Monthly Archives: February 2005

Denominations and Differences

Posted on by
4

Pseudo-Polymath posted an intriguing challenge to defend the differences that cause Christians to split into many denominations. Believing one another’s views to be heretical is the most obvious cause for division, but on the whole most of the groups have come into being simply because they thought the others were defficient in one or more emphasis. The new movements have an unfortunate habit of not simply redressing the balance, but taking their particular favourite thing to the extreme and making it all important.

A lot also seems to rest on how our differences affect the way we corporately worship. For the most part, a premillenialist and a postmillenialist will be able to sing the same hymns and enjoy the same sermons. The trouble comes when one group wants to allow or enforce something (e.g. head covering, speaking in tongues, women preaching, infant baptism, dancing) that another group wants to prohibit.

I have been studying 1 Corinthians recently. They get a lot of bad press for their divisions – “I follow Paul, I follow Apollos” etc. But at least there was just one church in Corinth. The Apollos crowd hadn’t started their own church. It is all too easy these days to walk out on one another and go down the road where we like the emphasis better. This positively encourages unbalanced churches as like minds gather together and congratulate themselves on being the only ones who have got it right.

Rey from Bible Archive has written some helpful thoughts on this, and has suggested that for him, regular breaking of bread, plurality of elders, multiplicity of gifts and “the financial support only by those who are in fellowship with one another” are the key distinctives he looks for (I am not entirely sure what he is getting at with the last one). Similarly, Adrian Warnock lists some of the distinctives of New Frontiers, a group of which I am part of also. As pseudo-polymath says, it would be great if more people could consisely and graciously define and defend some of the distictive emphases of their group. It may well spur the rest of us to be catalysts for change within our own church groupings to make sure that we are not unbalanced. At the very least it might reduce some of the ignorant caricaturing of one another.

Book Review – The Message of John’s Letters (David Jackman)

Posted on by
3

John’s letters, says Jackman, contain simple vocabulary but profound theology. In his introduction he makes a case for the apostle John as the author of these letters along with the gospel of John. The first letter intends to deal with the problem of the Gnostic false teachers who were vaunting their ‘anointing’ and ‘knowledge’. 1 John stands as a warning against knowing without doing. “Belief and behaviour” and “truth and love” are the major themes.

The commentary is broken into 20 short chapters, each dealing with a few verses. The last two chapters deal with 2 and 3 John respectively and are therefore slightly longer. The NIV text is included at the start of each chapter which is a useful feature that I wish more commentaries had (it’s very impractical to have a Bible and a commentary when reading in the bath). Jackman is willing to discuss issues of translation and Greek on occasions but it is never overly technical. He is also an appreciator of hymns, quoting them on regular occasions throughout the book. He has a good way with words, and at no point did I feel the book got bogged down with too many comments on one individual verse. As with all the New Testament BST volumes, there is a study guide at the end, which has a couple of (thankfully not patronising) questions on each chapter.

As he moves through the first letter, Jackman slowly deals with some of the heresies of the false teachers: their denial of the incarnation, their heretical views about Christ, their claims to perfectionism, their elite holier-than-thou attitude because of their special knowledge and their claiming to speak on behalf of God. Jackman shows how John counters these with affirmations of truth about Jesus and teaching about fighting sin. While the author hints that he can think of a few groups in the contemporary church that tend towards the same errors, he diplomatically avoids direct comparisons.

Love is a major theme of the book and the sections on how much God loves us as well as some practical teaching on how we love others are most valuable. The challenge to love one another is clearly spelled out, as it constitutes the irrefutable evidence of the new birth. Particularly excellent is the discussion of how love and obedience work together, and the way he shows that, for John, love is not merely a duty but a characteristic of real Christianity. The theme of truth is also clearly close to Jackman’s heart as he regularly stresses the importance of sound doctrine.

The chapters on 2 and 3 John both begin with a short discussion of authorship, both arguing for John again on stylistic grounds. In his comments on 2 John, Jackman talks about John’s concern for truth, particularly now that almost all the first apostles had died. He describes the competing trends in the church to either go for ‘new ideas’ or ‘old traditions’, neither of which is intrinsically right or wrong, but argues that the desire for ‘biblical truth’ should be paramount.

