The Rev. Dennis J. Bennett, for one, is sure the explosion is on the way; last week he took up new duties in Seattle at St. Luke's Episcopal Church as the direct result of his interest in glossolalia. London-born Father Bennett, 42, a graduate of Chicago Theological Seminary (Congregational) who later became an Episcopalian, was assigned to St. Mark's Church in Van Nuys, Calif, in 1953. Last October he agreed to meet with some members of a fellow minister's church who had found themselves beginning to speak in tongues. First he was surprised to find that they were neither far-out types nor emotionally unbalanced; then he discovered that he had the "gift" himself and that the experience was "enriching."
Father Bennett brought the idea into his own parish—and began to run into trouble. Of his 2,000 parishioners, he says, some 700 developed a positive, sympathetic interest—"they included the junior warden and the chairman of the women's guild. They were about equally divided between men and women, and there was a large number of couples. The group included a Ph.D. and a brain surgeon." But conservative Episcopalians were shocked. In April the vestry asked Pastor Bennett for his resignation, and Bishop Francis Eric Bloy of Los Angeles sent St. Mark's a new priest and a pastoral letter banning any more speaking in tongues under church auspices.
Father Bennett has no plans to get glossolalia going again in his new post, a small missionary church, but he "mentions" it privately to people he thinks could benefit. "The gift of tongues is a freeing of the personality in expressing one's self more profoundly, particularly toward God, even though the symbols are not understood by the speaker. It does not happen in a trance. The person is releasing something deeper than the ordinary symbols of language."
Doyosi Ki-i-yeno. One evening last week, in an apartment motel in Van Nuys, seven Episcopalians of Father Bennett's former flock met together to await the coming of the Holy Spirit. Bursts of laughter from a television set across the courtyard invaded the reverent silence, but the two men and five women paid no attention, praying aloud from time to time for individuals in sickness or trouble and for "those who are resisting the out pouring of the Holy Spirit....
California's Methodist Bishop Gerald Kennedy dismisses the movement. "In the past there have been movements of this sort, but they never did the church any good." But Seventh Day Baptist Paul Henry, a lawyer of Fontana, Calif., speaks for many of the "spirit-filled" when he says: "It's only my guess, but I think it may be an outpouring just before the termination of this age."
1. robroy wrote:
“Bishop Francis Eric Bloy of Los Angeles sent St. Mark’s a new priest and a pastoral letter banning any more speaking in tongues under church auspices.” We shall have none of that “imprawpuh,” vulgar behaviour in our churches.
May 27, 9:35 pm | [comment link]
2. David Wilson wrote:
shoulda botta honda, shoulda botta honda, shoulda botta honda!
May 27, 11:12 pm | [comment link]
3. Bob Maxwell+ wrote:
I had become a Methodist while in HS and in ‘60 was a sophomore at Asbury College that fall.
Asbury College, a school in the Wesleyan Holiness Tradition, believes in the a Second Blessing that is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, having faced Pentecostalism since the Azusa Street Revival and other churches, they not only rejected “speaking in tongues’ but announced that any student caught speaking in tongues would be immediately expelled and shipped home at the schools expense.
Fidel was busy closing the avenues into and out of Cuba, a land that I was feeling an attraction toward and wondering if I had a call as a missionary. To prepare, I had chosen Spanish to meet my language requirement.
Right after the World Series, a young Cubano arrived at Asbury, was allowed to enroll late and I volunteered to be his roommate. A Cuban Methodist with an evangelical faith, I would often find him sound asleep in our close in a prayer position , having fallen asleep as he followed our Lord’s teaching literally while he interceeded for family and friends still in Cuba.
We listened to the shortwave broadcasts from Swan Island and then the disastrous invasion by the brigade. We both were upset that Negroes from the USA were not accepted as applicants while missionary sponsored Negro Africans were accepted. Local “bubbas” from Jessamine County mad a ruckus driving through the circle drive in front of the main buildings. With family money tied up and the administration teed off with his vocal protests, no scholarship money was available for Leo to continue in school.
I read my Wesley, returned to their Church in the USA, ECUSA, and as a priest in my first little parish in ‘72, I read Nine O’Clock in the Morning. I discovered that praying and singing in tongues was a gift of the Holy Spirit. The Christ the King Community, in South Bend IN at that time, helped ground me with sound teaching.
