Back to Top

Author Archives: BillR

By John Wells

Recently I read all of Paul’s letters in one sitting. I highly recommend you do so at least once.

Surprisingly, it took me less than a minute.

The previous night I read about Jesus walking on water, how he stilled the storm with a single word. From these verses I gleaned that God can help me when I’m scared. And the night before I read about Daniel in the lion’s den and discovered God will protect me from every danger.

If you haven’t guessed, I was reading a children’s Bible. If you have young kids, you’re likely familiar with the take-home point found in many children’s Bibles and in much church curriculum—a simple story with a moral lesson.

G.I. Joe Values

In these settings children learn to be honest, to share, even to obey their parents. These are values we desire to see, right? Yet when we read one of these stories in a children’s Bible or when our kids come bounding out of Sunday school with their coloring page smattered with cotton balls and glitter-glue and a moral lesson, I sometimes cringe.

Why? Because I remember learning those same lessons growing up in a secular home. They were taught by those great heroes of the faith: He-Man, G.I. Joe, and the Ninja Turtles. These were children’s stories designed to teach good behavior.

As an adult, I heard the gospel and found my morality damning (Rom. 2:12–15). As a parent, I realized I’d failed to teach my kids the incredible story of redemption by allowing secondary moral lessons to usurp the primary message of Scripture.

Essentially, I was teaching them there is little difference between the power of the gospel and the power of Grayskull. I needed to make changes. My children needed to learn to read and understand the Bible on its own terms.

4 Things to Avoid

Though cheap gospel substitutes take many forms, they often revolve around misinterpreting narratives in four ways:

1. Teaching narratives as moralistic fables.

Old and New Testament narratives are often taught as a spiritual version of Aesop’s Fables. For example, Jonah is treated as a story about how disobeying God will bring disaster. While that point is true, biblical narratives are not solely or even chiefly designed to convey a mere moral lesson.

2. Using excessive extrapolation and subtext.

Children are invited to read between the lines, assign feelings and motives to characters, and identify themselves as the hero of each story. They are asked questions like, “Why do you think the little boy wanted to share his fish and bread?” or “How do you think this act made Jesus feel?”

3. Implying prosperity theology.

Many times the lessons walk—and sometimes cross—a thin line into prosperity theology by promising that God will always protect their bodies, heal their sicknesses, and provide for their material needs. Such theology quickly breaks down with children facing abuse, family hardships, and serious illness. They may even wonder if they caused their own hardship or are somehow at fault.

4. Excluding epistolary, poetic, and prophetic genres.

If covered at all, these genres are often combined into a single story and taught as a narrative. So much rich theology is missed in favor of a moral lesson.

5 Things to Embrace

So what’s the alternative? As Christian parents we’re responsible for raising our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). It’s our responsibility to teach them how to study his Word. We want them to see the Bible not as a collection of moral fables, but as the epic story of redemption.

Here five brief tips for accomplishing that goal:  

1. Read and talk with your children about the Bible.

Deuteronomy 6:4–9 says to teach our children about the Lord in our homes, when we are traveling, when we lie down at night, and when we get up in the morning. Conversations about God and his Word should be a constant part of our daily interaction with our children.

2. Don’t rely on children’s Bibles alone.

Get your children in the Scriptures as much as possible. Even the best children’s Bibles are an inferior replacement for the real thing, so employ them only in a supplemental manner and choose only those that focus on the gospel. (Excellent options include The Big Picture Story BibleThe Jesus Storybook Bible, and The Biggest Story.)

3. Teach them to think through paragraphs in the Epistles.

Since each paragraph contains a complete thought, read one at a time and help your child think it through. Depending on his or her age, you may need to stop after each sentence to ask questions. Older children may be able to handle two or three paragraphs together. The goal is to learn to comprehend what a biblical author is communicating.

4. When reading narratives, read the whole story and then ask questions.

Ask questions about the characters, plot, and resolution of the story. Stick with the story’s details when questioning, and resist reading between the lines. Finally, ask “why” questions to help them see broader redemptive themes. Resist the urge to concentrate solely on the morality of the character’s actions.

5. Don’t assume you need all the answers.

Not knowing answers to all their questions can actually be constructive. Make it a fun learning opportunity to search together, modeling for them how to find an answer in the process.

They Are Worth It

We began this practice with our children, and even my 5-year-old can now follow along. The task is certainly more challenging than reading a page from your children’s Bible, but our kids are worth it.

May we take the time to invest in their grasp of Scripture and the good news it proclaims.

John Wells holds a Master of Divinity from Temple Baptist Seminary and has worked as a church planter, teaching pastor, and care director. John is married with two children. You can follow him on Twitter.

Posted in Spiritual Growth|

As the Protestant church celebrates the 500 year anniversary of the Reformation, we can’t help but analyze the consequences of this historic act. Martin Luther had no way of knowing the ripple effect his act of defiance toward the Catholic Church would have—not only in the Christian world but also in broader western culture.

For better or worse, Luther set into motion a move of individualism that would grow to shape the nature of western Christian thought and worship. When Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door at Wittenberg, the western church (and consequently the worldwide church) would never be the same.

And it’s not just the church that has felt the impact of those hammer raps. One could easily argue that Luther’s act paved the way for successive revolutions large and small alike. Things from America’s break from the English monarchy to the church’s modern practice of reading Scripture outside the context of a faith community can potentially be traced back to Luther. In fact, a recent CNN article makes a case for ideas such as democracy and capitalism stemming from Luther’s boldness.

Effects of the Protestant Reformation

While we have Luther to thank for key tenets of our faith like Sola Scriptura and justification by faith alone, I can’t help but think about what we left behind. In our haste to pull away from corruption and misguided theology, did we leave behind some good things? I’d like to propose a bit of a reformation of the Reformation (or rather, what has grown out of the Reformation). As we remember the incredible gift given to us by Luther, can we also consider the need to continue to reform as we prepare to be Jesus’s pure and spotless bride?

An Emphasis on Literalism over Symbolism

Before Luther, Scripture had not been translated into the common language yet. To an uneducated population—very few of which could even read their mother tongue—Latin was quite the stretch. Which is why educated priests were commissioned to teach people the Scripture. This is also why (to this day) when you go to a Catholic service, you will see the stations of the cross, meant to teach people about the story of Jesus and the incredible sacrifice he made for us. You may also see stained glass windows with depictions of stories in Scripture. You will also likely sing hymns that are oriented around Scriptural truths or stories from the Bible. These traditions are all rooted in the task of teaching illiterate people the principles of Scripture.

Then there is the ceremony of mass, which is highly symbolic in and of itself. As Father Augustine Tran explains on the Catholic Exchange, even the appearance of the altar is steeped in meaning:

We begin with the altar, which represents the body of Christ. The white cloth that covers the altar is Christ’s burial garment. When the priest kisses the altar, he is kissing Christ faithfully in contradiction to the kiss of Judas. The altar is a very strong symbol of the meal aspect of the Mass, because the Mass is a sacrificial meal as the Last Supper was. But the altar also looks like a tomb because it holds the relic of a saint. The ancient Christians celebrated Mass over the tombs of the Saints and martyrs to unite themselves with them, to ask for their intercessions, that they too would be just as faithful as the Saints and martyrs had been. That tradition continues today by putting small relics of Saints into our altars.

From the order of the service to the repeated rituals utilized, every service is designed to remind the participant of the sacrifice Jesus made for him or her. The atmosphere created in this kind of service is highly contemplative.

However, in the Protestant tradition, there is not as much emphasis on symbolism. Instead, the highlight of the Protestant service is the sermon, a literal experience of Scripture compared to a symbolic one that seems to envelop the whole service and allows for reflection. Intentional or not, a traditional Protestant service is concerned more with the cognitive and literal understanding of the gospel and Scripture.

Perhaps this more literal service was a byproduct of the fact that the Protestant tradition grew up with increasing access to personal copies of the Bible in the common language. Whereas the Catholic church did not develop with this luxury, the Protestant church did.

The Emphasis on the Individual Versus the Community

Another unintended consequence of the Reformation is the emphasis on the individual and what he or she decides to be true. Of course, we can appreciate Luther “going rogue” to address the abuses of the Catholic church and its leaders. His was essentially a one-man revolution against the establishment, and we can appreciate why he did it—especially after trying to articulate his concerns in a more collaborative way.

However, one has to wonder how we would be worshipping today had the Catholic church chosen to address Luther’s concerns. Within the context of community, the Reformation potentially could have produced a healthier, more unified church with the richness of symbolic tradition and empowerment by the Scripture and the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

It could have been a beautiful mix of appropriate individualism to challenge preconceived notions—and thus discover deeper truth—and a community knitted together by good, symbolic tradition and healthy accountability.