The chapter on 3 John is not surprisingly structured around the three men mentioned in the letter: Gaius who was welcoming and supportive, Diotrophes with his self-centred ambition and Demetrius the good example. The lessons they each teach the modern church are as important now as ever.

How Important is the Gift of Tongues?

Posted on by
2

Commentators are almost unanimous in their analysis of 1 Corinthians 14 (and the preceding two chapters) that Paul is in some way rebuking the Corinthians for an over-emphasis on the gift of tongues. It was central in their thinking and their meetings. Paul responds by effectively saying “If you want to make a big deal of one spiritual gift, then prophecy would have been a better choice, and in any case, the foundational mark of spirituality is not any of the gifts, but in showing love”.

Paul was clearly a tongues speaker, as he claims in 1 Cor 14:18 that “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you”. This is a surprising claim, given what we can deduce about how much the Corinthians seemed to be using the gift. Whilst Paul may be utilising hyperbole here, the point remains that he used this gift extensively. But from verse 19, we see that he clearly has private use in mind. This does not prove that he never spoke in tongues in a public meeting, but it does indicate that his main use of the gift was for his personal edification. In any case, Paul’s primary contribution in many meetings was doubtless teaching, and he presumably was glad to allow others to contribute in prophecy or tongues.

Paul has much to say in praise of tongues – they edify the speaker (14:4) and can edify the church if accompanied with the gift of interpretation (14:6). Most significantly, in verse 5 he says that “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues”. For many charismatics this is enough evidence for them to teach every Christian that they should keep seeking God until they get this gift. However, the sentence does not end there – Paul recommends prophecy as an even better option. Furthermore, earlier in 1 Cor 7:7 Paul has spoken of his desire that everyone shared his gift of celibacy!

So we conclude that this gift is valuable, but not essential. Those who desire help in their personal prayer lives and want to be edified (which is surely all of us) would benefit greatly from it. But given Paul’s insistence in chapter 12 on the diversity of the Spirit, it would be silly to imagine that everyone needs to follow exactly the same route to personal edification. That not all the Corinthians possessed this gift is strongly indicated by the rhetorical question of 12:30 and the implication of 14:5 (which is interesting to note, since 12:13 indicates that he did believe them all to have been baptised in the Holy Spirit – hence we cannot make tongues a required evidence of this experience).

But if Paul has much praise for tongues, he also seems to deprecate the gift in places. He is not simply content to pray or sing with his spirit in verse 15, he wants to pray with his mind also. He makes essentially the same point four times in a row in verses 2-6 that prophecy is preferable to tongues in the meetings. The most striking statement comes in verse 19 where he says that “in church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue”.

Some have taken this verse to indicate that in Paul’s opinion, tongues are purely for personal use, and are best kept out of public meetings. But this goes beyond what he has said. He has indicated that they can bring the same considerable benefit as prophecy if there is an interpretor present (v5). They are included in the list of things that “must be done for the strengthening of the church” in verse 26. And in verse 27, most tellingly, although he places limits on the use of the gift (one at a time, no more than two or three) he clearly expects that after heeding his rebukes in this letter, the gift will continue to be used in a public context. Exactly the same restrictions are placed upon the prophetic gift (v29), the very gift Paul has been encouraging the use of.

A brief comment is appropriate on the gift of interpretation, which is in many ways as mysterious as the gift of tongues itself. Paul is not criticising the use of tongues per se, but the fact that there were a number of uninterpreted tongues in their meetings (perhaps because the people who typically interpreted were not present on some occasions – see v28). He took a dim view of this situation as it provided no benefit whatsoever to the hearers. It only benefited the speaker, and hence was at best selfish and at worst shameless self-promotion.