I didn’t see Leopoldo’s name again until as a priest leading an experimental urban regional cluster in Omaha and serving as Bishop’s Deputy for Urban work, I read that two Episcopal priests from New Orleans had been arrested at the close of the Mariel Boat Lift: Joe Doss and Leopoldo Frade.
+Leo has served his Lord faithfully. I don’t agree with his stance on Lambeth 1.10, and he knows it. I know he loves Jesus.
We both know that Pentecost is real in the life of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and would encourage you to daily surrender control of you life and will into the care of Christ Jesus.
I remain a Wesleyan in the Church of the Wesley’s. I hope a way is found so that I still can while I remain in communion with the GS faithful.
May 28, 12:07 am | [comment link]
4. robroy wrote:
Thanks, Bob, for the testimonial.
May 28, 12:28 am | [comment link]
5. Larry Morse wrote:
There is something unusually repellent, someting whooly false, in the ccurrent notion of “speaking in tongues.” First of all, this is unquestionbly what hysteria looks like in action; that it should be attributed to God is a remarkable impudence. Paul himself spoke against it, and it is worth remarking that he maintained that speaking in tongues meant speaking in an actually language that the speaker himself did not know but that a listener did. The present babble is a different matter and its continuation gives Christianity a bad name - as if it needed any more trouble - because of its pointlessness. I might add that the notion that the Holy Ghost is behind this meaningless chatter takes remarkable effrontery. LM
May 28, 10:17 am | [comment link]
6. David+ wrote:
Larry, I am sorry to have to challenge your beliefs, but I hope you will hear me out. As a seminarian, I began to speak in tongues despite my reservations about the whole thing. After a while I senses that I might be speaking Hebrew, a language I have never studied. So I went to a Hebrew scholar and began speaking in my new prayer language. He was amazed to say the least. He told me I was speaking in perfect Hebrew and had all the verb endings, pronouns, etc. down right. He wrote down what I had been telling him. At that point it was my turn to be amazed. It turned out to be a prayer of praise to God. I told the translator, “That is exactly the way I feel deep dpwn but I could never had expressed that in English!” To sum it up, God was showing me that tongues are for real and have a very valid place in our relationship with God and each other. So I pray the day comes you, too, experience the joy of having a new prayer language of your own so that the Holy Spirit can pray through you “with sighs to deep for human understanding” as St. Paul puts it in the Scriptures.
May 28, 11:21 am | [comment link]
7. Sarah1 wrote:
David, your experience was exactly what Larry Morse was talking about with regard to what Paul was speaking about with the gift of tongues! And it was not what Morse was speaking of when he decried what is often practiced today.
“. . . it is worth remarking that he maintained that speaking in tongues meant speaking in an actually language that the speaker himself did not know but that a listener did.”
May 28, 11:49 am | [comment link]
8. Br. Michael wrote:
Sarah, then do you deny an Angelic private prayer language?
May 28, 3:04 pm | [comment link]
9. Sarah1 wrote:
Please define and describe.
May 28, 3:46 pm | [comment link]
10. libraryjim wrote:
Fr. Bennett’s book “nine o’clock” was a real blessing after I became involved in the Charismatic renewal.. Up to that time, all that was available were books by Pentecostals with no reference to Liturgical Christians (except deragatory!). His was the first book by a LITURGICAL Christian that gave credibility for the experience for me!
Of course, later on I came across more reading, such as “Hear my Confession” by Roman Catholic priest Joseph Orsini, and Maria Von Trapp also had a book where she spoke of her experience with the Holy Spirit.
But Bennett’s was the first I’d read.
May 28, 4:42 pm | [comment link]
11. R. Eric Sawyer wrote:
Having made my entrance into the AC via a rather high ’28 book church which was at that time experiencing the “charismatic renewal”, I learned to genuflect at the same time as I learned to raise my hands. (No, not at the same time! In the same season!) Cranmer and Bennett were handed to me together. I still think they go best as a set. As for tongues, I’ve experienced more hysteria in opposition than in the practice. True, I have seen plenty of what seems just weird on TV, and different from the practice as I know it. I have also seen plenty of weird and disreputable from non-tongue speaking Christians on TV.
