Final statement by Jesse

Are the gifts necessary?

I must admit that when I first heard this question, I realized I’d never thought seriously about it that way. I think I’ve always thought that they are, but why and how? The benefit of this exercise is that it requires us to return once again to God’s word for fresh illumination to the many questions raised from reading it. I have found this whole exercise spiritually refreshing, as well as intellectually stimulating. Thank you, Frank, for the opportunity to participate here.

I think both sides would agree that the primary concern for Christians is to edify the church, not build up themselves, put themselves on some inside-track of super-spirituality based on some gnostic, hidden knowledge reserved for an elite few. No, the goal is love, and love motivates us to edify, build up and encourage others. On this we agree.

We disagree in that I believe all the gifts when properly used can edify the church, whereas some would think that only certain gifts edify the church, whereas some simply edify the individual. So, it is on this conclusion, that all the gifts edify the church that I make this final summary of my thinking and plea to pursue this edification:

Are the gifts necessary? Only if we desire the church to be edified in every way possible, in each way that God has told us it could be so. If we don’t desire a church to be edified in every way possible, if we are content that the church can be edified in the safe ways, while avoiding those means of edification that are fraught with potential abuse, then I admit the gifts are not necessary for the life of a church.

But if we desire the church to be edified in the full variety of ways God has given for it to be built up, the spiritual gifts are necessary. Why? Because Christians need to feel good about their super-spirituality? No, because God has invested into the gifts the inherent power to accomplish this essential task of encouragement. A church that does not pursue the gifts cannot be fully edified, or it would mean nothing for God to offer gifts that edify. Can we answer the wisdom of God who offers gifts to edify by saying, “No thanks, Lord! You offer something dangerous. We’ll content ourselves with the safe ways of edifying your bride.”

What irony, that we would neglect a God-ordained means of edification of His bride, out of the pretense that we are trying to protect it. Protect it from what? Protect it from abuse and excess. Carry on nutritionist; keep telling the church that she may not eat this dish lest she become a glutton. By implementing a diet of strict abstinence, for fear that eating from this portion of God’s table will lead to gluttony, you have shown great practical wisdom, even greater caution than Paul, who never once told the Corinthians they should not pursue the gifts. That apostle, for all he did well, surely missed an opportunity to reprimand those Corinthians for being zealous for the gifts, and could have saved himself a lot of trouble, if only God had given him such advice, and told them to get on to better things like love and abstain from these sin-fraught gifts that lead to so much trouble.

But Paul never did this. He recognized that even gluttons must eat. Even people who have abused gifts must still pursue them. Even people who have seen the gifts used for all manner of evil must still view them as necessary.

Why? Because the church must be edified. The gifts must be pursued. We who are earnest for the church to be edified must leave no stone unturned. The church must be edified through the preaching of the word. The church must be edified through the fellowship of the saints. The church must be edified through the sacraments. The church must be edified through fasting and prayer and the spiritual disciplines. The church must be edified through singing and through evangelism. And yes, the church must be edified through the charismata.

Be vigilant! Let the building up of the church consume you. Do not pursue all means of edification except one. Do not cease at the last point, though it may be the hardest and most dangerous. Press on. Rooted in love, earnestly desire the spiritual gifts that the church may be edified in every way possible, that the bridegroom may avail to the bride the full measure of divine nourishment.

A#5 for Frank

Before I "grandstand", I would like to examine the logic of your syllogism. You say tongues are unnecessary because they can't edify alone, but are under the restriction of interpretation.

Your logic is as follows: Thing A (tongues) cannot accomplish Effect C (edification) without help of Thing B (interpretation). Therefore, tongues is unnecessary for edification. Does this always work? Let's apply it to something else, like procreation: A woman (thing A) cannot accomplish procreation (effect C) without the help of a man (thing B). Therefore, a woman is unnecessary for procreation.

Clearly this doesn't always work. It only works if Thing B (man/interpretation) can accomplish the effect (procreation/edification) alone. Can an interpretation edify alone, without any tongue? No, because it would not be an interpretation if there was no foreign tongue to interpret.

Now, to answer your question about church history. I'm afraid 500 words is insufficient to do this answer justice, but I will suggest some historical movements that have experienced these things, and you can be the judge as to how "sporadic" it has been:

John Wesley and the methodist revival: Revivals in Virginia and Kentucky in the late 17 early 1800s was one of the earliest outbreaks of these tongues and healings manifestations on US soil, in which tens of thousands (2,000 methodists in Georgia alone, Edward Dromgoole), of people were experiencing these things. In August of 1801 there were as many as 25,000 gathered at Cane Ridge, where they were speak in unknown tongues[2]. Let me also refer you to Finney's conversion and the revivals of the 1820's.

Holiness --> Pentecostal churches: From the holiness movement to the Church of God all through the mid 1800's until the 1900's, millions of believers took part in these revivals and camp meetings, during which these signs you say are so sporadic took place. A Welsh revival had also been growing during this time in which 30,000 people had been converted and experienced speaking in tongues/experienced healing.