So how important exactly, is the gift of tongues? If it is said that modern charismatics tend to overestimate the importance of this gift, then it must also be admitted that noncharismatics tend to underestimate it. To summarise the teaching of this chapter on the value of the gift of tongues:

1. Tongues greatly benefits the speaker in personal use
2. Tongues can benefit the church as much as prophecy, but only when an interpretation follows
3. A person with the gift of tongues may quite appropriately speak in praise of it and encourage others to desire it
4. No one however should insist that others exclusively seek or use one particular gift, but acknowledge that the Spirit gives a variety of gifts to the body of Christ
5. Sensible limitations on the gift should be exercised in public meetings so that it does dominate at the expense of other contributions (which include prophecies, teaching and hymns)
6. Those addressing the entire meeting should resist the temptation to speak in tongues if they do not intend to seek an interpretation.

Commentaries Update

Posted on by
Reply

I have been updating my commentaries database slowly over the last few weeks. There should be publication dates and links to the publishers websites for just about everything now, and you can choose for the ISBNs to link to Amazon UK or US. The US site tends to have more reviews and usually also allows you to “look inside”, which is a nice feature.

I have also added the Blacks, Hermenia, New Testament and Old Testament Library and Interpretation series, which more or less completes all the series I plan to track on the page. I will add some more individual commentaries over time. I have also now got ISBN links to both the UK and US versions of commentaries that are published separately. The US versions are often much cheaper, but not always available here in the UK.

Book Review – Showing the Spirit (D A Carson)

Posted on by
8

This is the second time I have read and reviewed this book. The first review was fairly short, so this will be the “in depth” version, giving me opportunity to interact with some of Carson’s observations. For the most part, it is a study of 1 Corinthians 12-14, reading in many ways like a commentary, but with a specific intent of shedding some light on the issue of the charismatic movement. Carson does go into a fair amount of exegetical depth, and expects readers to be comfortable with frequent discussions of the Greek text.

The introduction is brief and is aimed at explaining the current tensions in evangelicalism over the “charismatic” gifts. Carson briefly introduces the charismatic and noncharismatic positions, and somewhat humorously (and sadly also very accurately) explains the stereotyped opinions each of these two polarised groups hold with concerning the other.

The key to understanding the second half of 1 Corinthians is finding out what the issues they raised in their letter to Paul were. He proposes that one of their key concerns was “what are the signs of a spiritual person?”, with each faction (maybe even a charismatic and noncharismatic one) wanting him to answer with their own particular shibboleth (tongues speaking, prophecy, working miracles, giving to the poor or whatever). Into this situation Paul responds by emphasising that gifts are given by grace (charismata), and that gifts are diverse yet all given by the one Spirit.

As he moves onto the second half of chapter 12, where Paul uses the body to illustrate the importance of valuing all the diverse gifts, Carson goes on the offensive against two views held by some charismatics. The first is that of baptism in the Spirit as a “second blessing” – that is, an experience entered into some time after conversion. He argues that it is not taught in this text – it has to be read into it. He spends some time on verse 13, to show that this refers to baptism in the Spirit (as opposed to say Lloyd-Jones’ view that it is baptism by the Spirit into the body) and that Paul thought that all Christians had received it. Therefore he concludes that it must be coincident with conversion.

Unfortunately he doesn’t interact with the view of Pawson that the baptism in the Spirit was normally a distinct element within conversion (like water baptism), but could sometimes be missed out due to defective teaching. Thus the idea that there were Christians who had not received the baptism of the Spirit would have astonished Paul. Carson only mentions a variation on this view which is dismissed as “special pleading”. He concludes the brief discussion on the idea of the baptism in the Spirit as a secondary experience to conversion by simply telling us that the view has been refuted comprehensively elsewhere (e.g. Stott on Baptism and Fullness).

The second view Carson rejects is the common Pentecostal teaching that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is always evidenced by the gift of tongues. He argues that this is precisely the sort of imbalanced esteem of one gift above the others that Paul is countering in this passage.

As he arrives in chapter 13, he demonstrates that this section on love is not an irrelevant excursus but integral to Paul’s overall argument. He first takes time to cast doubt on some ingenious interpretations of 12:31 which turn Paul’s comments about eagerly desiring the greater gifts into a rebuke. Much of chapter 13 is thankfully not contentious in terms of its application, but as he reaches the verse on the future cessation of tongues and prophecy he sets out the variety of interpretations in some detail. He strongly argues against the traditional cessationist position that sees the charismatic gifts as ceasing upon completion of the canon (or at the end of the apostolic age). Rather, “that which is perfect” refers to the parousia. He does however point out that while 1 Cor 13:8 does not teach cessation it does not deny it either, and he also notes that it is the prophetic gifts that remind us most clearly that we are still living in the “not yet”.