It is interesting to hear Paul read as a condemnation of the practice. It seems more straight-forward to read him, esp. in 1 Cor. 14 as in favor of the gift, but calling it a low-level gift, and condemning the abuse of it. It seems hard to understand his words about un-interpreted tongues not building up the church, although personally edifying, unless he was talking about exactly the type of experience I have known.
For me, the problem has always been that ”tongues” is an experience groping for a theology. The various ways I’ve heard it explained, along with much of the “charismatic” experience, I find unsatisfying and imperfect. But the experience remains. While I can’t and don’t get greatly worked up over it, I am kind of like the man questioned about his ocular healing: “I don’t know whether he is good or bad. I only know that once I was blind, and now I can see.”
In a less dramatic fashion, I know that somehow, when I wish to pray and the words are not there- when I wish to pour out my heart to God but am unable, I will often pray in what would sound to anyone listening as (I assume) gibberish. And I find that I have indeed said what I needed to say. I experience understanding and being unburdened. I often find that I am “unstuck.” And that my prayer is over, or I am ready to continue more conventionally, or I am ready to be still and listen. But whatever the reason and theology I hang or don’t hang on it, I find it a practice that indeed bears fruit. Whether God gives this as a gift, or simply uses my folly, it is enough.
May 28, 5:27 pm | [comment link]
12. Larry Morse wrote:
SArh, I appreciate you correct reading, and I too would like to know what Angelic privae prayer language is. Something only angels do?
David, I read you experience and I find it hard to believe, but I have no reason so suppose you would lie about such a matter, so I have to take you word for it.
And yet, David, why Hebrew? Why not American or French? Question: Can you remember what you said? Can you repeat it? I hve heard a lot about speaking in tongues, but this is the first time in the contemporary world I have heard a story of one who actually did what Paul said the apostles did.
Nevertheless, the notion that the HOly Ghost somehow causes one to say ha le latta memememe go bo no a ra do do da….. is surely absurd and derogatory. The Shakers did the same thing, making a practice of setting themselves up for self-induced hysteria - hence, Shakers. The Holy Ghost at work, or another human quirk brought on by the desire to make God come to you and answer to your wishes?
May 28, 7:10 pm | [comment link]
What is the difference between the speaking in tongues business and the young girls in Salem claiming first hand evidence of witchcraft? L
13. Br. Michael wrote:
1 Corinthians 13:1 NIV “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”
Sarah, I talking about private prayer language that is in no known human language. I do not think that Paul was forbidding this, only its use in public worship where their was no one to interpret it.
1 Corinthians 14:1-5 NIV 1 “Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3 But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.”
Paul’s point is that public worship is to build up the body and speaking in a tongue that is known only to God does not do so unless someone is there to interpret it to the assembled body. Otherwise Paul does not condemn, but rather approves of communication between an individual and God in a language known only to God.
May 28, 7:11 pm | [comment link]
14. libraryjim wrote:
Frankly, br. Michael, I don’t really see where tongues is given as a private prayer language in the Scriptures. The main use Paul addresses is to bring a public message, thus the caution about making sure two or at most three speak, but only if someone who is known to have the gift of interpretation is present.
I think the ‘private prayer language’ is a recent addition for the gift.
May 28, 7:19 pm | [comment link]
15. Br. Michael wrote:
Larry, you may not like it and it may seem strange, but there is a solid scriptural basis for the practice and I am not prapared to say that the Holy Spirit limited these gifts only to the 1st Century Christians. I do believe that the age op Prophacy cam to an end at that time and God’s final revelation was in the form of Jesus and the NT writings, but if we acknowlwdge that Jesus left the Holy Spirit active to future Christians then I am not ready to say that this one gift came to an end.
May 28, 7:22 pm | [comment link]
16. Br. Michael wrote:
Well, if you are sure then don’t do it. The Greek word used for tongues “glossa” can be translated as meaning “an utterance outside the normal patterns of intelligible speech and therefore requiring special interpretation, ecstatic language, ecstatic speech, tongue,...” See the BDAG lexicon, the standard Greek lexicon. Citation for this useage of the word are: 1 Cor 14:1-27, 39; 12:10, 28, 30; 13:1, 8; Ac 10:46; 19:6. According to the BDAG “There is no doubt about the thing referred to, namely the strange speech of persons in religious ecstasy.”