One has to wonder if all our church splits and divisions can be linked back to a conviction we feel to leave if and when change isn’t happening the way we feel it should. But we must consider: Do we leave too soon?

There is also the temptation we constantly fight against to take Scripture out of its context and apply it as it wasn’t intended to be applied. Whereas a person from a Catholic tradition might be more inclined to bring questions about Scripture to a priest who has studied the context of the Scripture and theology, there is the prevalent belief among Protestants that one can understand the complexities of Scripture on one’s own. As Glenn Paauw and Paul Caminiti explain on the ChurchLeaders Podcast, the very structure of our modern print Bibles changes the way we understand Scripture. Indeed, even the practice of reading Scripture by one’s self, without the feedback of a group or community, can be problematic.

As we reflect on the inheritance we have, given by Luther, I hope we can use his example to inspire action. May we constantly ask ourselves: What needs reforming—both in my own life and in my faith tradition?

Posted in Christian History|

Article originally by Aubrey Coleman, The Gospel Coalition

Last summer at a book club I held in my home, women in my church from different stages of life met to read and discuss a Christian book together. This group typically stayed late to continue talking and asking questions. We rejoiced at the stories of God’s faithfulness in one another’s lives. We encouraged and spurred one another on through difficulties. We sought mutual counsel and wisdom and pointed each other to Scripture.

Moments like these remind me of the treasure trove found in discipling relationships. The Christian life comes with questions. Those questions change through different seasons of our lives, and we need help from those who have walked before us. God didn’t intend for us to walk alone.

Though most of us would acknowledge the importance of discipleship, we often struggle to find and pursue those relationships in our own lives. As we think about someone in our church who might help us walk faithfully, obediently, and humbly with God, here are a few things to keep in mind.

Who Is Faithful?

When considering meeting up with someone, simply ask yourself, Is she faithful? Referencing Titus 2:1–7 is a great foundation for understanding what faithfulness looks like. Is she a member of my church? Does she serve faithfully in her season of life? Does she show up when she says she will? Does she encourage others? Does she love God’s Word?

Though most of us would acknowledge the importance of discipleship, we often struggle to find and pursue those relationships in our own lives.

You should be able to quickly identify faithful men and women in your church. If you’re having trouble discerning, ask your elders and pastors to recommend faithful saints you can reach out to.

Whom Do I Connect Easily With?

Among the many faithful, whom do you connect with? You may have a great connection with someone instantly. In some situations, you will naturally serve alongside other men and women who are already making a spiritual investment in you. Discipleship can certainly happen organically, but we can’t always expect it to happen that way. It may take more time and effort. It might even look a bit like taking someone on a date! Don’t be hesitant. Invite someone out to coffee and get to know her.

Were you encouraged by your conversation? Do you desire to learn from her? Is it easy to share your life with her? Is it easy to have spiritual conversations?

Just Ask

We may try to overcomplicate it, overthink it, or wait around to be sought out, but there’s no need to formulate a paragraph text or come up with an elaborate discipleship proposal. Just ask! If anyone comes to me discouraged about a lack of discipling relationships, I first ask: “Have you initiated with anyone?” More likely than not, when we reach out to others, they are encouraged by our pursuit. It is deeply rewarding and humbling to be asked to disciple someone.

Discipleship shouldn’t be an exclusive relationship among a few people but a normal pursuit among all members.

This doesn’t mean everyone will be able to say yes, but that is the beauty of pursuing more than one discipling relationship. Our dependency for accountability shouldn’t rest on one person, but many members. If you’re a member of a church, you have committed yourselves to build up one another in the faith. Therefore, discipleship shouldn’t be an exclusive relationship among a few people but a normal pursuit among all members of the church.

Right Expectations

Discipleship doesn’t always look the same. It may mean meeting weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, or whenever both of your schedules allow. It may look like reading through a book of the Bible, doing a study together, reading a book together, praying together, or just meeting to share your life and encourage one another. Life-on-life discipleship is literally stepping into the life of another—the sweet parts, the hard parts, and everything in between.

Discipleship is a commitment to meet people where they are with gospel-saturated truth, grace, and friendship. It may look like sitting in a coffee shop, going for a walk, or joining them for dinner. But sometimes, “meeting them where they are” means squeezing it into life’s less peaceful moments. You may talk at a child’s soccer game, over the phone after you’ve had to cancel your time together, while carpooling, or as you’re doing a home-improvement project together.

We need realistic expectations in our discipleship relationships. The actual shape of the relationship doesn’t matter so much as a committed desire to encourage one another in the faith.

Discipleship Is A Joy And Privilege

The women who invested their time in my early years as a new believer helped me to mature in the faith and taught me to practice important spiritual disciplines. Their lives looked a lot like the older woman in the Titus 2 passage: reverent in behavior, not gossipers, not drinking excessively, teaching what is good, encouraging the young women to love their husbands and their children. Even today, I continue to seek out relationships with older women because I need their wisdom in my life.

I will never outgrow the need for discipleship, nor will I outgrow the command to disciple.

Additionally, I have found it to be a great and humbling gift to encourage and equip newer and younger believers in their faith. Discipling others demands I live as a Titus 2 woman. In doing so, I have been used by God to strengthen others in their faith, and I have been deeply encouraged and challenged in my own! I will never outgrow the need for discipleship, nor will I outgrow the command to disciple.

It’s both a privilege and a joy to know that God is making us like his Son. And it is his tender and loving gesture to give us help along the way.

Lately, I have been having a short on and off discussion with someone related to Christian practices. One of us believes the need to expose false teachers, the other feels we should still show the love of Jesus by not calling them out, but still warn others of bad teachers.

How can we warn others of bad teachings, without exposing the false teaching?

The problem comes down to a false understanding of Love, Agape Love. This we won't be getting into in this article, but it is important that the Christian come to an understanding of Agape love throughout the whole scriptures, rather than this perfect "niceness" Jesus had.

It is important we challenging our own spiritual growth that we take a few things into mind.

  • 2 Timothy 4:3-4 is an important "cornerstone passage" when it comes to growth. Why? Because if even Satan is capable of masquerading around as an angel of the Light, then he too is capable of using the scriptures to confuse us and lead us down a wrong path of righteousness.
  • Jesus does not once give any exposer to the pagan religions. In the three years of ministry, we have recorded, we find that every confrontation was with the "Christians" of that time. The Pharisee - religious leaders, teachers, and sometimes even with the followers.
  • Jesus warns to be on guard of false teachers, many will come after Him and claim to be working in His name. Matthew 7:15-20 - It is also important to note, that in this passage Jesus mentioned a good or bad fruit, sour or rip. In human nature, we all have different tastes. Some like sour flavors, others prefer sweet. I don't think Jesus is trying to stress the idea of "Look out to see how good they are" but rather "Does their teachings align with My Word", "Are they leaving anything out or adding to?" - Also note that "Sheep's clothing" is not a reference to the believer, but to the teacher. During the time Jesus spoke, it was the prophets to who sleeps skin.
  • Pharisee claimed themselves to be Children of God through Abraham. But yet, Jesus calls these very people children of the Devil - John 8:44

Is it right to expose?

Is it right to expose?

There is quite a number of points I could bring up when it comes to the basic foundation of this issue, but the question still remains, should we expose false teachings in the Christian faith?

I think it is important for us to keep a grip on how to confront this issue, first, we should be willing to follow a similar practice that Jesus lays out for sin confrontation Matthew 18:15-20. But also keep in mind the spiritual dangers that could happen if we take only passive action against these false teachers.

  1. Jesus calls them blind, hypocritical serpents. Matt. 23:23-34
  2. The Bible admonishes us to expose error. 1 John 4:1, Isaiah 8:20, Romans 16:17.
  3. We are to rebuke them. Titus 1:13.
  4. We are to have no fellowship, withdraw, and turn away from them. Ephesians 5:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 2 Timothy 3:5-7.

Is it right to name names?

Is it right to name names?

This is where it gets interesting. Because not only are we at the point where we should be exposing these errors. But according to the Word of God, we should also be naming the names of these false teachings. Now when we get to the point, you have already been labeled (by popular secular culture) an unloving Christian, or even a Pharisee. But again we must keep in mind, the purpose of this exposing is not to tear someone apart and see their life go down the toilet. The point it to bring them back to the narrow and righteous path God has set before us, as well as our own attempts to keep others from falling astray to whatever false teachings might be presented.

  1. Paul publically names Peter Galatians 2:11-14
  2. Paul names Demas for loving the world. 2 Timothy 4:10
  3. Paul names Alexander, the coppersmith 2 Timothy 4:14-15
  4. John names Diotrephes 3 John 9


Moses called the name of Balaam. (See Num. 22-25). Peter exposed “the way of Balaam ,  who loved the wages of unrighteousness ” (II Pet. 2:15). Balaam was a prophet that was in the work for money, just like some of the TV false prophets today. They beg for money and live like kings, while multitudes of innocent people send them their hard earned money. They are always building colleges, hospitals, TV network satellites, and amusement parks that have a water slide for Jesus. And then we are supposed to keep our mouth shut about these religious charlatans. How can we be silent and be true to God?