There are two chapters on 1 Corinthians 14, and the first deals with the controversial issue of defining the gifts. Tongues are treated first and Carson asks whether they are to be understood as cognitive (that is they are real languages) or simply verbalisations of inward feelings. He reports that linguistic studies of tongues detect no grammar or syntax is detected in the modern phenomenon, which is not in itself particularly controversial, but when he states that the evidence is in favour of tongues being cognitive languages, he realises that this casts doubt on the contemporary charismatic claim to have this gift. Perhaps then in charity, he suggests a somewhat ingenious third option that tongues is like a coded message.

As for modern charismatic interpretations of tongues, Carson seems distinctly unimpressed, quoting some very unfavourable assessments and documents some tests where the same recorded tongue was interpreted differently. He even seems quite pleased with the story of someone deliberately embarrassing a charismatic church by posing as a tongues speaker but actually reciting John 1 in Greek. I found this approach to the gift of interpretation rather unusual, as though it should be ‘provable’ with scientific experiments. He does however raise an important point that charismatics are reluctant to address. What criteria are there for determining whether a tongue or an interpretation are indeed genuine, or do we simply accept everything unquestioningly?

Apostles are next up, and he simply claims that there were special apostles (the 12 plus Paul) and all other people who are referred to as apostles in the New Testament are cases of the word being used in a non-technical sense. He may be right, but it seems to me to be a case of choosing the meaning of apostle in each case it is used based upon a prior commitment to a particular view, something he is normally careful to avoid. He does not address the issue of whether some kind of apostolic oversight, particularly in the realm of church planting, might be desirable today.

In dealing with prophecy, Carson readily acknowledges Grudem’s significant contribution in this area, and indicates that he broadly agrees with it. In particular, the perceived threat to the canon is dealt with by arguing for a lesser authority on the part of New Testament prophets than that which the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles enjoyed. He does not however discuss the surely fact that these people also said and prophesied much that was not Holy Scripture in their lives.

Getting back to the text of 1 Cor 14, Carson argues that Paul’s concern is to evaluate the relative, not absolute, merits of prophecy and tongues (which the Corinthians may have thought of as simply two forms of prophecy). He makes some good points on “I would that you all spoke in tongues” (14:5), noting first that this implies some non-tongues speakers in the church and secondly, drawing a parallel with 1 Cor 7:7 should not be taken to imply that in an ideal church everyone would speak in tongues. He also shows from verses 18 and 19 Paul’s strong endorsement of the private use of tongues alongside his intention to rarely if ever use it in public – two points that are seldom put together by either charismatics or noncharismatics.

The second chapter Carson writes on 1 Cor 14 is dominated by surveying the options in some extremely difficult passages. He discusses no fewer than seven possible meanings of tongues being a sign for unbelievers, and there are a similar variety of possible understandings of the instruction that women to be silent, where he indicates his preference for the idea that this prohibition relates to the oral weighing of prophecies.

Carson closes this section of the book with some useful observations on how the prophetic gift, whilst being revelatory, was still subject to the authority of apostolic teaching. He also discusses the tension between the ideas of meetings full of contributions and those where recognised leaders and teachers provide a substantial part of the public speaking. He suggests that both models are biblical and we should seek to provide avenues for both to be expressed.

Carson’s final chapter is the most ambitious. He attempts to develop a theology of spiritual gifts based not only on the preceding exegesis but also on the accounts in Acts of baptism in the Spirit, tongues and prophecy. He concludes that the tongues in Acts 2 were real languages, and the command to wait is not to be considered as normative, nor can it be deduced that everyone baptised with the Spirit must speak in tongues. Carson follows many noncharismatics in detecting special and non-repeatable circumstances in Acts 8, 10 and 19, arguing the need to forge a link with the Samaritans, the demonstration that the Gentiles didn’t need to become Jewish proselytes, and falling through a gap between two dispensations. The underlying assumptions of Paul’s question in Acts 19:2 are not discussed, and I couldn’t help feeling that having accused the charismatics of “special pleading” in 1 Cor 12:13, now it is Carson himself who is allowing himself a good deal of freedom.