May 28, 7:38 pm | [comment link]
17. Juandeveras wrote:
My daughter, age 10 at the time, told me that a lady from Japan sitting next to her in church [ it was an evangelical church ] told her that she completely understood the words coming from the mouth of a woman speaking in tongues in the seat next to them. This was a witness to my daughter, who is inherently a skeptic on such things.
May 29, 4:36 am | [comment link]
18. CharlesB wrote:
I believe it is one of the gifts. IF it is no longer valid, than are all the other gifts no linger valid as well? I have read many accounts of healing, prophesy. What about miracles? Are there any these days? Is helping, mercy and discernment just good human behavviors, or are they gifts than can be used to build up the Body of Christ, the Church?
May 29, 6:40 am | [comment link]
19. Larry Morse wrote:
Even as I wrote, I realized that I did not beliee #6’s remark abou8t speaking Hebrew. I wondered at my own gullibility and now Iwonder at yours. Didn’t it occur to you how pat this was, so much like TEC’s constant reference to the “loving, committed relationship.” Too pat, and we should immediately suspect it. Why Hebrew? Christ didn’t speak Hebrew.
In fact, He didn’t babble at all, not even Angelic speech; but who had a better computer link than He? Why should we be surprised that there is induced hysteria in Paul’s day?
Recall, not too long ago, the babble of the insane was regarded as divinely inspired, and not too long ago the locked muscles and blank stare of the epileptic was regarded as religious trance.
I have watched the moaning and groaning, gabbling and babbling in revival tents. This is the Holy Spirit at work? The “preacher” works them into a state of wild hysteria, and then gathers the money. This is the Holy Ghost at work? Religious ecstasy? Oh, please. Give them a drink of water, sit them down and send them home to rest up for the next revival meeting. Are they the better for it? Same old people but their wallets are lighter.
May 29, 8:50 am | [comment link]
Being religious ought not to be a synonym for gullibility.
20. Br. Michael wrote:
Larry, I think what you are seeing is perhaps the sort of abuse that Paul is speaking about. But I think what is somewhat distressing is the way you are dispensing with Scripture and the manifestation of the supernatural. This sort of reasoning leads to the denial of the resurrection if we say that supernatural events can’t happen.
Charismatic event do need to be handled with caution and that is why I call myself a Charismatic, Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic. Each strand contains its own strengths and weaknesses, but together they prevent anyone strand from becoming distorted. And, as you rightly point out, charismatic worship can become distorted.
May 29, 9:33 am | [comment link]
21. libraryjim wrote:
that is why I call myself a Charismatic, Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic. Each strand contains its own strengths and weaknesses, but together they prevent anyone strand from becoming distorted.
AMEN! a very strong, resounding AMEN!
May 29, 10:45 am | [comment link]
22. Sarah1 wrote:
RE: “Sarah, I talking about private prayer language that is in no known human language. I do not think that Paul was forbidding this, only its use in public worship where their was no one to interpret it.”
Thanks for the definition, Br. Michael.
In response to your question, I am happy not to “deny” that people speak in some sort of unintelligible speech as a part of their devotional prayer life.
Though I have not yet come to a complete and full conclusion, I suspect that this is not at all the references to the gift of tongues that Paul was referring to.
Nor have I the desire for people to stop speaking in the way that you describe . . . I simply do not offer it the same name that others do in the calling it “tongues”.
Hope that helps.
May 29, 1:10 pm | [comment link]
23. Br. Michael wrote:
Sarah, please check the Greek. Do a word study of “tongues”. When Scripture wants to refer to speaking in other human languages it does.
May 29, 3:07 pm | [comment link]
24. Tikvah wrote:
Someone wrote, “. . . it is worth remarking that he maintained that speaking in tongues meant speaking in an actually language that the speaker himself did not know but that a listener did.” - In the privacy of our own prayer closet, the listener is God.
1.) Larry, once again, as I did on another post, I recommend John L. Sherrill’s book ‘They Speak with Other Tongues’ - he did an extensive study of it.
May 29, 4:55 pm | [comment link]
2.) Dennis Bennett’s book was instrumental in bringing me into a personal relationship with my Redeemer. I had been raised an Episcopalian, but not a Christian, and had no idea one could or should have that personal relationship.
