Church Search
I paid a visit this past sunday to Metro Church Ministries. It was smallish, and seemingly-- judging from the sign out front --nondenominational, and I knew someone who claimed membership there. He's still there.
There was nothing wrong with the message; it was as Baptist as any baptist preacher I have heard. But there was tongues... and dancing.
As to tongues:
1-- It's scriptural, yet it is given by the Holy Spirit for the enlargement of the Church; the Bride of Christ.
2-- It is not-- as I've heard some call it --the "Unknown Tongue," or the "Heavenly Language." We can argue that point later. 1 Cor 12:10 speaks of...
"...divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues;"
Kinds of tongues, as in "many different," as in German, Korean, Polynesian, Vietnamese... Kinds of tongues.
1 Cor 14 however, does speak of the proper use of an 'unknown' tongue...
"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him.... He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself..."
It is for self-edification.
Tongues in preaching is always described as a means by which those hearing the word being preached might understand the message; for with the use of this gift, language ceases to be a barrier to understanding.
3-- Paul clearly admonished the Church about its use, offering guidelines as to when, where and how.
As to Dancing:
1-- It looked silly, and was distracting. Nor can I find anything scriptural to back up its use, unless we look to David's precessional dance before the Ark of the Covenant in 2 Samuel 6:14-16, but please note the reaction of others to David's leaping and dancing... in verse 16 it says,
"...Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart."
2-- It looked silly.
But as to the Message:
No flies on Frank here. The pastor was on target.
What I came away with:
From Mark 2:1-12... The man sick of the Palsy was not healed because of any faith he had, but because of the faith of them that carried him and lowered him through the roof that they might get their friend to Jesus. God isn't limited by our faith or lack thereof. Whether or not we are healed has little bearing on the amount of faith we have. The faith of others can bring healing, even when our faith has gone bone-dry.
There was nothing wrong with the message; it was as Baptist as any baptist preacher I have heard. But there was tongues... and dancing.
As to tongues:
1-- It's scriptural, yet it is given by the Holy Spirit for the enlargement of the Church; the Bride of Christ.
2-- It is not-- as I've heard some call it --the "Unknown Tongue," or the "Heavenly Language." We can argue that point later. 1 Cor 12:10 speaks of...
"...divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues;"
Kinds of tongues, as in "many different," as in German, Korean, Polynesian, Vietnamese... Kinds of tongues.
1 Cor 14 however, does speak of the proper use of an 'unknown' tongue...
"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him.... He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself..."
It is for self-edification.
Tongues in preaching is always described as a means by which those hearing the word being preached might understand the message; for with the use of this gift, language ceases to be a barrier to understanding.
3-- Paul clearly admonished the Church about its use, offering guidelines as to when, where and how.
As to Dancing:
1-- It looked silly, and was distracting. Nor can I find anything scriptural to back up its use, unless we look to David's precessional dance before the Ark of the Covenant in 2 Samuel 6:14-16, but please note the reaction of others to David's leaping and dancing... in verse 16 it says,
"...Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart."
2-- It looked silly.
But as to the Message:
No flies on Frank here. The pastor was on target.
What I came away with:
From Mark 2:1-12... The man sick of the Palsy was not healed because of any faith he had, but because of the faith of them that carried him and lowered him through the roof that they might get their friend to Jesus. God isn't limited by our faith or lack thereof. Whether or not we are healed has little bearing on the amount of faith we have. The faith of others can bring healing, even when our faith has gone bone-dry.
from the mind of... Eric | 11:00 AM
7 Comments:
La-lamma-lah-loo, la-lamma-lah-lee! Yakayakayaka-woowoo.
That's pretty much what it sounded like. No discernible sentence structure, and too rhythmic... just a cacophony of syllabic jibberish.
I'm not criticizing, however... it just doesn't make sense to me.
Tongues were first used, I believe, in the Acts of the apostles, when Jews from all over the known world were in Jerusalem for the Passover celebration. Tongues were necesary at that time to convey the Gospel to the Jews from other parts of the world, in their own language. That was the only reason for speaking in tongues at the time and should be the only reason today. They are no longer needed.
Here's a point: The Early Christians who were witnessing to the Jews there didn't speak in other tongues. The miracle was that the Jews heard them in their own language.
Today is the one year anniversary of my blog. Be sure to visit on this special occassion.
Mark,
I don't believe it is for us to determine that tongues "are no longer needed."
The Apostle Paul clearly describes speaking in tongues as among the gifts of the believers.
Granted, when writing to the church in Corinth, he says there are greater gifts than speaking in tongues, and that tongues should be interpreted to benefit those who do not understand.
But Paul says he speaks in tongues more than most others. And the practice is not described as a means to deliver the Gospel to other nations. Rather, it is part of a worship service.
In 1st Corinthians, 14: 39-40, Paul writes:
"Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order." (KJV for my friends here.)
The Book of Acts CLEARLY describes the gift of tongues as a means for evangelizing, especially since it's a safe bet that Peter and the others in the upper room did not speak much more than Aramaic, and a smattering of Greek and Latin. The point is, everyone there heard Peter in his/her own language. That is a miracle of God, and a gift of the Holy Spirit.
That the gift of tongues is later described as having an additional use in worship should be thought of as being... "in addition to" its primary use.
Tongues were FIRST used as a means by which everyone who had ears to hear, would hear... and understand... the Gospel.
And I also believe the gift of tongues as described in the Book of Acts is still in use today.
Another perspective on the Why and Wherefore of the Gift of Tongues on the Day of Pentecost:
At Babel God countered Satan's efforts to build up a throne to Heaven itself by scrambling the tongues. But on the Day of Pentecost, rather than abolish the miracle He performed at Babel, He chose instead to work around it. By allowing anyone who heard Peter and the others preach the Gospel... to hear what these poor religious Jews said-- by the power of the Holy Spirit --in their own language, God's will in language diversity was both maintained, AND made to be no barrier at all.
Peter and the other Disciples spoke in their own language... but by the power of the Holy Spirit, the foreigners in Jerusalem (and later in other cities) heard what was preached in their own language.
The so-called "unknown tongue," as 1 Corinthians 14 states, is good only for self-edification... unless there is someone to interpret.
Post a Comment
<< Home