  1. Moses names Balaam Numbers 22-25
  2. Peter exposes the way of Balaam 2 Peter 2:15
  3. Jesus calls the name of Jezebel Revelation 2:20
  4. Jesus calls the name of Balaam Revelation 2:14
  5. Jude calls out Balaam Jude 11
  6. Nathan identifies a man 2 Samuel 12:7

In fact, the whole Bible abounds in examples of false prophets being named and exposed. All this modem day talk about love, used as an excuse for not exposing error and living a comfortable and passive Christian lifestyle, is not really biblical love but is really sloppy "agape".

It is important that we do expose these errors, but as mentioned, if possible, confront the person in error first, only when they do not listen should we begin to make this public. Not as a means to destroy, but to protect the faith, and build others up in Gods defining righteousness.

Article originally by D.A. Horton of 9Marks Ministry

How do you assess a prosperity gospel church?

The first nine years of my walk with Christ were spent in such an environment, followed by two years in theological rehab, which prepared me for the next six years of pastoring in the urban context. What’s become clear to me is that the nine marks of a healthy church provide a useful grid for assessing any church, including those that teach the prosperity gospel.

And what we find is that a prosperity gospel church is a purely anti-nine marks church.

Some of the examples in what follows are specific and may not identify with you the reader. Many however are universal and are propagated by preachers on the internet, radio, and television. Since the prosperity gospel movement is inter-denominational, the teachings expressed in this article are not to be associated with any one denomination within evangelical Christianity.


Preaching in prosperity gospel churches is far from expositional. Instead, the purpose of preaching is to motivate hearers to give financially, and you give to get. Preachers exploit the passages that deal with the sacrificial giving of tithes and offerings week in and week out. They instruct hearers to activate their faith by sowing a “faith seed,” thereby tapping into God’s law of reciprocity and leading to their own financial breakthrough.

Isolated Old Testament passages are often used as examples of God’s abundant reward for faith giving. One passage often used to manipulate hearers into giving more is Malachi 3:10. Prosperity preachers highlight two points from this passage. First, they tell hearers they are robbing God by not tithing. Second, they assure hearers that God wants them to test him by giving more, so that he can give them more.

But consider Malachi 3:10 in its proper context. The Israelites were robbing God by not giving enough food to the national storehouse that was used to feed the priests of Israel. So the priests were having to leave their priestly duties and take up farming to survive (see Neh. 13:10-13). God therefore exhorts Israel to test him by giving obediently. If they did, he would reward them as he did in the past (2 Chr. 31:7-10). The point of this entire passage concerns a historically specific episode in the life of Israel. Preaching it as a Christian sermon, however, requires more than transferring its commands and promises to Christians on a one-to-one basis. Yes, there are larger applications for the Christian concerning giving, but first one needs to account for the differences between old covenant and new, especially the nature of God’s promises to Israel and the manner in which they are fulfilled for the Christian in Christ.

A healthy church uses preaching to communicate God’s words to his people. It confronts the hearer with God’s truth and leads to conviction, encouragement, clarity, and a call to action. It also centers every text around the gospel in order to show the hearer how central and necessary Jesus Christ is to the believer living in obedience to God’s word. A healthy church will inform believers that the results of holy living will not necessarily be financial gain but rather godliness that honors our Lord.


Prosperity gospel theology rests upon the foundational error that man shares a form of deity with God, such that our words carry the same creative power as God’s words. Psalm 82:6, Proverbs 18:20-21, and Romans 4:17 are popular proof texts used to support this falsehood. It is often said that man is a “lower-case god” and possesses the power to demonstrate deity by speaking things into existence, creating and controlling our destiny with words, and even mandating a frustrated and limited God to act on our behalf for our benefit.

But none of these proof texts support these prosperity teachings. In Psalm 82:6, the Psalmist is crying out to God regarding the immoral judges who were governing the nation of Israel. God speaks directly to the erring judges by addressing them as “gods” to highlight the fact they were judging the nation in his place. They were to use his word as their standard of judgment. In the very next verse God reminds them they are not eternal beings. Instead they are mere men who have failed to live and judge righteously. This passage is not elevating man to a demigod status. Neither is it providing man with the ability to act with sovereign authority. Instead, the only true and living God is judging the immoral actions of these judges.

Proverbs 18:20-21 is a principle, not a promise, and it outlines two truths. The first is that our words do not dictate our destiny; rather, they display the conditions of our heart. Secondly, there are times when our words will cause us to endure consequences. This passage does not promise us the power to declare the length of our life. Neither does it pronounce God powerlessness to save us if we curse ourselves to death, as some prosperity teachers have taught.

In Romans 4:17 Paul teaches that God justified Abraham and declared him the father of nations while Abraham was still childless. This passage has nothing to do with saints speaking into existence more money, job promotions, or even the salvation of lost loved ones. This passage is in fact championing the truth that God is the only one who can call things into existence.

A healthy church teaches its members sound doctrine that is rooted in Scriptures that are kept in context. Sound doctrine is healthy teaching that provides the hearer with the biblical nutrients needed to grow to maturity in Christ (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In order for a church to be healthy, they must teach the whole Bible, in the context of the whole Bible, and root all of their doctrinal convictions in the whole Bible, instead of pulling passages out of context (1 Tim. 1:5; Titus 2:1-10; 2 John 1-6).


In many prosperity gospel churches the message of the gospel is identified with the material blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. Although Christ’s perfect life, death, burial, and resurrection are proclaimed, and salvation through Christ alone is championed, many prosperity gospel preachers say the evidence of a person’s belief in the gospel is whether they receive the blessings promised to Abraham by God (Gen. 12-15).

I’ve found this teaching leading people to one of two conclusions. If someone has prosperity and health, they conclude that they are saved because they’re enjoying the promises of Abraham. But if these blessings are not seen in the life of the believer, they don’t have enough faith. They’re in sin. They need to give more tithes. Or perhaps they have not fully trusted in Jesus Christ and need to become born again in order to receive the blessings of Abraham.

In contrast, healthy churches unashamedly proclaim the whole counsel of the biblical gospel. This includes the truth that we were created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27), we once had open fellowship with God (Gen. 2:7-25), and yet because our first father Adam sinned all of humanity was separated both physically (Gen. 3:1-19) and spiritually (Rom. 5:12) from the holy and righteous God who created us. Since humanity has been separated from God because of sin, the penalty to atone for sin is the shedding of blood and death (Lev. 1:3-17). The beauty of the gospel is fact that Jesus Christ, who has eternally existed as God (John 1:1), became a man (John 1:14), lived a perfect life according to God’s law (Heb. 7:26), and shed his blood while dying in the place of sinners (Mark 10:45 and 2 Peter 2:24). Jesus was buried in a tomb for three days (Matt. 27:57-66) and on the third day rose from the grave (Matt. 28:1-8). Now he calls all people to repent of their sins and trust in him in order to be reconciled to God and receive eternal life (Jn. 3:16).

The biblical gospel does not promise that Christians will be wealthy and prosperous in this life in fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham. Instead, Christians are “blessed” in Abraham in that we receive the Spirit (Gal. 3:14), and we will receive not just land, but the entire new creation, in the age to come (Rom. 4:13, Rev. 21-22).


Conversion in a prosperity gospel church involves an uneasy mix of opposites: easy-believism and salvation by works. Prosperity preachers are known to teach a sinner is “saved” when they finish reciting the “sinners prayer.” After this simple salvation takes place, the new believer is to submit him or herself to the leadership and teachings of the church, tithe regularly, give offerings often, and strive to serve on a continual basis in ministry at the church. As long as a person does these things, he or she maintains salvation. But if one stops them for an elongated period of time, one can lose it. In order to advance this teaching, pastors have been known to use psychological and scriptural manipulation to get the members of the church to do various acts of service in the name of ministry to the Lord. Their service, he promises, will prevent them from “falling from grace” and losing their salvation.

Some prosperity gospel adherents burn out and become angry with their leaders. They begin to question the ministry’s methods and refuse to comply with its demands. I’ve watched pastors who sensed they were losing control of this type of person respond by claiming that the member is in rebellion, causing division, and on a trajectory to lose their salvation unless they repent and begin serving again. In these cases 1 Samuel 15:23 was used as the proof text to point out the consequences of the person’s actions and to dissuade others from following. But this verse speaks of King Saul’s direct disobedience to a command of God, not a genuine believer who questions unbiblical teaching or church practices.

