Rorrinns 8
Romans 8, which mentions the Spirit of God m‹ re rhan any other chap- ter in the Bible, makes the same pcaint. To understand Romans 8 most fully,
Gift and Giver
we sh‹au1cI start in the precious chapter, the much debated RomaYlS Ï. ÜkTiS- tians debate w'hether or not it dcpicts Paul's experience as a Christian; 1 am inclined to argue that the context and depth of sin depicted here exclude that approach. I wc uld thus argue that the present-tense vens are for vivid- ness (like historical presents in the Greek of the Gr spels). But if I am wrong (and I may be), we can all agree on this much: The focus of the chapter is life under the law (7:5—14).
The extent to which our lives resemble Romans 7 (if they do) is due to the fact that we struggle to achieve our own righteousness rather than accept and simply 1lve out God’s gift of righteousness in Jesus Christ. To counter some Jewish Christians' view that the law gave them a spiritual advantage, Paul ïnsists that he too had once lived life under the law (7:9-14). Yet whereas most Jewish teachers felt that the law empowered people to over- come the evil impulse within them, Paul declared that for him it simply brought evil more into focus, until it controlled him. One could not achieve righteousness by depending on one's ability to fulfill the law. One died to sin only through Christ—through accepting the finished work of Christ and continuall y reaffirming it by faith (Rom. 6:1-11). Under the law, Paul said, he found that he was “Ileshly,” “sold into slavery to sin” (7:14). In Christ, however, he was “not in the Ilesh” (8:9) kut had been redeemed from slavery to sin (6:18, 20, 22).
No longer was the law simply a death sentence. Now, written in the believer's heart, the law was the moral guidance of God’s own Spirit (8:2; compare Jer. 31:33—34; Ezek. 36:26-27). No longer would sin dwelling in the person control the person (Rom. ):17-18). Now the Spirit lives in the believen, and any professed believer who does not have this Spirit does nr t belong to Chrlst (8:9).
This does not mean we have arrived at our “promised land” yet, but we have certalnly started on the way! In Romans 8, Paul borrows images relating to the time when God first saved his people Israel and applies
these images to Christians: Like Israel, we “groan” because of our slavery (Exod. 2:23; Rom. 8:23); Grid has begun to free us from that b‹andage (5god. 2:24; Rom. 8:15); God has adopted us as his children (Exod. 4:22; Rom. 8:Id—16); he leads us on our way in the present time (Exod. 13:21; Rom. 8:14); ancJ he has a future inheritance f‹ar us (Num. 33: 53—54; Rom.
8:17), sc› that the ful6llment of our redemptlon awaits that future promised inheritance (Rom. 8:23).
From start t‹ finish, Christians are per ple whose future hope is guar-
anteed by God's Spirit within them (Rom. 8:9—11, 14-16, 23, 26—2 7),
just as God's presence with Israel was their guarantee of victory. Clearly anyone whoa cities not have the Spirit in the Romans 8 sense is not yet saved. And if Paul believes in receiving the Spirit as a second work dis- tinct frcam this work, he gives nor the slightest clue here r›r anywhere else in his writings.
Is the Spirit Only Past Tense for Paul?
At the same time, Paul recognizes that believers can avail themselves of a continued “supply” of the Holy Spirit (Phil. 1:19).’ He summons them to “remain hlled with the Spirit” continuously (Eph. 5:18), and he expects them to walk in the Spirit and prraduce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16-23)—a matrer on which he exhorts them precisely because they were falling short. Perhaps his view that God continues to “give” (pres- ent tense) his Spirit to the Galatians also implies a continuing supply of God’s pc›wer (Gal. 3:5). (Although it could refer to rhe continuing expe- rience of welcoming newcomers int‹a the community, Paul nowhere else in the lerter has newcomers in view.)
In other words, although all God's fullness becomes ours in Christ at the moment of our conversi‹an, we still have to actualize that fullness in our daily lives. Returning to our analogy, it is one thing to be dead to sin in Christ—that is accomplished at conversion (Rom. 6:3—4; Col. 3:3). It is quite another to live like we are dead to sin (Rom. 6:11-14; 8:13; Col. 3:5). Any Christian who has sinned since his or her conversion recog- nizes this difference. Likewise, any Christian who has faltered in his or her witness or sensitivity to Gc›d’s leading recognizes the need for a greater dependence on the Spirit's power, to which God has given us full access in Christ.
Christian Experience of the Spirit in Acts
When God's Spirit inspired the Bible thru ugh chosen people obedient t‹ his leading (Ream. 1:2), he worked through their distinctive styles and modes of expression. That is why Isaiah reads different from]eremiah, Jere- miah from Ezekiel, and so on. God even had a special nickname for Ezekiel—“son of man,” or “human ‹one”—which he did not apply to most of his prophets. These differences reflect the very nature of language—there is more than one way to say something. This is one reason we dare not jump t‹ the conc1usi‹ n that a particular phrase means the same thing in every
15S lift and Giver
passage c›r for every writer. SoinetimCS lt plainly means someth ing differ- ent. That is why James and Paul do not contradict each other even though they say very different things about faith; they are using their terms differ- ently (Rom. 4:5; James 2:14). By “receiving the Spirit,” John or Paul may refer to a particular aspect of the Spirit’s work, while Luke may refer to a different one.