Azusa: Leaders from these respective movements met at Azusa street, where the most notable historical example of an outbreak of tongues, healing and miracles took place. It is this event that the millions of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians today, who speak in tongues and experience healing trace their heritage.

Our church: During corporate repentance from sin many of our youth were baptized in the Spirit, began speaking in tongues. Our church has a healing team which on numerous occasions has seen God answer these prayers and provide healing that goes beyond medical explanation. email me sometime and we can discuss these things.

There are 217,000,000 "denominational Pentecostals". If we add other "Charismatics" and "Third Wavers" this number reaches 413,000,000. [1]. Most would say they speak in tongues and many would say they have seen/experienced miraculous healing.

This was a poor answer, far to short to capture the extensive history. Read my footnotes. This sort of thing is wide spread historically: what do I make of those who have not experienced these things? Read Luke 11:13. Ask him!

[1] Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition, Vinson Synan
[2] College Life in the Old South, Coulter, p. 194-195.

Q#5 for Jesse

First off, thanks to Jesse for his participation here. After he answers this question, he also gets the opportunity to give a 1000-word summary of his view of what happened here.

---

Let’s take my last question to give you the opportunity to grandstand a little. My view of the activity of the church in the last 2000 years is that, overwhelmingly, the vast majority of churches did not display the sign gifts -- healing, prophecy in the "thus saith the lord" sense, tongues (both angelic and human languages), and interpretation (both angelic and human languages).

If the sign gifts are a necessary part of the ongoing life of the church, what should we make of all these churches which have never displayed the sign gifts once?

A#5 for Jesse

That’s not really much of an objection, Jesse – no offense. I’ll take the hit on word count to paste the passage in here just to put it all in one place without the pop-ups:

Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.

The underlined parts are words which emphasize a point – “especially”, “even more”, “is greater than”. And what gets emphasized? The upbuilding, encouragement and consolation of people by speaking to them.

This is why it’s just critical not to disconnect this passage, in spite of the artificial chapter breaks, from the one which comes before it in Paul’s discourse on love as a “higher way”. Love is the motive and the context in which we take action, and the kind of action we choose speaks to whether we are doing “love” or not.

Love is the higher way; edification of the body demonstrates love. It’s interesting, I think, that Paul doesn’t say that those who “prophesy” have an obligation to meet some propriety test, some rule of order test which seeks other gifts to confirm it, but tongues do. When Paul then breaks into 1 Cor 14:20-25, he doesn’t leave any doubt that while the gift of tongues may be lawful or even possible, it’s not hardly useful in and of itself and therefore must be under some other kind of restriction.

It is not necessary for the life of the body of Christ – not as the gifts which console, encourage and build up are necessary. Did Paul say some had it? Sure he did – but he was clear to say that it is a gift which is subordinate to greater gifts, particularly love and speaking truth, and ought not to be used without the covering or support of those other gifts. That makes the gift not necessary for the life of the church.

Here’s the syllogism:

[A] Gifts which are necessary for the life of the church can stand alone in their use.
[B] Tongues must not stand alone in their use.
-THEREFORE-
[C] Tongues are not necessary for the life of the church.

Q#5 for Frank

I will now post my final question for Frank:

Frank, you said: "Paul is making it clear that the sign gifts only build one's self up while the prophecy/teaching gift edifies the whole church", and you used 1 Cor 14:4 to justify this point.

Yet, I raised the point that in the very next verse Paul provides an exception, "unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified" (14:5). This would make it clear to me that a tongue does have power to edify, provided that it is properly used in conjunction with interpretation, so that the content of the tongue is understandable. Sign gifts, therefore, when used improperly perhaps only edify the individual, but when used properly do edify the church.

How do you respond to this objection?

A#4 for Frank

I disagree that Paul's discouragement of the use of uninterpreted public tongues means that tongues is absolutely unnecessary. Part of the value and necessity of tongues is that when they cooperate with the gift of interpretation, they have immense potency to edify. Interpretation harnesses the power of the tongue and converts it to useful edification for the gathered body, like a solar panel would take the power of the sun and convert it to useful energy for a house.

"Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up" (1 Cor 14:5).

What's the implication of the conditional phrase "unless someone interprets"? The one who prophecies is NOT greater than the tongues-speaker provided there's an interpretation.

In other words, Paul is correcting the regular use of uninterpreted public tongues. But, if there's an interpretation, if that power of tongues is harnessed in the proper way, there is tremendous potency for tongues to edify the whole body. Therefore, tongues is necessary if we want the church to be edified in this way.

So, I don't think that only prophecy edifies the whole church, while the others only edify individual believers, as you say. All the gifts, used properly, edify the whole church, including tongues and interpretation.

"What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret" (1 Cor 14:26-27).