A healthy church lovingly teaches the biblical view of conversion. In the Bible we read that conversion takes place when the biblical gospel is preached (Rom. 1:16-17, 10:9-17) and the sinner repents of their sins and puts their trust in Jesus Christ (Acts 3:19; Rom. 3:21-26). Conversion happens when God the Holy Spirit causes the sinner who is dead in sin to become alive in Christ (John 3:3-8; Eph. 2:1-10). Biblical conversion puts the focus on repentance and belief in the work of Christ, not simply saying a prayer and serving to the point of exhaustion for fear of losing one’s salvation.


Prosperity gospel churches often teach evangelism must be coupled with a demonstration of signs and wonders. When these two elements are combined it is said that sinners will repent and believe in Jesus. I’ve heard people say in pre-evangelistic times of prayer that sinners will not repent unless they see physical evidence of the supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit as listed in Mark 16:15-16.

Since the inclusion of this passage in the original and oldest most trusted manuscripts is disputed, it is unwise to build one’s doctrinal stance on this passage alone. Further, mandating that people demonstrate the signs in this passage in order to be effective in evangelism is dangerous and manipulative.

Biblical evangelism is proclaiming the gospel and calling sinners to repentance. The gospel needs no upgrades, bells, or whistles in order to be effective (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The Bible is clear that the preached gospel is powerful to save sinners (Rom. 1:16, 10:17).


Prosperity gospel churches often equate church membership with regular attendance, tithing, and service—with or without a formal commitment. People are often “grandfathered” into church membership if they do these things long enough. In one case I recall a person who attended the church for over two decades, received the benefits of membership, yet never formally joined the church. They felt no need to since they gave financially and served weekly. I’ve watched people in such circumstances live in open sin and avoid church discipline.

A healthy church presents church membership as a blessing and mandate for the believer. The blessing is that the church affirms the believer’s faith and builds the believer up in love (Eph. 4:11-16). The mandate is that Jesus requires Christians to submit to his authority by submitting to the church’s authority. You’re not truly a member of the body if you can simply detach at will.


I’ve witnessed church discipline in prosperity gospel churches land on one of two extremes. The first was an informal excommunication where the biblical protocol for church discipline was not followed (i.e., Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 2 Cor. 2:6; 2 Thess. 3:6-15). The individuals said to be living in sin were “disfellowshipped” from the church in private only to be spoken of in public as those we were not have contact with because of their rebellion.

The second extreme was for leadership to completely ignore the sin of either another leader, popular member, or both. When this approach was used, the leaders who knew the person’s unrepentant habitual sin willfully refused to acknowledge and deal with it. Sadly, I witnessed leaders members who brought up the sin of other members with statements like, “God forgives and his love covers the multitudes of your sins,” and “only God can judge them.” In the case of sinning leaders remaining in ministry, it was said “the gifts of God come without repentance” a distortion of Romans 11:29. Prosperity preachers often use 1 Chronicles 16:22 (“Touch not my anointed ones, do my prophets no harm!”) as a repellant for questions from members of their congregation. Sometimes prosperity gospel churches have been known to cover the sin of a leader by sending them on a sabbatical in place of practicing 1 Timothy 5:17-20.

Healthy churches embrace God’s desire for a pure, holy church. As they help their people grow in Christlikeness, they will shine like stars in the world (Eph. 4:11-32; Phil. 2:1-18). Healthy churches understand that leaders are not exempt from temptation, lapses of judgment, and sin. Healthy churches then teach and follow the biblical prescription for church discipline, including discipline of leaders (1 Tim. 5:17-20).


Discipleship in prosperity gospel churches often tends toward co-dependency with the pastor or another prominent church leader. The entry level of discipleship is known as the “armor-bearer” stage. An armor-bearer in Scripture was a person who carried the weapons of their leader and protected them (1 Sam. 14:6-7 and 2 Sam. 18:15). But in prosperity gospel churches, armor-bearer has become an unofficial office. New converts who want to grow in their walk with God are placed in a cohort. This cohort is trained to serve the emotional, physical, and spiritual needs of the pastor or church leader. The pastor will often commission armor-bearers to engage in activities ranging from carrying his Bible to paying his bills, all in the name of “ministry.” In some extreme cases I’ve counseled ex-armor-bearers who were instructed to give the pastor massages after he preached, and even sexual favors.

If an armor-bearer sticks around long enough, they can earn a promotion that comes with a title, licensure to preach, and even ordination. Most often, the pastor does this to pad the stats of his ministry as many of these ordained men (and sometimes women) sit on the sidelines cheering the pastor on while he preaches. I’ve known some pastors to boast in having dozens of ordained men sit under them for decades. Rarely are these ordained ministers sent out to plant churches, revitalize dying churches, or engage in vocational ministry overseas. Sadly, in one instance I counseled someone who sat under a pastor for over fifteen years as an ordained minister and was never once instructed about the biblical qualifications of an elder.

A healthy church disciples its people to depend more on Jesus, not a pastor or church leader. Believers grow by deepening their knowledge of Jesus (2 Pet. 3:18), and, by the power of the Spirit, imitating Jesus (1 Cor. 4:16, 11:1; Eph. 5:1). Biblical disciples produce more biblical disciples, not dependents (2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 2:1-8).


Prosperity gospel preachers often receive undying support from their members because the people live vicariously through their pastor. If the pastor’s platform and bank account grow, the members of the flock celebrate as if the prosperity were their own. Some congregations want their pastor to have the newest top-of-the-line car, wear expensive name-brand clothing, and live in a large home in order that God’s blessings would trickle down to them. I was once told, “If my pastor is living large, he’s paving the way for me and my family to live large.”

In many cases, the pastor is said to be God’s voice to the congregation, and therefore has unquestioned authority. The leadership structure varies between a C.E.O. model and a monarchy. I’ve often seen others appointed as pastors or elders not based on biblical qualifications but because of their occupation and closeness to the pastor.

A healthy churches champions biblically qualified leaders. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 are passages that clearly lay out qualifications for the men who would lead God’s church. The qualifications emphasize the man’s character, not his occupation or friendship with the pastor. Elders are to shepherd the flock, feed them with healthy doctrine, lead in humility, and defend them from false teachers.


There is unceasing grief in my heart for people who are under all or some of the teachings highlighted here. They are like the weary, scattered sheep without a shepherd on whom Jesus had compassion (Matt. 9:36). These precious souls of Jesus’ day were being abused, distressed, and harassed by their leaders. They knew no other way of life since it was their own religious leaders who treated them this way. Jesus responded by telling his disciples to pray for the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.

The grief I share for the weary and scattered sheep of today drives me to do two things: pray for the Lord to send out laborers who will seek and serve these scattered sheep, and labor to lead a healthy church in order to reach the sheep in my city. I pray this article has helped kindle a fire in your heart for seeing healthy churches serving cities across the globe.


D. A. Horton

D.A. Horton currently serves as Pastor of Reach Fellowship in Long Beach, CA & the Chief Evangelist at U.Y.W.I. He and his wife Elicia have been married for 13 years and have three precious children.

We've all heard that the choice and purchase of a home is one of the most significant decisions a person will ever make. In this temporal world that may be true. However, choosing where you and your children will learn the things of God and serve the Lord Jesus Christ has eternal ramifications.

Is This Church Right for Me?

What are the biblical criteria you need to be aware of when considering a new church? Let's compare the search for a new church to that of a new home. When looking for a house, people typically ask, How much does it cost? Is it large enough to meet our family's needs? How well is it built? What kind of neighborhood is it in? Does it have a warm and homey atmosphere? Is it conducive to hospitality? Similarly, before choosing a church home you need to consider its foundation, structure, function, andenvironment.

Before we consider those important components, please realize that no church is going to be perfect. Some local churches may be in seemingly excellent condition, while others are obvious fixer-uppers! Many fall omewhere in between. You must seek God's will and be led by the Holy Spirit in selecting a church. Also you need to evaluate how you and your family can contribute to that ministry so it is not just another church, but truly a church home.

Investigating Its Foundation

Jesus said that the wise man builds his house upon rock and the foolish man builds his house upon sand (Matt. 7:24-27). When storms come, the stability of the foundation determines both the direction and durability of the structure. Whether you're searching for a home to live in or a church to worship in, its foundation is crucial.

There are four main components that make up the foundation of a strong local church:

A Proper View of Scripture. When investigating a potential church home, pay particular attention to how it views the Bible. Does it hold to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures? Does it believe the Bible is the only rule for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:162 Pet. 1:20-21)?

An Emphasis on Bible Teaching and Preaching. Observe what kind of preaching is done. Is it primarily expository, topical, or evangelistic in nature? Is the main diet repetitive salvation messages each week, or are believers being fed from the Word (Acts 20:271 Tim. 4:13-162 Tim. 4:1-5)? There should be a strong commitment to high-quality Bible teaching.

