Other "Thinking Drafts" and writing by Keith Drury -- http://www.indwes.edu/tuesday .

 TONGUES. . . Is there a middle ground?

Few recent issues have produced so much conflict, dissension and division in the church of late. It's hard to stay in the middle of the road on this one. In most churches and denominations you either are 'for 'em or against 'em.' Division does that sort of thing—pushes people further over to one or the other edge. And there is often only a narrow strip of middle ground, right smack in the middle of the road—and that's where you'll likely get shot at from both sides, which is what this column will bring. But, I ask, can we find a middle ground on this issue?

What are the two sides? In the ditch, off on one side of the road are those infected with a good case of 'Charis-mania.' They speak in tongues every chance they get and insist that everyone else join them. And, off in the other ditch are the 'charis-phobics,' who are absolutely terrorized by any sign of tongues-speaking and are committed to stamp them out and drive Charismatics into the sea. [OK, I know there is a difference between Pentecostal, charismatic, and tongues-speakers... don't write me on that, but that's beyond my purpose here.] Consider both ditches along side of the road:

Off on one side, are those infected with extreme charis-mania . . . they've fallen in love with speaking in tongues and believe it to be the master experience of religious life. These individuals might even insist that speaking in tongues is the great secret to powerful and victorious living. Or, that tongues-speaking is the only possible sign that a Christian is really Spirit-filled. To them, you either speak in tongues like they do, or you're not filled with the Spirit, period.

Those overtaken by charis-mania cite scriptural cases in the book of Acts where tongues-speaking and Spirit-filling are associated: at Pentecost, at Corneilus' house in Ceasarea, in Ephesus, and perhaps even implied in Samaria when Peter visited Philip's ministry. Where charis-mania prevails, you'll hear arguments that you can't be filled with the Spirit unless you have this one single master evidence—speaking in tongues. But the real radicals are found in those who assert that you are not even saved unless you speak in tongues. Yikes!

The Charis-mania extreme refuses to quietly enjoy their own religious experiences in private. They want everyone else to have exactly the same ecstatic experiences they've had. They become 'evangelistic' about persuading others to speak in tongues. And, this is where the trouble starts. Once any individual's religious experience becomes the standard for others, dissension, strife, and division are not far off.

The route to division and strife in a church often follows a familiar pattern: First, I claim some sort of personal, religious experience unique and powerful and special. Soon, I want others to have the same thing, so I testify privately about how wonderful this experience has been for me—what a difference it has made in my life! Soon I find myself 'recruiting' others to get what I have.

If they do get it, two or three of us might start meeting together, perhaps in a Bible study. After all, we increasingly have much more in common with each other, than with the rest of the church. Our group is so stimulating we begin inviting others to join us. Some do. Others get suspicious. We soon develop a burden for 'the rest of the church'—which seems so shallow and lacking in power—even the pastor. We begin praying for the pastor, (and the rest of the church) that they too will 'get the power' like we have. Based on our new found spiritual pizazz, we just can't understand why the pastor seems so bland. 'If he could just get a good case of what we have, then this church would really take off.'

Gradually an attitude of spiritual superiority infects our group. Increasingly we consider ourselves to be the 'true church.' Some people try to correct this, but we interpret their attempt as 'persecution,' assuming they want to stamp out the Holy Spirit's work. We begin grieving at the 'spiritually dead leadership' of the church. We finally feel sadly compelled to leave, go somewhere else, or start our own church.

Isn't this how it happens sometimes? Ask me, I know. I come from the 'Holiness movement' who spread like wildfire about a hundred years ago, pulling people out of Methodist churches just like this, not over tongues, but over 'entire sanctification." What starts out as a personal religious experience can wind up splitting a congregation in the end. People are hurt. Some get bitter. Nobody feels good about the whole affair, including God.

Anywhere this sort of thing has happened, and there are plenty of churches who have experienced it, an increasing number of folk rush over to the other extreme:

These folk wind up off the other side of the road - they are terrified of anything related to the Charismatic movement in any way. They especially fear 'borderline Charismatics,' as they call them. This group not only opposes speaking in tongues, but wants no part of any worship style with 'Charismatic tendencies.' They say, 'if you give 'em an inch they'll take a mile.'

Charis-phobics enjoy pointing out prideful attitudes among Charismatics, especially those who left their church, and even seem to rejoice when a popular Charismatic leader falls into sin—pointing out that tongues-speaking apparently didn't help them live a holy life after all.

Charis-phobics want to keep a neat churchful of people just like themselves. Sometimes they feel compelled to assign themselves to 'search and destroy' missions around the church, in order to discover and eliminate any Charismatic 'leaven.' They sometimes tell these folk, 'you'll simply feel more comfortable in another church - certainly *we* will feel more comfortable if you leave.'

Charis-phobics see singing with raised hands, verbal shouts like, 'Amen' or 'Hallelujah,' worship choruses, clapping in services, or elongated standing-up-praise-times as signs 'we're going Charismatic.' Figuring that the best way to avoid Charismatic extremes is to steer as far as possible to the other side of the road, they resist the introduction of anything which even originated in the Charismatic movement.

