the Holy Spirit didn't want them dead.... why did they die? Are you saying that Peter directed the Spirit to kill them? If so, I really can't get that from the text. If not, then what are you saying?

[Billy Cox]

This seems to be WAY off-topic for this thread (even though it stems from the originating post)... but I just read Acts 5 again, I don't see anywhere that it was Peter's "disproportionately heavy-handed response" that led to their deaths or caused great fear to spread among those who heard about it. Peter essentially says, "Don't you realize what you've done?!" to Ananias, and he falls down dead. To Sapphira, after hearing her support her husband's lie, he basically says, "What? Your husband died for that, and now you're going to, too." And she fell down dead.

In other words, Peter didn't declare Ananias' life forfeit... but after seeing what happened to Ananias, he (correctly) assumed the same fate would befall Sapphira.

If the Holy Spirit didn't want them dead.... why did they die? Are you saying that Peter directed the Spirit to kill them? If so, I really can't get that from the text. If not, then what are you saying?

Actually the question of what the Holy Spirit wants and what we think the Holy Spirit wants is quite relevant to both the question of speaking in tongues as well as whether Peter had any choice in choosing Ananias' fate.

I realize that many people see Acts in the same way that they see the book of Joshua; as a series of spectactular victories punctuated by the occasional setback. I see it more like the book of Judges; a series of disasters punctuated by the occasional victory. I understand if you don't 'see that in the text'. For the first 35 years of my life, I didn't see it either.

[Jim Chabot]

The International House of Prayer is remarkable to me. Check out their 24-7 prayer room here (http://www.ihop.org/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=1000058181)

Wow, you scared me for minute there. There is an organization founded right here in New Bedford called "The International House of Prayer for All Peoples" it was founded by a man who went by the name of "Sweet Daddy Grace" he was fond of the saying that "You are saved by Grace, not of works lest any man boast." I was really glad to see that the KC organization didn't come from there!

[Jim Chabot]

I LOVE the 24 hour IHOP

That's a good thing because there are no Waffle Houses up here! Just so ya know.

[Rich Schmidt]

Actually the question of what the Holy Spirit wants and what we think the Holy Spirit wants is quite relevant to both the question of speaking in tongues as well as whether Peter had any choice in choosing Ananias' fate.

I realize that many people see Acts in the same way that they see the book of Joshua; as a series of spectactular victories punctuated by the occasional setback. I see it more like the book of Judges; a series of disasters punctuated by the occasional victory. I understand if you don't 'see that in the text'. For the first 35 years of my life, I didn't see it either.

Billy, I wasn't commenting at all on whether it was a victory or a disaster. I was asking about Peter's role, "whether Peter had any choice in choosing Ananias' fate," as you put it. You seem to strongly believe that Peter had some choice in choosing it, and you say that you see that in the text. I'm looking at the text... and I don't understand how you're seeing it there. Could you help us see it, too?

BTW, the text doesn't say the Spirit killed them or that the Spirit wanted them dead, just that they fell down dead. So I'm not arguing for an angry or vengeful Holy Spirit here. But the text also doesn't present Peter as pronouncing any kind of death sentence on Ananias. I'm trying not to read into the text things that aren't there...

[Dennis M. Scott]

I don't think we have the right to fully reject speaking in tongues. I'm fine with the idea that we shouldn't seek out the gift of tongues. In fact, I don't think we should seek out any specific gifts, we should just pray that God give us the gifts that we need, rather than the ones that we want. But if the Holy Spirit chooses to move in me, and I speak in a tongue that I do not know, be it of angels or of humans, then I'm not going to reject that experience, I'm going to praise God about it, as I will if the same thing happened to you, because God just showed how powerful God is, and to me that's worth celebrating. .