Doctrinal Soundness. Just as you would inspect the soundness of a house's foundation, so you should investigate the doctrinal stance of the churches you visit. Where do they stand on such crucial issues of the Christian faith as the virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ; the depravity of mankind; the work of Christ on the cross; His death, burial, and bodily resurrection; salvation by grace through faith alone; the second coming of Christ; and the ordinances of baptism and Communion?

Doctrinal Practice. Observe whether the church practices the doctrines it claims to believe and teach. As James said to the church at large, "Prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves" (James 1:22; cf. Luke 6:46John 13:17).

Examining Its Structure

Once you are satisfied with the foundational aspects of the church, you need to look at its structural components. Recently I walked through a new house under construction. I noticed posts that weren't plumb, seams that didn't meet properly, and beams that were crooked and uneven. Those were glaring structural defects in a home advertised as being built by "the last of the true craftsmen"!

The structural components of a local church provide not only its strength, but also dictate the character and direction of itsministry. Those components include:

Church Government. Find out if the church's leaders function according to New Testament principles (1 Tim. 3:1-135:17-20Titus 1:4-9Heb. 13:717). Do they understand the centrality of Christ as head of the church and His desire to rule His church through a plurality of godly men (Eph. 1:224:155:23Col.1:181 Cor. 11:3)?

Evidence of Order. The church's ministry, including its services, teaching, and administration, should have an obvious sense of order. Some church services exhibit as much lack of planning as do homes with poorly thought-out floor plans. Some churches handle the Lord's resources and work in such a haphazard way that they bring shame to the name of Christ. As Paul said in speaking of the church, "Let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner" (1 Cor. 14:40).

Functional Goals and Objectives. As you investigate a new church, find out if the leadership has set any goals. Has the church planned for future progress and direction? Does it have in mind particular methods of reaching those goals? Like Paul, we as a church need "to run in such a way, as not without aim" (1 Cor. 9:26).

The Size. When purchasing a home, some people prefer the warmth and quaintness of a small home in a quiet rural setting. Others prefer living in a larger structure in an urban area. The same is true when considering the size of a church. Some Christians love being involved in a large urban ministry with hundreds or even thousands of people. Others feel lost in the vastness of such a ministry and fare much better in a smaller congregation. Again, finding your niche in the Body of Christ requires the leading of the Holy Spirit in your life.

Seeing How It Functions

When satisfied that the foundation and structure are what they should be, the wise home buyer will then look at how functional the house is. Does it fulfill the purpose for which it was designed? Does it meet the needs of the family?

As you observe how a church functions, look for an emphasis on worshipping God. See if the leadership stresses the importance of honoring and glorifying God in all things (1 Cor. 10:31Col.3:17). Also observe the involvement of the individual members. Do they exercise their spiritual gifts among the Body of Christ (Rom. 12:3-8Eph. 4:11-131 Pet. 4:10-11), or do they seem to expect the pastor to do everything?

Does the church emphasize evangelism as one of its primary functions? Are home and foreign missions an important part of its ministry (Matt. 28:19-20Mark 16:15Acts 1:8)? What about discipleship? Do you see church members and leaders seeking to make disciples and reproduce themselves in the lives of others (2 Tim. 2:2Titus 2:3-7Matt. 28:19-20)?

A strong local church is marked by love. Do the members seem to genuinely care for one another? Do they minister to each other's needs? As you become acquainted with the church, do you sense that the members are loving one another as Christ commanded (John 13:34-35)? Notice if friendships form easily (cf. Heb. 10:24-25Phil. 2:1-4Eph. 4:1-3).

The leadership of the church you choose should be committed to teaching and supporting God's design for the family (Eph. 5:22--6:4Col. 3:18-21Titus 2:1-81 Pet. 3:1-7). Does the church schedule contribute to or take away from the strength of the family?

Checking Its Environment

If you have ever gone house hunting, you know what it's like to walk through and sense the atmosphere of the place. It can feel cold and gloomy or warm and inviting. It can have a homey feel or it can be impersonal--almost like a museum.

Doubtless you have had the same experience when attending various churches. Certain observable factors contribute to the overall atmosphere of a local church. Those environmental components are usually manifested in attitudes.

A High View of God. Proverbs 9:10 says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." It should be obvious that the people, from the leadership down, focus on the glory and majesty of God. Do they take God seriously and exalt Him in all they do? Their view of God will affect every aspect of their lives and ministry. Ask yourself if God is the focus of their worship or if they're preoccupied with each other or themselves.

The Presence of a Sincere Faith. Is it obvious to you that the church lives and operates by faith? Are the people willing to trust God (Heb. 11:16Eph. 3:202 Cor. 5:71 Thess. 5:24)?

Spirit of Sacrifice. Can you see that the church members are willing to sacrifice themselves and their possessions to advance God's kingdom (Rom. 12:12 Cor. 8:3Matt. 6:33)? Do you sense they would sacrifice themselves for one another (Phil. 2:3-4John 15:13Eph. 5:1-2)?

Proper Attitudes Toward the Pastor and Other Leaders. As you talk with the people, be sensitive to how they regard their leaders. Do they appreciate and esteem the pastor and other leaders "very highly in love because of their work" (1 Thess. 5:13)? Are they fully behind them, giving their spiritual, emotional, and material support (1 Tim. 5:17-18Heb. 13:717)?

Spirit of Unity. This is often the most obvious attitude radiating from a local congregation. An outsider is usually able to sense very quickly whether a church is unified in its ministry. That has a great effect on its testimony to the community and reflects on the name of our Lord (John 13:34-351 Cor. 1:10-173:1-9Eph. 4:1-6Phil. 2:1-54:1-5).

Am I Right For This Church?

We have looked at the foundational, structural, functional, and environmental components of a vital, healthy local church. Now look at yourself and ask, Are there opportunities here for me to serve and exercise my spiritual gifts? Does this local body have a need that by God's enabling I can meet? Am I willing to get what the church can do for me, but also what I can do for the Lord as I serve Him in this church? Am I willing to give of my time, money, energy, and prayers to contribute to the success of this church (Mark 12:30Rom. 12:1)?

A house is not a home until all the members of a family contribute to its success. The same is true of a church home. Only when each member in the family of God exercises his or her God-given gifts will God's children feel at home in His church.

The decision you make about what church to attend will greatly affect your spiritual life and the lives of your children. In fact, the decisions you make now will affect your descendants and the generations to come. That's a sobering reality.

Remember that no church will ever perfectly fulfill all these criteria. There is no perfect church. Also, remember that every church is going to have its own special blend of the characteristics we have examined. The key is to find a church that has them in proper balance, not overemphasizing some or de-emphasizing others. A balanced ministry is a Spirit-controlled ministry. If you find a church that possesses most but not all of the characteristics we've mentioned, don't immediately disregard it. Consider whether God wants to use you to help improve that local body as you exercise your own particular spiritual gifts.

Choosing a church home is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make--one that reaches into eternity. May each of us spend at least as much time and effort making that decision as we do deciding on our earthly dwelling.

Taken from the July/August 1990 issue of Masterpiece Magazine.

Posted in Spiritual Growth|

ABSTRACT: Speaking in tongues potentially includes three subcategories: (1) known language; (2) unknown language; and (3) language-like utterance—an utterance consists of language-like sounds but does not belong to any actual human language. Category (3) occurs today in charismatic circles. Given that the church in Corinth was permissive, it can be inferred that category (3) may have occurred at Corinth. Moreover, each of the three categories can occur either in inspired, infallible form or noninspired, fallible form. Thus, it is possible to hold a cessationist view of inspiration (no more infallible utterances) and a continuationist view with respect to noninspired forms.

1. Preliminary Observations

The issue of tongues is sometimes a matter of controversy and heat.1 As a result, let me state my intent at the beginning. I want to put forward an argument for the scope of speaking in tongues in the first-century church. But I do so in a tentative way. I hope not to stir up heat.

1.1. Tongues in Acts

Let us start with Acts 2. There are several interpretive views.2 For simplicity, we follow the majority view. It says that Acts 2 involves distinct languages, mutually unintelligible, rather than merely distinct dialects. But even if they were just dialects, the main point is that the utterances in Acts 2 were in natural human languages. We know that because hearers competent in the various languages were able to identify them.3

1.2. Tongues at Corinth

Now we proceed to 1 Corinthians 12–14. For illustrative purposes, we may imagine ourselves sitting in the place of a member of the Corinthian church. What would we hear when other members spoke in tongues? Perhaps on occasion someone was present who recognized the utterance as belonging to a language that he already understood. Then he was able to interpret. That kind of case leads us back to the instances in Acts 2. The language in question was identifiable.