We noted earlier that Jewish people in the first century held various views about the Holy Spirit. Whereas John and Paul blend two of these emphases together (new birth and prophetic empowerment: compare 1 Sam. 10:6, 10), Luke's writings focus almost exclusively on prophetic empowerment. Thus, being “filled with the Spirit” normally results in some sort of prophetic speech (Luke 1:15, 41—42, 67; Acts 2:4; 13:9-10) or wit- ness (Acts 4:8, 31; only 9:17 lists no effects, and 13:52 alone appears to constitute an exception).
Whereas one might think, from reading Paul's writings, that baptism in the Spirit and receiving the Spirit occur at conversion (but filling after- ward), Luke seems to identify this initial filling of the prophetic Spirit with the baptism in the Spirit (Acts 2:4 fulfills 1:4=5; see 2:33, 39) and “receiv- ing the Spirit” (2:38-39). The Spirit could “cGme on” believers (as he came on the prophets of old) when they “receive” him ( 10:44, 47; 19:2, 6), an experience identified with the Pentecost experience of the first disciples and called being “baptized in the Holy Spirit" (10:47; 11:15—17; note also the expression “poured out” in 10:45). Thus, the Samaritans could be con- verted yet not have “received the Spirit” in the sense in which Luke means the phrase (8:15-16; see discussion below).
Even for Luke, however, conversion is the only prerequisite for receiv- ing the Spirit (Acts 2:38). On the level of direct theological statements, Luke probably would have preached exactly the same message as Paul c r John: You receive the Spirlt when y‹ u accept Christ as Lord and Savior. But on the level of experience, he seems to indicate that at least some people encounter a fuller prc›phetic empowerment r f the Spirit after conversion. We dare not underestimate the significance of Luke's testimony, because Acts is the only New Testament book that directly depicts early Christian experience (although we may infer other aspects of that experience from letters that address it). Rather than interpreting half of the examples in Acts in a way that harmonizes them with Paul, perhaps we need to look at Acts to understand how the New Testament's theolcigical statements func- tion in practice. Luke apparently intends us t‹ interpret his direct state- rent in Acts 2:38 and his narrative examples in light of each other.
When Are We Baptized in the Spirit?
I must add one caveat. I am employing phrases such as “receive the Spirit” and “be baptized in the Spirit” interchangeably. Technically, Luke explicitly employs the expression “baptized in the Holy Spirit” in only two instances: with reference to Pentecost (Acts 1:5; compare 2:1-4) and in Peter's description of the conversion of Cornelius's household (Acts 11:15—16; compare 10:44—47). Some of my colleagues therefore argue that the expression applies only to conversion. I would respond that Acts uses a variety of synonymous expressions that it identifies with one another (as I noted a few paragraphs above) and that it applies these to the expe- rience of empowerment whether or not it happens at conversion ( as noted below).
Thus, I would apply the expression to the whole sphere of the Spirit's work and think that Luke focuses on a particular aspect of that work that is not always simultaneous with conversion. But my primary interest in this chapter is the experience and its effects, rather than the precise ter- minology. What I hope will persuade all my readers at the least is that Luke shows us that experiences of empowerment by the Holy Spirit are desirable, even after conversion. Luke emphasizes this special empower- ment for crossing cultural boundaries and evangelizing the world, and I believe that he reports Christians sometimes experiencing this empow- erment after conversion.
ExnmQtes o{ Receiving the Spirit in Acts
Sometimes the Spirit came at conversion, even in Acts. Although some have argued that Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:2) were believers before Peter preached, the evidence of the text argues otherwise. Acts else- where testifies that Grad sent Peter precisely so that these Gentiles could hear the gospcl, believe, and be saved, having their hearts cleansed by faith ( 11:14; 15:7-11 ). Peter had earlier declared that all who repented and were baptized would receive the gift of the Spirit (2:38), anal th e c‹ nver- sion of Cornelius's household fits this promise perfectly, except for the mat- ter of sequence. Hearing the gospel, they immediately were baptized in the Holy Spirit, even before they had received water baptism ( 10:44-48; 11:15—17). (It was a go‹ad thing it happened this way too, tar Peter's coi- panions may have wanted to circumcise them lirst.) Here the theology of the Spirit wc›rked cout in practice exactly as it did in the‹iry (in 2:3b): A persc n rcce ived the Spirit in his r›verwhe1ininp fullness through faith at the mc ment of conversion.