Should that happen to you or to me, truth character in you or me would then lead us to understand that the Lord probably would want us to disassociate with a denomination of people who've not received that gift, to become a part of a group that celebrates that gift. I could name a few friends who've graciously done just that, and with whom I continue to enjoy strong friendship ties. I also could name a few who've determined to stay within the COTN and "enlighten" the entire denomination, being a part of divisiveness pretty clearly not of the Holy Spirit.

As crass as it may be, an analogy might be a member of a "Ford" club who twenty years into their membership discovers that they really think "Chevy's" are better, but decide to remain in the club, all the while smugly convinced that their Chevy is better than everyone else's Fords. Then their pastor says, "It's ok, they all come from Detroit. Just don't drive it to church." The analogy doesn't even make sense, does it? That's because it's a silly argument.

[Rich Schmidt]

Should that happen to you or to me, truth character in you or me would then lead us to understand that the Lord probably would want us to disassociate with a denomination of people who've not received that gift, to become a part of a group that celebrates that gift. I could name a few friends who've graciously done just that, and with whom I continue to enjoy strong friendship ties. I also could name a few who've determined to stay within the COTN and "enlighten" the entire denomination, being a part of divisiveness pretty clearly not of the Holy Spirit.

As crass as it may be, an analogy might be a member of a "Ford" club who twenty years into their membership discovers that they really think "Chevy's" are better, but decide to remain in the club, all the while smugly convinced that their Chevy is better than everyone else's Fords. Then their pastor says, "It's ok, they all come from Detroit. Just don't drive it to church." The analogy doesn't even make sense, does it? That's because it's a silly argument.

So it's kind of like drinking alcohol, then? (I think this might work better than the homosexuality analogy used earlier.) We can all agree that drinking alcohol in moderation isn't a sin, but that's just not something we Nazarenes do (for various reasons). Similarly, we can all agree that speaking in tongues is a gift the Spirit may give some people, but it's just not something we Nazarenes do.

I think that works better for me.... but still, the idea that Christians should segment themselves according to which gift of the Spirit is given to them seems kind of silly. Would we say that about someone given gifts of healing? administration? teaching? "I'm sorry, but you should really find a denomination where your gifts of administration are celebrated and affirmed." :)

I know there's a lot of history to this particular gift, and divisiveness that has been caused by those who believe that every Christian should have this one gift, and plenty of questions as to whether what we've seen has actually been an expression of this gift or an expression of group-pressure and fulfilling-of-expectations. There's so much crammed under the label "speaking in tongues" that it can be difficult to speak clearly & intelligibly about it. :)

[Ryan Scott]

But that precisely is my point. I don't think we have the right to fully reject speaking in tongues. I'm fine with the idea that we shouldn't seek out the gift of tongues. In fact, I don't think we should seek out any specific gifts, we should just pray that God give us the gifts that we need, rather than the ones that we want. But if the Holy Spirit chooses to move in me, and I speak in a tongue that I do not know, be it of angels or of humans, then I'm not going to reject that experience, I'm going to praise God about it, as I will if the same thing happened to you, because God just showed how powerful God is, and to me that's worth celebrating.

As it stands, I see a clear difference between your second sentence and your last sentence. Your last sentence says "it's not something we make a regular part of our worship." Fine. Given the context of the statement, and the tendency of some churches to abuse this gift, I fully understand and accept the rationale there. Your second sentence says quite plainly, "we reject it." that goes beyond "not a regular part" and moves into "not a part at all, whatsoever." That's where I disagree, and that's where I feel we are limiting the Holy Spirit by telling it what it can't do to us, just as our more charismatic brothers and sisters tell it what it must do to them. I believe both sides are too extreme in this instance.