But the letter of 1 Corinthians seems to indicate that at Corinth such an identification of the language was the exception rather than the rule. Most interpretation of tongues seems to have taken place not because a listener confidently understood the language, but because of a special spiritual gift for interpreting tongues (12:10, 30; 14:13). The ordinary listener at Corinth heard utterances that sounded like a communication in language. But he did not know the meaning (14:2). Even the speaker did not know the meaning (14:13–14). For practical purposes, from the point of view of a naive listener, anything that sounded like speaking in tongues was speaking in tongues. “Speaking in tongues” is a loose category that easily covers every kind of language-like utterance in the church service that does not belong to any of the major languages spoken in the church.

It might seem natural to infer that every instance at Corinth belonged to some natural human language.4 But that inference does not reckon fully with the flexibility that belongs to ordinary human use of terms. What happens when people are forced to develop a kind of standard designation for comparatively new phenomena in their midst? Anything that sounds like language will for convenience be loosely designated as an utterance in “language.” The ordinary person does not get fussy with a technical analysis such as a trained linguist might propose. He needs a short, convenient term, and “speaking in tongues” will do.5

The upshot is that we do not know exactly what happened at Corinth. Maybe all the instances belonged to natural human languages. Maybe only some did. Maybe almost none did. What we do know is that they were all “language-like” in some fairly flexible sense. The naive listener thought to himself, “It sounds like a foreign language.”6

2. Types of Language-Like Communication

So now the situation has become complicated. We have three possibilities when a speaker makes utterances without having first learned the language. (1) A known language: the utterance is identified by a listener as belonging to a language that he knows. (2) An unknown language: the utterance is in some human language, but not identified. (3) Language-like utterance: the utterance is language-like, but not belonging to any extant human language. Case (1) corresponds to what happened in Acts 2. Case (2) is what many biblical interpreters have seen in the Corinthian church. What about case (3)? My previous argument about the flexibility of common use of terms supports the conclusion that we cannot a priori exclude case (3) from the instances at Corinth.

Within each of these three categories it is possible to subdivide, and distinguish between two subcategories: (a) utterances inspired by the Spirit and therefore infallible; and (b) utterances not inspired by the Spirit, and therefore fallible. Subcategory (b) might still include utterances influenced by the Spirit. What kind of influence? Consider a modern Christian preacher who wants to be faithful to the Lord. He hopes and prays that the Spirit would fill him and guide his utterances when he preaches. But he does not claim to be inspired and infallible. He hopes for the Spirit’s influence.

Let us look more carefully at category (1) (known language). For someone to make utterances in a language that he has not learned is supernatural. Conceivably it might happen through a counterfeit miracle of demonic origin. But we are talking about instances where Christians are empowered by the Holy Spirit.7 It is easy to assume that such an utterance must be inspired and infallible. But this conclusion does not necessarily follow. The Holy Spirit might supernaturally empower an utterance without necessarily guaranteeing and authenticating every detail of its content. Suppose, for example, that a missionary wants to share the gospel with someone, and finds no common language. He prays for help. He suddenly bursts out in an utterance that carries the content (not infallible) of what he already wants to say, conveyed in a language unknown to him. For our purposes, it does not matter whether this kind of event has ever happened. What matters is the possibility of it happening. Supernaturalism is not always identical with inspiration.

By similar reasoning, we can see that categories (2) and (3) can each be subdivided into (a) and (b), infallible and fallible forms (see the table below).

Table 1: Categories of Tongues

Categories(a) Inspired, Infallible Tongues(b) Noninspired, Fallible Tongues
1. Known language1a. Known language, infallible message1b. Known language, fallible message
2. Unknown language2a. Unknown language, infallible message2b. Unknown language, fallible message
3. Language-like utterance3a. Language-like, infallible message3b. Language-like, fallible message or no message

When we take everything into account, there is quite a range of possibilities concerning the details of what might be taking place in the first century church under the broad label of “speaking in tongues.” But, so far, some of these are no more than possibilities. We know in the case of Acts 2 that we are dealing with either 1a (known language, infallible) or 1b (known language, fallible) or both, because the languages were recognized. In the case of the Corinthian church, we seem to have mainly some combination of 2a (unknown language, infallible), 2b (unknown language, fallible), 3a (language-like, infallible), and 3b (language-like, fallible). But without further information than what 1 Corinthians 12–14 supplies on the surface, we cannot easily discriminate between the four possibilities.

3. Modern Free Vocalization

Let us now attempt to advance our understanding by looking at modern instances of speaking in tongues. Our first challenge is to find an adequate label for the phenomena. To call the modern phenomena “speaking in tongues” could easily be seen as a question-begging move—does such a label already assume commonality between modern phenomena and the phenomena in the NT? Are the modern phenomena really the same, from a theological point of view or from a linguistic point of view? In order not to appear to prejudge the question, let us temporarily use the label “free vocalization.” As a rough definition, we could say that “free vocalization” designates the human act of producing a stream of vocal sounds, subject to two conditions: (1) to a naive listener the stream sounds something like a foreign language; and (2) the speaker himself cannot identify or understand words or larger linguistic units within the stream.8

Free vocalization is attested outside the bounds of the Christian faith,9 as well as within it. What we are focusing on are those instances where Christians produce free vocalization in the context of an intention to worship or to speak to God or for God. The label “free vocalization” is not meant to prejudge the spiritual meaning or value of the act. The label itself does not specify whether or in what way the Holy Spirit is involved. The label is compatible with instances in which people may be exercising a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit. It is also compatible with instances where people may be merely playing vocally in a certain psychological state, or where there may be a demonic source. (Again, we reject the demonic option when Christians are the participants.)

When we survey instances of modern Christian free vocalization, what do we find? In a few instances, people claim to have spoken in a language that they did not learn, but which was recognized by a listener. Such instances, if true, would fall under category 1b (known language, fallible message). For theological reasons, we exclude 1a (known language, infallible message). There are good arguments that the canon of Scripture is complete, and that there are no more instances of infallible verbal special revelation. Some prominent continuationists agree with this restriction.10 (For the same reason, in the modern context we exclude the other options involving infallibility, namely 2a [unknown language, infallible message] and 3a [language-like, infallible message].)

Surveys of modern free vocalization show that instances of a recognized foreign language, if they exist, are rare.11 Most instances are not readily identified. So that leaves us with possibilities 2b (unknown language, fallible) and 3b (language-like, fallible). Careful analysis by linguists has persuaded them that most instances do not have all the features belonging to natural human languages, so they fall into category 3b (language-like, fallible).12 But we should note that confident discrimination between unknown languages (2b) and language-like utterances (3b) can take place only on the basis of technical linguistic expertise. To naive listeners, instances in category 3b (language-like, fallible) still “sound like” a foreign language.

Further analysis by linguists and psychologists has convinced many that free vocalization is fairly easy to produce. The capability is widespread in the human race. And in some cases it can serve as a kind of help.13

4. Expectations for the First Century Church

With these points in hand, we now can return to the situation of the first century church. What was happening there? The descriptions in Acts 2 and in 1 Corinthians 12–14, which are the instances with the fullest information, suggest that instances of speaking in tongues in the first century church consisted in acts of free vocalization. Speaking in tongues was more, of course, because it was an exercise of a gift of the Spirit. But not less. That does not by itself imply that speaking in tongues in the first century should be equated with free vocalization in the context of the modern church. We deliberately crafted the label “free vocalization” to be a broad category. It appears to be broad enough to cover both the early church and the modern church. But that is in principle compatible with two diverse conclusions: (1) the phenomena are the same; or (2) the phenomena are at a theological level completely different, because only in the first century was speaking in tongues a genuine gift of the Spirit.

But now our survey of the modern situation has some bearing. In particular, it is noteworthy that free vocalization is fairly easy. And it has some value at a psychological level. These features seem to be features that belong to human nature in general. It is not something peculiar about modern times that has made free vocalization what it is—though certainly a particular theological interpretation of tongues within the charismatic movement comes in and overlays free vocalization by giving to it a theological interpretation. It would seem plausible, therefore, that free vocalization was a possibility for human nature in the first century just as much as it is today. It would be possible for people to engage in free vocalization in the first century, with much the same contribution of psychological, neurological, and muscular factors that analysts observe today.

Now we can combine that possibility or capability with the situation in the Corinthian church. The Corinthian church was by no means an exemplary church. It was disorderly and unruly and immature in several respects. It was confused doctrinally. But it was even more confused in its practice. Given that situation, it seems likely that, if free vocalization of a modern kind occurred anywhere, it might have occurred at Corinth. Of course we cannot know that it occurred. But it might have occurred.

Since the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians was giving general principles for guiding the practice of corporate fellowship and worship at Corinth, we can infer that his principles were intended to cover not only what actually happened before he wrote, but in principle anything that might occur in church after he wrote. In other words, his principles covered instances of modern-type free vocalization in category 3b (language-like, fallible), because such instances were possible.