3.) The church in Corinth managed to abuse much, including Tongues. Don’t follow their example. Pay attention to what Paul said. He indicated that he spoke in tongues more than anyone, and wished everyone did; but seek the higher gifts, especially prophecy. In other words, tongues is just the beginning, don’t be satisfied and stop seeking with that. I honestly believe that the slow decrease in many congregations that were once flourishing in the Spirit is because they felt they had “arrived” with tongues, and went no further, failing to seek a deeper relationship with the Lord, along with fuller and richer ministries, which meant more of Him and less of themselves. I’ve seen it in too many parishes.
4.) Remember, the spirit is subject to the prophet, for God is not a God of confusion; the church in Corinth was admonished to do everything decently and in order. We have control, and are not forced into “hysteria” or anything else by the Holy Spirit. Tongues and hand raising need be no more emotional than folding one’s hands, genuflecting or making the sign of the cross. Whoever thinks otherwise is genuinely mistaken.
In His Shalom,
25. Sarah1 wrote:
RE: “When Scripture wants to refer to speaking in other human languages it does.”
Yes—we just disagree about those times, Br. Michael.
It appears to me that people have taken their experience and attempted to “bless it” by claiming it to be something spoken about in scripture as a spiritual gift.
No need to bless it—I’m fine with people in engaging in their practice of speaking to God however they please. But I do not deem it to be one of the spiritual gifts.
I know that you do—but many other Christians do not.
May 29, 6:56 pm | [comment link]
26. Rob Eaton+ wrote:
Quite amazing to me…
May 29, 10:28 pm | [comment link]
Here are two threads where folks like Sarah and Larry are the object of attempting to be convinced by others of the trustworthiness of biblical phenomenon. Two people who would be - on the subject of Paul’s teaching on homosexual behavior - turning the table on others who would rely on “contemporary” experience to suggest Paul’s teaching meant something else than what it plainly says.
Sarah, your attempt at rationalism is not convincing, and only ends up throwing cold water on the whole subject of tongues - which is certainly not what the end result of Paul’s teaching and experience was meant to convey. It sounds to me like you have ended your “study” of tongues and what you have deemed is your “final answer.” Perhaps, people should just not bother you any more about it. Larry, your outright vehemence is just wincing.
You both have to deal with testimonies like mine and others here, who - in an opposite manner to what Sarah described as her peeve re: blessing - found something in scripture, a charism that was encouraged for believers (a blessing), and even exhorted, then looked for it, sought after it, and found the “blessing” confirmed in their own life. And I mean deal with it in the sense of a challenge to your own current judgment, not simply with “Whatever”, or “Not of God!”
I hope that is clear enough for you to read and understand. If not, I will try again in response.
27. Sarah1 wrote:
RE: “Here are two threads where folks like Sarah and Larry are the object of attempting to be convinced by others of the trustworthiness of biblical phenomenon.”
Well no, Rob, not really. I do not acknowledge that the “private prayer language” is a “biblical phemonenon” at all. That is precisely what has been debated on these threads.
RE: “turning the table on others who would rely on “contemporary” experience to suggest Paul’s teaching meant something else than what it plainly says.”
I see exactly “contemporary experience”—on the part of the “private prayer language” practitioners, who wish to name that the “gift of tongues”.
RE: “Sarah, your attempt at rationalism is not convincing, and only ends up throwing cold water on the whole subject of tongues - which is certainly not what the end result of Paul’s teaching and experience was meant to convey.”
Of course it does not “throw cold water” on the gift of tongues. I am not a cessationist at all, and am confident that the gift of tongues is received in some places and by some people. I just don’t think it’s the “private prayer language” that some people are practicing and claiming to be the gift of tongues.
RE: “It sounds to me like you have ended your “study” of tongues and what you have deemed is your “final answer.” Perhaps, people should just not bother you any more about it.”
And it sounds as if *you* have your “final answer” as well, Rob, about what you deem to be the gift of tongues.
; > )
Certainly I will not be convinced by “testimonies” any more than I will be convinced by, say, “testimonies” of “mutual life-giving affirming gay relationships” . . . I’m not convinced by “experience” Rob—at all.
RE: “And I mean deal with it in the sense of a challenge to your own current judgment, not simply with “Whatever”, or “Not of God!” I hope that is clear enough for you to read and understand. If not, I will try again in response.”
Well . . . maybe you need to deal with my—and many other Christians’—challenge to your naming of your private prayer language the gift of tongues.
Please note that I did not call your private prayer language “not of God”—I merely suggested that it was not the gift of tongues that Paul speaks of.