This group fears Charismatics so much that they remind others that tongues could be 'of the Devil,' citing Bible illustrations like Pharoah's magicians who were able to perform miracles using Satan's power. They are quick to sense a Charismatic conspiracy under foot, and are the first to suggest 'we need to get control of this before it spreads.' They enjoy telling others that tongues-speaking is common in some cults and non-Christian religions, satisfyingly assuming they have proven its satanic origins.

As soon as someone with 'Charismatic leanings' starts attending church, the charis-phobic lookouts begin raising the alarm, 'watch out, sooner or later they'll split this church.' Charis-phobics delight in setting up scientific tests for Charismatics like, 'if you've really got the gift, then record your tongues-speaking, and we'll take it to three different people with the gift of interpretation and see if their interpretation is identical.' They gleefully point out that there is no record that Jesus spoke in tongues, and the one New Testament church where it prevailed was the most sin-plagued, carnal, divided church of the New Testament. Charis-phobics forget that the enemy is the Enemy, not the Charismatics.

So, could there be a middle ground in all this? Is there a place we could meet which avoids the radical extremes of 'charis-mania,' yet stops short of running off the 'charis-phobic side of the road too? I suspect there is. And I don't occupy the middle ground on this. But I'm willing to talk about it. For a start, how about this as a discussion starter:

To deny it is to be unfaithful to the Bible. Tongues were not limited to Pentecost either, but occurred at other times as well. Granted, there are different kinds of tongues. The event at Pentecost seems to be a miracle of unlearned languages. In Corinthians the tongues was a kind of 'glossalaia' or unknown language. What occurred in Acts beyond Pentecost could have been either or both. But it would be dishonest to clip out the tongues sections of God's Word and toss them in the waste basket because we've already made up our minds on this. It's right there - as plain as the words in the Word.

They seem to be a miraculous incident designed to convince unbelievers, at least Paul told the Corinthians so. This experience was not to be some sort of spiritual Mountain Dew, designed to tickle one's spiritual innards. The post Pentecost tongues-speaking in Acts was primarily an 'echo effect' of Pentecost, used by God to affirm that the Holy Spirit was being poured out on a population far broader than just the Jerusalem Jews. A miracle sign to unbelievers seems to be a primary purpose, or to confirm that God accepted non-Jews too... it was not for personal stimulation and delight.

Each man heard the gospel in his own language. The miracle itself proved little—in fact, the crowd simply presumed the speakers were drunk. It was the gospel message which got through, in each person's own language, which brought 3,000 souls into the kingdom that day. Perhaps there should be more seeking of this kind of tongues today, or at least 'whatever it takes' to see three thousand conversions in a single service?

If other New Testament churches used tongues in their services I don't know about it. I do know about Corinth. In this church public tongues-speaking was a problem, and contributed to spiritual pride, disorder, and division. Paul, more concerned about the gospel than subsidiary issues, (he wouldn't even argue over baptism!) seems to permit the practice to continue in Corinth, though he severely limits it. He did not promote, or even mention the issue to any other churches that I can find.

We are not free to change the gospel, but churches, even entire denominations, are free to determine what they will and won't do in public services. If a church decides they'll use primarily choruses in worship, fine. If another sticks with hymns, that's fine too. If a church wants to have services where they sing an hour, run the aisles, toss their hats in the air, 'get blessed' or warble like birds, have at it. If another church chooses not to do these things, that's fine too. In my mind, all any church is 'required' to do is practice the sacraments and preach the gospel. Beyond that, they've got a right to design its own worship practices including or excluding this or that based on their own cultural, theological, and traditional preferences.

Who will dictate what someone says or does in their private prayer closet? Will you? Not me. Even the Pope won't do that. Pray any way you want, as far as I am concerned. The trouble here is not what you do in your private prayer closet, but what you say when you come out. Remember Jesus' rules for private prayer? He taught us to pray in secret, then make sure nobody knew about it. To Jesus, private prayer was so personal and intimate that we are to keep it to ourselves—so much so that we are to be a bit deceptive - to pretend we weren't doing it at all! If someone prays with agonizing groans, in a falsetto voice, sings their prayers, lies prostrate in the cellar, or prays with a language I don't recognize, what is that to me if they keep it to themselves when they come out? What am I going to do, end inspectors to their prayer closet? To me, the problem isn't how a person prays in private—but how they might broadcast it later that causes trouble. Does this make sense?

7. The Gospel is the middle ground. Christians have a tremendous capacity to get off track and preoccupied with less-than-primary things. Paul recognized this and warned us repeatedly that the central issue is to 'preach Christ and Him crucified.' When anything else pushes its way into the center, the cross of Christ gets shoved out of the way. The cross is the central issue, not choruses, clapping, hand-raising, or how a person prays in private. When anything is elevated above the cross, we can be dangerously close to idolatry.

I've got more than 500 charismatic readers of this column. You know I am not a charismatic. But it seems to me that there's got to be a 'middle ground' somewhere on this matter. At least for us non-charismatic churches. Shouldn't more of us try to find it? That's what I think.

So what do you think?

To contribute to the thinking on this issue e-mail your response to Tuesday@indwes.edu