If instances in category 3b (language-like, fallible) cropped up at Corinth, the Corinthian Christians would immediately have classified them as instances of speaking in tongues. So Paul’s instructions about speaking in tongues cover these instances. Therefore, free vocalization in category 3b (language-like, fallible) is a form of speaking in tongues, in the way that the expression is used in 1 Corinthians. Therefore it is a gift of the Spirit. Therefore it is a gift of the Spirit today. Therefore the continuationists are right and the cessationists are wrong, with respect to speaking in tongues within category 3b (language-like, fallible).

5. Objections

We should be careful about this train of reasoning. It is not airtight. At several points, it might get derailed. Let us consider some objections.

5.1. Tongues Are No Longer a Spiritual Gift

First, we might wonder whether making free vocalization a gift of the Spirit in the first century automatically makes it a gift now. It continues now, but perhaps it belongs to a different category now. Perhaps now it merely offers a form of psychological release. The trouble with this argument is that it appears to make speaking in tongues an exceptional case, in comparison with other gifts of the Spirit mentioned in the relevant passages, namely in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12–14, and Ephesians 4:11–16. As examples, let us consider the gift of teaching, the gift of administration, and the gift of help. All three are mentioned in at least one of the passages. Surely these functions are still here today, and we still regard them as gifts of the Spirit.

Here we touch on the disputed question as to which gifts continue beyond the era of the apostles. What about the apostles themselves? The gift of apostles appears in two lists of gifts (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11). Both times it occurs first, showing its prominence. Apostles are indeed an exception, as cessationists and some continuationists have argued.14 The original apostles still speak to us through their writings in the New Testament. But we have no new apostles with direct divine authority in their speech.

Is the gift of tongues also an exception? But with the apostles we are saying there are no new apostles. With tongues, we cannot say that. Free vocalization is still here today. We are considering whether it makes sense to say that free vocalization was a spiritual gift in the first century, but even though it is still around today, it is no longer a spiritual gift today, but something else—a mere psychological help, perhaps. So, by parallel reasoning, could we not conclude that teaching, administration, and helps are still around today, but that today they are mere psychological helps? No. It simply will not work. We may suspect that an argument that treats tongues differently is singling them out merely because some people have already decided that they do not want tongues to occupy an integral role in the church today.

5.2. The First Century Was Highly Supernatural, Different from Today

A second way of avoiding a close relation between the first century and now would be to heighten the emphasis on the supernaturalism in the first century church. This emphasis on the supernatural might also be combined with an emphasis on the fact that for most of the first century the church was in an “open-canon” situation. Canonical writings were still being produced. Infallible oral teaching was being given by the apostles.

How would this situation look with respect to speaking in tongues? We might picture the church in our minds as filled with spectacular miracles, miraculous healings, infallible prophecies, and beautiful, infallible messages in tongues. We idealize it. We erase from our minds the possibility of confronting anything so lowly and so uncomfortable to respectable people as unintelligible utterances from unsanctified people with mixed motivations. It takes a case like the Corinthian church to dispel the illusion by showing that the first century church was not always a model church. In my opinion, the strong presence of supernaturalism does not erase the possibility of more prosaic forms of free vocalization.

In other words, though we grant that there may have been infallible messages in tongues, within an open-canon situation, we may also allow that there may have been fallible messages. Moreover, the presence of spiritual gifts may be combined with instances of misuse. Tongues, like the gifts of administration or teaching, may be used in a fleshly way, or with mixed motives.

5.3. Paul Had a Special Conception of Tongues

A third possibility for separating out the first century tongues is to focus not on the Corinthian church but on Paul’s conceptions of spiritual gifts. We might observe that Paul conceives of tongues as functionally equivalent to prophecy (e.g., 1 Corinthians 14:5, 12–13). So we might argue that this equivalence implies that for Paul the category of “speaking in tongues” has built into it the feature of infallible divine authority.15

That is plausible. But there are difficulties.

First, in the context of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul also observes differences between tongues and prophecy. The tongue-speaker does not understand with the mind (verse 14). His speech does not edify others unless it is supplemented with interpretation (verses 4–5). It produces a different reaction from unbelievers (verses 22–24). The partial equivalence between prophecy and tongues is for the purpose of building up the body of Christ. An infallible message can build up the body of Christ, and so can a fallible message if it is in fact true to biblical doctrine. The point of the comparison between prophecy and tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is not to develop a detailed theology of the nature of tongues, in terms of its intrinsic divine or human qualities, but to instruct the Corinthian church in a practical way concerning the unity of the body and the importance of serving one another by edifying communication. Tongues that are interpreted can serve; uninterpreted tongues cannot.

Second, even if we read a detailed theology into Paul’s conception of tongues, it does not help us on the level of what Paul actually communicates to the saints at Corinth. Paul’s communication is designed to help the saints. Let us hypothetically suppose that, according to Paul’s theology, true tongues as a gift of the Spirit are always infallible and inspired and are always instances of human languages. Anything else is not real. It is bogus. In this case, you would suppose that Paul would have to instruct the Corinthians on how to distinguish the true kind from the false kind.

But Paul does not do that. By not doing that, his words confirm the Corinthians in the naive assumption that anything that sounds like tongues is tongues. So Paul is instructing the Corinthians on a practical level that actually has no contact with his alleged neatly crafted theological conception. The theological conception does not actually get expressed in a practical way in 1 Corinthians 12–14. If we are Christians, it is the canonical document, the expression in 1 Corinthians 12–14, that governs us, not a hypothetical conception in Paul’s mind that does not get expressed.16

5.4: The Gift of Discerning Spirits Saves the Corinthian Church

A fourth route points to the gift of “the ability to distinguish spirits” in 1 Corinthians 12:10. Commentators discuss the meaning of this gift. There is some uncertainty. But it appears to be a gift for discerning between good and bad spiritual sources—the Holy Spirit and angels on the one side, and demons and the human spirits of false teachers on the other. We might think of the case in Acts 16:18 where Paul recognizes the spirit of divination in the slave girl. Conceivably the functioning of this one key gift could enable the Corinthians quickly to sort out and suppress anything that was not a “true” gift. And in some people’s minds that might include anything in the category 3b (language-like, fallible).

In my opinion, among the four objections this one is the most appealing. But there are some difficulties.

First, the presence of this gift does not seem to have enabled the Corinthians to have sorted out very serious problems that are addressed earlier in the letter and in 1 Corinthians 15. So it seems overoptimistic to assume that it would be the answer to the difficulties with discerning kinds of tongues.

Second, categories 1b and 2b seem undeniably to represent cases of positive activity of the Holy Spirit, because speech in another human language needs the power of the Holy Spirit. It is unclear why everythingin category 3b would be automatically excluded as unspiritual, since, in content, it might be just as “spiritual” as the content in the form 2b. The exclusion of everything in category 3b seems arbitrary, except as a move deliberately designed to cut the connection with modern tongues.

Now, if some instances in category 3b are fleshly or unsanctified, it does not follow that they all are. And that is exactly the approach taken by some modern continuationists, who recognize that some instances of modern free vocalization are fleshly in motive. There remain some instances in category 3b that may not be fleshly. And then we must recognize the presence of a spiritual gift in the modern situation.

6. Implications

The arguments in this article are tentative. But, granted this tentative status, we can still explore possible implications. If, in the end, we decide that free vocalization in the 3b category is still a gift of the Spirit—or that some instances are, while some are fleshly—what do we do?

It would seem that the further instructions about tongues within 1 Corinthians 12–14 are still relevant. First, 1 Corinthians 14:39b may be relevant to our own time: “do not forbid speaking in tongues.” But of course the same guidelines would hold today as we find in 1 Corinthians 14. Tongues-speaking in public should be accompanied by interpretation (v. 27). If we maintain that the gift of interpretation has ceased, then only private tongues-speaking should take place. Whether the gift of interpretation continues today is a topic that needs its own discussion. But some of the discussion of tongues might be suggestive by analogy.

Second, we may consider whether the debate about the nature of prophecy runs in some ways parallel to the debate about the nature of tongues. If tongues potentially come in an infallible form (type [a]) and a fallible form (type [b]), perhaps the same is true for prophecy. Does the naive listener at Corinth consider “prophecy” to be anything that sounds like prophecy?

That discussion is for another day.

[1] An earlier version of this article was delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (Denver, CO, 13 November 2018).

[2] Some commentators have proposed that what we have here is a miracle of hearing. The audience heard in their own languages, but the speakers were speaking in their own native language—Greek or Aramaic. But this proposal seems implausible, because Acts 2:4 indicates that the Spirit empowered the speakers, not the listeners. The same verse indicates that the speakers spoke in other languages, not that the hearers heard in other languages.