I don't see any evidence that the current practice of tongues is of the Holy Spirit. There's a distinct lack of historical record for anything like this until relatively recently. Again, I've had experiences on both sides of the spectrum, where it is done orderly and part of worship and also where it is downright creepy and entirely chaotic. I'm not going to begrudge people their practice (at least in the first sense) but I don't see how there's any evidence to connect the modern practice, which originated less than 150 years ago with something Paul speaks about in Corinthians. The truth is, we don't know what the Corinthian congregation was doing or if it has any connection to modern Pentecostal tongues. It's clearly not a necessity of worship and often very divisive. I, personally, have doubts about whether there is any movement of the Spirit in it at all and am quite happy to be part of a denomination that doesn't include it as part of worship.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I don't see any evidence that the current practice of tongues is of the Holy Spirit. There's a distinct lack of historical record for anything like this until relatively recently.

You mean like musical worship bands and powerpoint and sanctuaries with stadium seating and the Book of Common Prayer and...?

[Shea Zellweger]

Wow, you scared me for minute there. There is an organization founded right here in New Bedford called "The International House of Prayer for All Peoples" it was founded by a man who went by the name of "Sweet Daddy Grace" he was fond of the saying that "You are saved by Grace, not of works lest any man boast." I was really glad to see that the KC organization didn't come from there!

You know how they give the offering to God at the IHOPfAP? "We throw the money up in the air. Whatever God wants, God keeps. Whatever come back down is Sweet Daddy's." I had a friend in college who apparently attended a few of Sweet Daddy's services.

[Ryan Scott]

You mean like musical worship bands and powerpoint and sanctuaries with stadium seating and the Book of Common Prayer and...?

Exactly.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Exactly.

I don't get what you're saying...

So because many groups who practice tongues go as far as to require it as evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit, we should say that nobody should do it? I've already said that I'm fine with saying together as the CotN, "This isn't our practice." I don't "get" tongues in more ways than one. But why go on denouncing it as unbiblical, unhistorical, and doubting its role in the Holy Spirit for all groups?

[Ryan Scott]

I don't get what you're saying...

So because many groups who practice tongues go as far as to require it as evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit, we should say that nobody should do it? I've already said that I'm fine with saying together as the CotN, "This isn't our practice." I don't "get" tongues in more ways than one. But why go on denouncing it as unbiblical, unhistorical, and doubting its role in the Holy Spirit for all groups?

I didn't say I was denouncing it. On the contrary, I'm happy for those groups who practice tongues as an orderly part of worship to continue to do so. It seems like some people want to give the current practice a scriptural mandate I don't believe it necessarily has. I don't see it as any different than the other practices of our worship we've introduced, like the list you provided. I don't have a problem with the way some groups practice tongues in their worship, but I am skeptical of its connection to 1 Corinthians or other early Church practices - and because of that skepticism I am glad to be a part of a denomination that does not engage in this particular practice.

[Shea Zellweger]

Should that happen to you or to me, truth character in you or me would then lead us to understand that the Lord probably would want us to disassociate with a denomination of people who've not received that gift, to become a part of a group that celebrates that gift.
Fair enough, but most of those denominations kinda creep me out :)

[Hans Deventer]

I don't get what you're saying...

So because many groups who practice tongues go as far as to require it as evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit, we should say that nobody should do it? I've already said that I'm fine with saying together as the CotN, "This isn't our practice." I don't "get" tongues in more ways than one. But why go on denouncing it as unbiblical, unhistorical, and doubting its role in the Holy Spirit for all groups?

Fear?

You know, I would not even mind all that much when we were open about it, but I hate how we have a good statement (we reject tongues as an evidence), but are in practice much more extreme than our official statement would warrant. And when people need to be confronted we wave with statements from the BoGS from 1976 and 2002. Rather dishonest, and thus quite unholy, in my view.

[David Parker]

This conversation fascinates me.

I started to multi-quote several posts, but ended up with far too many to write a reasonable reply. Instead, please allow me to ramble. I grew up Nazarene but have been among different varieties of 'tongue speakers' for ~35 years now. By necessity it is a subject I have studied and observed for many years. I think I have an informed perspective.