That seems to be particularly challenging to some. So then I have to ask, what if your private prayer language . . . . is just a private prayer language.
Would that be such a terrible blow? Would that be so bad? Must it be baptized with the name “gift of tongues” in order to have meaning and significance? I hope not.
May 30, 10:41 am | [comment link]
28. Tikvah wrote:
Ah, tongues, such a stumbling block … Sarah, please consider when, where and how? On Pentecost, initially, those waiting (for what?) in the upper room began speaking in other tongues. How? In praise perhaps? Or prayer? Or both? Certainly if they were “all” filled with the Holy Spirit and “all” were speaking in tongues … who was listening? To Whom were they speaking? It certainly doesn’t appear that they were speaking to each other.
May 30, 1:15 pm | [comment link]
Shortly thereafter, when the multitude (outsiders) responded to the sound they had heard, (something loud enough to be heard beyond the upper room), and came together seeking the source, everyone “heard” in their own language. Perhaps this second occurrence was actually the gift of “ears” or ”hearing.” There is a time gap between the two, if you’ll give a very careful reading of the text.
So, continuing then; in the midst of the general public (the congregation) what was being said was “understood”. They “heard” in their own language. Does this mean that the speaker was speaking in that language, or do we, perhaps erringly, assume that to be the case? In any event, there does seem to be a parallel here to how the gift is used today … in private (whether alone or with a group of like minded brethren, as were those in the upper room) and in public (the congregation.)
I urge you to read for yourself, and then continue reading about those receiving the Holy Spirit, asking yourself “who”, and “how”, and “what is the evidence.” I had a professor who urged us to go back and read scripture as though we’d never seen it before. It’s hard to do, but worth the effort.
Have a blessed day in His Shalom,
29. libraryjim wrote:
May 30, 2:48 pm | [comment link]
That was still an assembled gathering, not an individual in private prayer, which is Sarah’s main point: that Scripture does not speak of a gift of tongues outside of use in an ecclesia, or gathering of believers.
30. Tikvah wrote:
May 30, 3:47 pm | [comment link]
Funny thing about the ecclesia - I’m a part of it even when alone.
31. Tikvah wrote:
Also, I received it when I was all alone, in my prayer closet. How do we explain that, I wonder?
May 30, 4:20 pm | [comment link]
32. libraryjim wrote:
Are you saying because God spoke, touched, and filled you when you were alone, in your prayer closet, that now we should ignore the Biblical instructions on how to exercise the gifts He gives?
Seems to me that this is like saying “I bought the car over the computer, so I can ignore the owner’s manual because after all, I bypassed the salesman”.
Being part of the body is not the same as acting as part of the body in conjunction with the body, or using God’s gifts FOR the body as intended. It also seems to me that Paul spoke a lot about that, too, in 1 Corinthians (and other places).
we cannot and must not replace our own experience over the Scriptural teachings or the teachings of the church, nor elevate experience over God’s word written. Where experience is in contradiction to these, then experience must be put in subjection to them.
May 30, 5:47 pm | [comment link]
33. Tikvah wrote:
We spend far too much time picking nits and splitting hairs. I will first say that your comparison of purchasing an auto on the internet and receiving a manifestation of the Holy Spirit is lost on me. Sorry. I will tell you that the Spirit saw fit to grant me what I asked at that time. If it were an inappropriate request, considering the circumstance of location, why grant it? Why did He not grant my requests before that, during an “appropriate” circumstance of being with the like-minded called-out ones? Why did He wait until I was alone, if that is not one manner in which He intends it to be used?
May 30, 6:38 pm | [comment link]
I suggest we keep our eye on the Gift Giver, not the gift, seeking, as Paul tells us, the higher gifts, especially prophecy. As I mentioned elsewhere, and as others have stated, we put far too much attention on tongues.
34. libraryjim wrote:
Very true. I have also noticed that my friends in the Charismatic Renewal tend to place too much emphasis on the gifts and the experience rather than on Scripture and the proper place and use for the gifts. Either extreme is incorrect.
Scripture is to be the master over experience, not the subordinate. All things decently and in order, as Paul says.
May 30, 10:12 pm | [comment link]
By the way, I didn’t mean to dismiss your experience as invalid. But now that you have had it, make sure you line its use up with Scripture and accountability to a good mentor.