A second proposal says that we have merely different dialects of Greek, belonging to different regions of the Roman Empire. This interpretation is possible, since the key word διάλεκτος can designate either a dialect or a language (BDAG). But this proposal weakens the theological significance of the event. The day of Pentecost represents a reversal of Babel. The separation of people by languages is being overcome by the unity of renewed humanity in Christ, through the Spirit. See Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012–2015), 1:821–23.

[3] Tongues are also mentioned in Acts 10:46 and 19:6. There is no detailed information in either case about the linguistic nature of the phenomena. But one can see how both verses fit into larger purposes in the book of Acts. Acts has as a major theme the spread of the gospel to broader geographical areas and diverse ethnic groups (Acts 1:8). Acts 10:46 serves to confirm that the Gentile God-fearers are included when they believe. Acts 19:6 deals with disciples of John the Baptist. Both passages have links backward to the tongues on the day of Pentecost. “Extolling God” in 10:46 has a tie with 2:11, while “prophesying” in 19:6 has a tie with prophecy in 2:17–18.

[4] Some interpreters have claimed to find a clue to the nature of speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians 13:1, which mentions “tongues … of angels.” But we can only speculate about what angelic languages might be. See Vern S. Poythress, “Linguistic and Sociological Analyses of Modern Tongues-Speaking: Their Contributions and Limitations,” WTJ 42 (1980): 367–88 [374–75], reprinted in Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, 469–89, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986). In this article we therefore confine ourselves to the question of human languages.

[5] See D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1987), 80, citing Cyril G. Williams, Tongues of the Spirit: A Study of Pentecostal Glossolalia and Related Phenomena (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1981), 26.

[6] See Vern S. Poythress, “The Nature of Corinthian Glossolalia: Possible Options,” WTJ 40 (1977): 130–35. Close to this is Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: Then and Now (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1996), 314. In 1 Corinthians 14:21–22, Paul cites Isaiah 28:11, which in context prophesies conquest by a people of “foreign tongue,” an actual human language.

[7] There may be a third category, where a Christian produces utterances from fleshly motives. See below.

[8] For additional features, see Poythress, “Linguistic and Sociological Analyses,” 369–70; D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, 77–88; Turner, The Holy Spirit, 303–14.

[9] L. C. May, “A Survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Christian Religions,” American Anthropologist58 (1956) 75–96; Keener, Acts, 1:817.

[10] E.g., Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), especially 64–65.

[11] Poythress, “Linguistic and Sociological Analyses,” 374.

[12] David Hilborn, “Glossolalia as Communication: A Linguistic-Pragmatic Perspective,” in Speaking in Tongues: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. Mark J. Cartledge (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2006), 112–17; William J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels (New York: Macmillan, 1972), 118–28.

[13] Poythress, “Linguistic and Sociological Analyses,” 370; Keener, Acts, 1:818.

[14] Grudem, Gift of Prophecy, 25–65.

[15] We cannot within the scope of this article take up the debated question of whether all “prophecies” in the first century church were either infallible or utterances of false prophets.

[16] We may profit much by considering the idea of speaking in tongues and 1 Corinthians 12–14 in the larger contexts: Paul’s theology of spiritual gifts, of the church, of the kingdom of God, and of salvation. When we do so, it is natural to consider Paul’s thinking from our own angle. It becomes easy to color Paul according to our unconscious preferences. If we care for sound doctrine and prefer precise terms (e.g., terms for “inspiration,” or for “speaking in tongues”), we imagine such precision in him. If we care for the distinction between canon and human fallibility, we imagine Paul as naturally paying close attention to it in his instruction to the churches. If, on the other hand, we incline to liberal or neoorthodox theological ways, we may feel suspicion toward “propositional” precision in past orthodoxy. We imagine Paul caring about spiritual vitality but not propositional doctrine.

I find myself between these two approaches because I care deeply for sound doctrine, but see it as built on a complex web of teaching in the whole Bible, rather than on a match between modern technically precise terms and the more ordinary and flexible modes of communication in Scripture. Scriptural communication is based ultimately on the mystery of trinitarian communication (Vern S. Poythress, In the Beginning Was the Word: Language—A God-Centered Approach [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009]).

Posted in Spiritual Growth |

Courtesy of The Gospel Coalition

Occasionally, someone will ask me what I think about the King James Only controversy raging in some of the fundamentalist circles of independent Baptist life. Having grown up around many KJV-Onlyers, I can only express sadness that the conservative independent Baptists continue to separate from each other over unimportant matters.

The fundamentalist movement is cocooning itself into a safe web of tradition that will eventually squeeze the very life out of it. It used to be that independent Baptists separated themselves from other Christians over important doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ or the inspiration of the Scriptures. Today, the independents are separating, even among themselves, over issues such as Bible translations, music style, and dress.

Rising to the forefront of the fundamentalist squabbles is the King James Only controversy. Some groups are claiming that this is the hill on which to die, the main issue by which to tell a fundamentalist from a liberal.

So what is it anyway? The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda. This theory manifests itself in various forms, some of which are more extreme than others.

KJV Only Arguments

1. The King James Version is based on the “Majority Text” over against the modern versions that are based on the corrupt “Alexandrian Texts.”
Response: Most of the Byzantine texts used by the King James translators come from the 11th and 12th centuries. We have since discovered many older and more reliable manuscripts, which are closer to the original writings of the Bible authors. By comparing the earlier manuscripts to the later ones, we can see how the flourishes and additions of scribes can corrupt a text over time, leading us to believe that many of the “Alexandrian manuscripts” are closer to the originals and the majority of Byzantine texts altered. If the controversy were truly a textual issue, one wonders why the Greek scholars in the KJV camp have not come up with a modern English translation based on the texts they deem “inspired.” The textual issue is actually a smokescreen which hides the true reason for rejecting modern versions: any update of the KJV is considered tampering with God’s Word.

2. The modern translations attack the deity of Christ by removing references to his lordship.

Response: The Byzantine texts have the additional “Lord” and “Christ” added to the name of Jesus in many places where the older, more reliable texts do not. These are most surely the results of ambitious scribes, seeking to show reverence to the Savior or simply making mistakes in copying manuscripts. There are many examples where the deity of Christ is made clearer in modern translations than in the KJV. (Jude 4Phil. 2:6-7Acts 16:71 Peter 3:14-15John 14:14)

3. Heretics, occultists and homosexuals were on the translation committees of modern versions.
Response: This is an all-out attack on the character of faithful believers who have sought to use their linguistic skills in offering an accurate translation of the Scriptures. The biblical linguist B.F. Westcott is consistently attacked, due to negligence in confusing him with the spiritualist W.W. Westcott. If there is anyone whose salvation should be questioned due to their “fruit,” it would be some of the extremist KJV Only advocates, whose polemic, vicious rhetoric is not becoming of a believer in Christ.

4. The modern translations delete verses from the Bible.
Response: Based on the older and more reliable manuscripts, the modern translations have simply sought to reflect what was contained in the original manuscripts. It is just as serious to add to Scripture, as it is to take away from Scripture. The starting-point for KJV Only advocates is that the KJV is the standard to which all other translations must bow, which is also the position they seek to prove. Thus, they employ circular reasoning that will not allow them to see any other position as possibly correct.

5. The 1611 Authorized Version is the preserved Word of God in English.
Response: No one today reads from the 1611 version, which also included the Apocrypha. The 1769 revision is the most common version of the King James translation, and this one includes thousands of differences compared to the original.

6. The modern translations promote a “works-salvation.”
Response: Virtually all of today’s cults (excepting the Jehovah’s Witnesses) prefer the King James version over the rest, including the Mormons, who also preach a “works-salvation.” Of course, this does not negate the worth of the King James version, but we could use this argument if we were to employ the same tactics of the KJV Only crowd. Compare Revelation 22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (KJV) Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. (ESV) If we were to use the KJV Only logic, we could assume on the basis of this verse that the King James translators were conspiring to take us back to the chains of Catholicism, while the ESV translators are translating faithfully God’s Word. Of course, this would be a ridiculous assumption, but it is the kind of reasoning that KJV Only advocates employ. Even John R. Rice, the founder of the (now KJV-Only) Sword of the Lord admitted in Our God-Breathed Book – The Bible that the KJV renders Revelation 22:14incorrectly and that the ASV is more accurate here.

7. The newer versions include footnotes which offer different renderings of certain words or verses. These footnotes confuse the reader and undermine the doctrine of inspiration.
Response: The 1611 King James Version also included thousands of footnotes which offered different readings for different verses. We should be grateful for today’s translators, who in the spirit of the King James tradition, have been intellectually honest when rendering exceptionally difficult verses about the limits to their knowledge.

Like with anyone who expounds a conspiracy theory, it is usually fruitless to try to reason with the KJV Only crowd. One should seek to prod these brothers and sisters to a correct understanding with love and patience, realizing that most efforts will be spurned and may turn out in vain.