First, yes, there are some lunatics among them. Some real crazies. But they are a distinct minority. To judge such a huge segment of Christianity based on isolated or anecdotal 'horror stories' just isn't accurate. Someone mentioned that Pentecostal/Charismatic is the fastest growing branch of our faith, and that is true. What many don't realize is that roughly one half of all protestants and one quarter of all Christians worldwide are classified as Pentecostal/Charismatic. The size, influence, and growth of P/C is just staggering and I think they shouldn't just be dismissed as nutcases succumbing to peer pressure, self delusion, or baby talk.

There are lunatic fringe elements in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, and maybe even Holiness churches. :o But I believe that "abuse or misuse is no reason for disuse". We don't reject doctrine just because somebody perverts it, so why should we reject Spiritual Gifts just because some have abused or misunderstood them? Or just because they have lapsed into disuse for periods of time? Though contrary to an earlier claim, instances of Tongues have occurred throughout church history in a variety of circumstances. But there is no question that there has been an incredible 'revival' of such expressions in the last 100+ years.

So...is modern day 'Tongues' as experienced by folks today the same thing as the manifestation we see in Scripture? I don't see why not, and I'll explain why. The Acts 2 account of Pentecost is often cited as an example of folks supernaturally having the ability to speak in a tongue they never learned in order to bridge a language gap and preach the gospel to many nationalities. I submit that simply is not what the text says.

The crowd "...were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished...."we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God" They weren't preaching...they were praising God. And it didn't result in salvation, but in confusion: "...they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?" It was such a crazy moment that some "were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.” Sound familiar..."gibberish"?

Peter preached the message and he didn't do it in 'Tongues' because we have his sermon to read in Acts. But it was such a wild moment that Peter had to open his message with "...For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day;" And it was only after his message that they were saved: "Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart...what shall we do?”

So was the miracle in the hearing or in the speaking? Not sure it matters, but it does seem clear that they were rather wildly praising God, not preaching or teaching. Regardless, this is the only mention in scripture of Tongues being recognized as known languages. When the scene repeated itself in Caesarea (Acts 10) and Ephesus (Acts 19) the account says they all spoke in tongues yet there is no mention of recognized foreign language.

There is no scriptural account of this occurring at Corinth, yet we know they did from 1 Corinthians and there is no scriptural account detailing Paul's receipt of tongues, yet we know that he also spoke in tongues more than the Corinthians. (I Cor 14:18) Despite this, some could argue that it wasn't 'normative' but how can anyone argue it was rare or unusual?

To really understand the "Tongues" issue, we need to understand that for our P/C brethren, there are two completely different manifestations of this gift. One is the personal prayer language (related to a Baptism in the Holy Spirit) as seen in Acts 2, 10, & 19 and spoken of by Paul: "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries." I Cor 14:2 and "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also." I Cor 14:14-15

The second is a prophetic "message in Tongues" in an assembly. Rather than being a prayer or praise addressed to God, it is God speaking to his church. (1 Cor 14:26-33) This is what Ryan witnessed in his visit to an Assembly of God church. It is this gift that is limited by Paul to "two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret" and is not given to all.

I am not asking anyone to agree with P/C teaching or expression, but I do think it is helpful to understand it from the perspective of those that do believe and experience it. The challenge for "Tongues in the Nazarene Church" is Paul's closing instruction to "desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues." Of course for those that are convinced that Tongues ceased with the other Gifts of the Spirit and are no longer needed or valid today, then it doesn't matter, but for any of us that allow that the Gifts of the Spirit and a Baptism of the Holy Spirit (however you define it) are still available to us today, it would probably do well for us to not so lightly dismiss the experiences of such a significant segment of our faith.

[Jim Chabot]

You know how they give the offering to God at the IHOPfAP? "We throw the money up in the air. Whatever God wants, God keeps. Whatever come back down is Sweet Daddy's." I had a friend in college who apparently attended a few of Sweet Daddy's services.