He is particularly concerned to show that baptism in the Spirit as a secondary experience to conversion is not normative (though forced to acknowledge that it did happen on more than one occasion). He laments the charismatics’ “uncontrolled” hermeneutics in the book of Acts, but does concede that for Luke “the Spirit does not simply inaugurate the new age and then disappear; rather, he characterizes the new age”. Carson does briefly take his eyes off the Pentecostal view of the baptism in the Spirit to engage with Lloyd-Jones’ view, acknowledging that his emphasis on seeking to encounter God was helpful, but rejecting his exegesis.

The final section evaluating the charismatic movement makes painful reading for charismatics. The negatives far outweigh the positives, although he indicates a more generous attitude to the Vineyard movement. The anecdotes chosen typically reveal charismatics as either mean-spirited and divisive, or gullible and self-deceived. In his view the charismatics are characterised by seriously defective theology on healing, abuses of authority, inane prophetic utterances, sensationalism and triumphalism. For the record, the positives he does find are increased expectation for God to act, commitment to evangelism, and promotion of lay ministry. He is quite gracious about it, but essentially the charismatics have nothing to offer that a good noncharismatic church does not already have.

He makes an important point in suggesting that actually some of the so-called charismatic gifts may be more in evidence in noncharismatic than we might expect. I would agree that there are examples of healings, faith and prophetic preaching in noncharismatic circles. However, when discussing how a church might deal with having members of both persuasions, the solution seems to be mainly in terms of the noncharismatics promising not to be unkind to the charismatics if they in turn will promise to keep their gifts to themselves. This seems to fly in the face of all Paul has said in 1 Cor 12. A theoretical door of opportunity is of course open for them to be used, but in reality most Christians will not feel free to prophecy or speak in a tongue in a church that never uses these gifts and never teaches on their benefits and how they are to be exercised.

So what has Carson achieved in this important book? He has dealt powerful (and in my view, decisive) blows against both a cessationist view on one hand, and a second blessing always attested by tongues view on the other. I am disappointed though that he did not deal with the idea that the baptism in the Spirit might be a distinct element within conversion, and particularly surprised that he does not discuss the evidence for a definite experience of the Spirit – which is not exclusively found in Acts.

There are few meaningful correctives to noncharismatics – he doesn’t even entertain the possibility that such a church might consider seeking God for the gift of prophecy. For the charismatics, there is much to learn. The need for greater exegetical care is urgent, although I suspect that this point is not questioned by any charismatics who have taken the trouble to read a book like this. The chief lessons are in the areas of tongues, prophecy and healing.

First, charismatics repeatedly emphasise tongues well beyond the Biblical warrant, and if they were to get this in check could well win over a lot more noncharismatic friends. As Carson points out, the Holy Spirit has undeniably moved in great power many times in history without this particular gift being prominent. Also, the tendency to endorse the teaching of any minister simply because he is a tongues speaker is ridiculous.

Second, there needs to be a determination to seek to test prophecy, and curb the “anything goes” tendency where people’s “visions” and “words of knowledge” turn out to be bizarre, inane, or downright wrong. There is also an urgent need for for being abundantly clear on its subordination to Scripture (both in terms of authority and emphasis).

Finally, a charismatic doctrine of healing is needed that does not make preposterous claims or ignore the substantial teaching of the Scriptures on suffering. False and exaggerated claims of healing should be considered absolutely unacceptable.

In conclusion then, this his a highly significant work that Christians of all persuasions would do well to read. Carson has researched his subject matter thoroughly, as is attested by the comprehensive bibliography at the end of the book. Charismatics who approach this book humbly will learn a lot from it, and maybe one day will be able to respond with some similarly biblically grounded exhortations for their noncharismatic brothers to consider.