Well, he did actually have a suit made entirely from money. His heirs later, took it apart and spent it on drugs. Our church was originally non denominational, Pastor Chavier took on the Nazarene flag partly to distance himself from Daddy Grace.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Dave Parker, thank you, for your post. Several great points, and especially the spirit in which clearly comes through.

Our willingness to let the work of the Holy Spirit in us continue to recognize one another as equal believers in God is far more important than those things that might be seen as distinctives by others. If there is a battle line drawn somewhere, we who are believers are on the same side of the line. Seems that we will be known as Christians by something other than the ways the Holy Spirit is manifested, or even by how we are gifted. I desire that His love is seen: it certainly is in your post.

[Susan Unger]

To really understand the "Tongues" issue, we need to understand that for our P/C brethren, there are two completely different manifestations of this gift. One is the personal prayer language (related to a Baptism in the Holy Spirit) as seen in Acts 2, 10, & 19 and spoken of by Paul: "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries." I Cor 14:2 and "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also." I Cor 14:14-15


For this and another reason, I am glad that the article on Entire Sanctification was tweaked some. Instead of only saying that it comes by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, it now adds Infilling of the Holy Spirit. This is an important point for me because to my P/C friends ES and B of the HS are two different things. ES is a process of growth in holiness while the Baptism of the HS accomplishes a different purpose [which you've mentioned above]. I have heard some Nazarenes get upset with some P/Cs for saying that the sign of the Baptism is speaking in tongues. But, I wonder why should we be upset over this when P/Cs don't even have see a connection between the two?

We don't have to agree with their understanding, but the way the article was formally written, I saw it as a hindrance in conversations with my P/C friends. But by using "infilling of the HS" I feel the conversation will be less confusing.

[David Troxler]

Susan, I would have hit the thank you button, but it doesn't seem to appear after your post. So, here it is in plain sight.
dave t

[David Parker]

For this and another reason, I am glad that the article on Entire Sanctification was tweaked some. Instead of only saying that it comes by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, it now adds Infilling of the Holy Spirit. This is an important point for me because to my P/C friends ES and B of the HS are two different things. ES is a process of growth in holiness while the Baptism of the HS accomplishes a different purpose [which you've mentioned above]. I have heard some Nazarenes get upset with some P/Cs for saying that the sign of the Baptism is speaking in tongues. But, I wonder why should we be upset over this when P/Cs don't even have see a connection between the two?

We don't have to agree with their understanding, but the way the article was formally written, I saw it as a hindrance in conversations with my P/C friends. But by using "infilling of the HS" I feel the conversation will be less confusing.

That's a great point.

There seems to be some significant disagreement, even among P/C groups about the "second blessing". The "gradual sanctification" and "separate subsequent work of grace for power and infilling" (Baptism of the Holy Spirit) seems to be most common among the Assembly of God, Foursquare, and Charismatics, but a "separate subsequent work of grace for entire sanctification" and yet another "second (or third?) subsequent Baptism of the Holy Spirit is commonly taught by the Church of God in Christ, Church of God - Cleveland, TN, and the Pentecostal Holiness folks.

In the history books I have read regarding the Holiness and Pentecostal movements the teaching (and experience) seemed to have varied a great deal as to how many "second works of grace" were embraced. Some groups claimed four or more "second works". Baptisms of Fire and such.

To add to my confusion, I used to think that the Church of the Nazarene taught that Entire Santification was considered to be the same as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (I believe the manual has/had language to that effect) but I have been informed here BC (before the Crash) that it is no longer considered the same thing by most Holiness theologians.

One more point (alluded to by others earlier in this thread) is the observation that some P/C churches seem to not be teaching/experiencing "the Baptism" like they used to. The difference I have seen in the P/C churches is that where the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not actively taught, sought, and ministered, the manifestation of Holy Spirit gifts are rarely witnessed. Not just Tongues, but Healing, Miracles, Prophecy, etc. Just 'believing in it' isn't enough. If new believers are not receiving and experiencing the "second blessing" the chuches slowly become more generically evangelical. My observation is that the larger, faster growing churches/ministries do teach and experience classic P/C "second blessing" Baptism and the subsequent Gifts.

I suspect a similar dynamic may be at work in the Holiness churches. How often is a "second blessing" taught and experienced in Nazarene churches now? How has this impacted the worship dynamic and church growth?

[Billy Cox]

Given the unpleasantness that has come as a result of this debate (I personally know at least two people who were denied ordination or licensing in the CotN because they confessed to speaking in tongues, and from what I've read they're far from the only ones), I think the BoGS would do well to say something more along the lines of what my own pastor once said- "we don't seek the gift, we don't place a special emphasis on the gift, but we don't reject it if God chooses to give it." It's that final portion that, at least as far as I can tell, is missing from "the statement."

The Church of the Nazarene is okay with tongues as long as you don't do it in the Church of the Nazarene... seems kind of like saying we're not okay with it.

[Ryan Scott]

The Church of the Nazarene is okay with tongues as long as you don't do it in the Church of the Nazarene... seems kind of like saying we're not okay with it.

Sort of like using real wine in communion?

[Billy Cox]

Billy, I wasn't commenting at all on whether it was a victory or a disaster. I was asking about Peter's role, "whether Peter had any choice in choosing Ananias' fate," as you put it. You seem to strongly believe that Peter had some choice in choosing it, and you say that you see that in the text. I'm looking at the text... and I don't understand how you're seeing it there. Could you help us see it, too?

When I read Peter's words in the text, I hear a pronouncement of judgment on both Ananias and Sapphira. He asks questions of both Ananias and Sapphira, but they aren't questions at all; they are like the judge asking a convicted murderer, "you're smart and you had so much promise, how did you go so bad?" right before sentencing him to lethal injection.

To be frank the whole 'I don't see that in the text' leaves me somewhat flabbergasted. So the text doesn't directly say that the Spirit killed them but do you think that the great fear that seized the church was the fear of spontaneous pulmonary embolism? I suppose that the OT writers did us a favor by letting us know when God struck people like Onan dead, but Luke leaves it to our imagination.

What *I* don't see in the text is Peter simply standing by passively as a couple of liars fall dead.

[Rich Schmidt]

When I read Peter's words in the text, I hear a pronouncement of judgment on both Ananias and Sapphira. He asks questions of both Ananias and Sapphira, but they aren't questions at all; they are like the judge asking a convicted murderer, "you're smart and you had so much promise, how did you go so bad?" right before sentencing him to lethal injection.

It's that Peter-sentencing-them-to-death part that I don't see in the text, Billy.


To be frank the whole 'I don't see that in the text' leaves me somewhat flabbergasted. So the text doesn't directly say that the Spirit killed them but do you think that the great fear that seized the church was the fear of spontaneous pulmonary embolism? I suppose that the OT writers did us a favor by letting us know when God struck people like Onan dead, but Luke leaves it to our imagination.

What *I* don't see in the text is Peter simply standing by passively as a couple of liars fall dead.
:confused:
Come on, Billy! You were the one who said you didn't think the Spirit wanted them dead. I acknowledged that the text doesn't say the Spirit killed them as a concession to your position!
:confused:

[Susan Unger]

There seems to be some significant disagreement, even among P/C groups about the "second blessing". The "gradual sanctification" and "separate subsequent work of grace for power and infilling" (Baptism of the Holy Spirit) seems to be most common among the Assembly of God, Foursquare, and Charismatics, ... In the history books I have read regarding the Holiness and Pentecostal movements the teaching (and experience) seemed to have varied a great deal as to how many "second works of grace" were embraced. Some groups claimed four or more "second works". Baptisms of Fire and such.
My friends’ churches are mostly A/G or Independent so the above is what I am used to hearing, though I have heard of the “3 works of grace” folks.

To add to my confusion, I used to think that the Church of the Nazarene taught that Entire Sanctification was considered to be the same as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (I believe the manual has/had language to that effect) but I have been informed here BC (before the Crash) that it is no longer considered the same thing by most Holiness theologians.. I was glad to read this as well, as it seems to make better sense to me. Hopefully, others beyond our theologians can be exposed to this. If we can have a common language on the subject, plus love and grace then maybe we can work on ending this rift between the different groups.

One more point (alluded to by others earlier in this thread) is the observation that some P/C churches seem to not be teaching/experiencing "the Baptism" like they used to. The difference I have seen in the P/C churches is that where the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not actively taught, sought, and ministered, the manifestation of Holy Spirit gifts are rarely witnessed. Not just Tongues, but Healing, Miracles, Prophecy, etc. Just 'believing in it' isn't enough. If new believers are not receiving and experiencing the "second blessing" the churches slowly become more generically evangelical. My observation is that the larger, faster growing churches/ministries do teach and experience classic P/C "second blessing" Baptism and the subsequent Gifts. Interesting. I had heard of that happening, but never saw it as my friends’ churches were definitely still preaching/teaching “The Baptism”.

I suspect a similar dynamic may be at work in the Holiness churches. How often is a "second blessing" taught and experienced in Nazarene churches now? How has this impacted the worship dynamic and church growth? I have heard similar thoughts expressed. I think it is a good point.
For my current church, I will say I don’t hear the number of sermons on “The Blessing” that I did when I was a kid but that is fine with me. I grew up with every third sermon I heard was on how I just had to be sinning so I needed to get sanctified. And those were always bizarre, emotionally manipulative sermons too. If the “Biggest Naz Fear” thread still existed I’d direct you to that for some great examples.
Thankfully, my pastor will use rational, creative approaches to the subject…and we get to hear sermons on the rest of the Bible not just on one topic all the time.

[Jim Chabot]

When I read Peter's words in the text, I hear a pronouncement of judgment on both Ananias and Sapphira. He asks questions of both Ananias and Sapphira, but they aren't questions at all; they are like the judge asking a convicted murderer, "you're smart and you had so much promise, how did you go so bad?" right before sentencing him to lethal injection.

To be frank the whole 'I don't see that in the text' leaves me somewhat flabbergasted. So the text doesn't directly say that the Spirit killed them but do you think that the great fear that seized the church was the fear of spontaneous pulmonary embolism? I suppose that the OT writers did us a favor by letting us know when God struck people like Onan dead, but Luke leaves it to our imagination.

What *I* don't see in the text is Peter simply standing by passively as a couple of liars fall dead.

Ok, but Peter appears to be in agreement with God who appears to have killed them. I can't view Peter as heavy handed when it appears the he and God were in agreement. Perhaps Peter was satisfied just to give them a good tongue lashing. Imagine his surprise as Ananias fell over! Of course being Peter he just had to try it again!

[Susan Unger]

Susan, I would have hit the thank you button, but it doesn't seem to appear after your post. So, here it is in plain sight.
dave t
Thanks. I am having my own problems with NN. It wouldn't let me post a reply to David's post so I had to copy his comments to Word, add my thoughts and then paste it back as a reply. And right now, it won't show what I am typing until I have typed a sentence. ANNOYING!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Billy Cox]

It's that Peter-sentencing-them-to-death part that I don't see in the text, Billy.

It's kind of a nuanced position really. Maybe Peter didn't cut their throats, but it's like Gandalf saying 'Saruman, your staff is broken' and then it breaks. :)

It's not a researched exegesis, but I wonder whether Peter's pronouncement activated the 'binding and loosing' clause in the disciple of Jesus contract.



:confused:
Come on, Billy! You were the one who said you didn't think the Spirit wanted them dead. I acknowledged that the text doesn't say the Spirit killed them as a concession to your position!
:confused:

Okay, I'm just not used to seeing concessions.