Yet dries the principle always work this e‹asi1y in practice / Most Chr is- tians, for instance, do not experience an e‹jually dramatic river whet in ing of the Spirit at conversion as this text describes. in that point, at least, we to not make this passage a universal mode I but allow for some vari- ety in experience. The gospel declares that we died to sin when we accepted Christ, which means that the normal Christian life she uld be sinless (including perfect the ughts and attitudes). Yet mc›st Christians I know did not begin living such “normal” Christian lives immediately at conversion (or do so even now), althc ugh deliverance from sin is implici r in our conversion. lt is the standard we should look for, but we should next declare a conversion inauthentic if all its anticipated fru its do not sprc›ut forth at once. Baptism in the Spirit may prtavide another kind of delayed action.
Clther examples of conversions in Acts that mentic›n the Spirit's cc›m- ing are not as simple as Acts 10. Some examples do not explicitly men- tion the Spirit at all, offering no evidence in elther direction. In other cases, Luke notes only an encounter with the Spirit after conversion. Paul appears to have accepted Christ's lordship before being filled with the Spirit for the first time (9:17). In Acts 9:5 Paul acknowledges Jesus' iden- tity. Statue writers may overemphasize Paul's understanding of Jesus at this point, suggesting that his entire Gospel was implicit in this revelation. Nevertheless, Paul apparently had made at least the basic ackn‹aw1edg- ment necessary to be a Christian. Once he recognized that Jesus was Lord, he submitted himself to obey whatever Jesus said (Acts 9:5—6, 8; 22:10; 26:15—16). In contrast to what some writers suggest, Paul's “Lcard” here hardly means merely “sir”; the character of J esus' revelatic›n to him was similar to Old Testament manifestations of Gc d’s gl‹ ry and would leave Paul little doubt what Jesus' hardship actually invr lved.
True, Paul may not "‹ ffic ially" have been a Christian until his bap-
tism(2 2:16), but this does next mean he had not yet made his inward comm it ment t‹ Christ. J ew ish people had Gentiles baptized as an act of conversiran t‹ Judaism, so Jewish people would understand baptism as an act c f conversion. This understanding should not suggest, however, that the Spirit waits to transf‹irm the repentant heart until water is applied to the body. The New Testament picture ‹›f baptism can be explained by the analc›gy of an engagement ring: A man iriay ask a wc›inan to marry him,
but usimilly she wants metre than hls request—she wants to scc the ring. B‹iptislu makes it ofhcial, as a rublic testiinc›ny of one's commitment to h Flit, bLlt b‹4ptlS1Tl lS thli reSFl lt Inf (£‹3thc r thafl thC Cc)USC C4f) C314c'S iFlWard
When Are We Biiptized in the Spirit? 161
cc nmltinent. If my understanding is correct (and I did hold this under- standing of baptism before I became a Baptist), Luke shc›ws us that Paul had already submitted to Christ's call three days before being filled with the Spirit.
Whether or not one agrees that Paul's faith in Christ preceded his empowerment by the Spirit, most readers will agree that believers can be “filled” with the Spirit after conversion. lt is the language of “receiving” the Spirit (which does not appear in this passage) that bothers some people. So we must look at two other passages. “Receiving” the Spirit appears in some form in 1:8; 2:33, 38; 8:15-19; 10:47; 19:2; the Spirit is
called a “gift” in 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17. These passages seem to apply specifically to initial reception of prophetic power, more narrowly than being “fi lled” with the spirit, which can happen more than once (2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9, 52). (Luke also used “filled” to describe sin or other
negative behavior, 5:3, 17; 13:45; 19:28-29.)
Acts 19 speaks of “certain disciples” receiving the Spirit. Disciples refers to Christians elsewhere in Acts, including the description “certain disciple(s)” (9:10, 36; 16:1), as classical Pentecrastal scholars point out.’ At the same time, these particular disciples had only received John’s bap- tism and had not yet heard that the Holy Spirit had come, which sug- gests that they left Palestine before Pentecost and were not in fellowship with Christians. In other words, scholars what argue that these particular disciples were probably disciples of John, rather than Christians, are prob- ably right.
Nevertheless, they do not receive the Spirit in the Lukan sense at the exact moment of their fuller faith in Christ or their Christian baptism; they receive it afterward when Paul lays hands on them ( 19:6). How long it took them to reach water f‹ar baptism is uncertain; perhaps they could have used fountains c›r public baths or the nearby rlver. We might guess that this toc›k at least half an hcaur, but withraut knowing where they were located in Ephesus (near a synagogue / near the agora, or marketplace, where Paul worked /) we cannot be sure. In any case, these disciples were converted at least a few minutes before their baptism. Otherwise, did they receive the Spirit in conversi‹an through the lay lng on of hands / (If that is what the text teaches, we would definitely have to adjust the way we d‹ altar calls, at least in Baptist churches.) Conversion often inv‹ Ives a process, as sc me argue, but unless we believe in spiritual purgatory, surely faith and) not the laying c›n r›f hands is the point at which ‹one passes frcnn spiritual death to spiritual I lfe.
162
T be Samnritons in Acts 8
Gift and Giver
When Are We Baptized in the Spirit? 163
healing ministry (8:6—8). This kind of joyous response also character- ized Paul's ministry ( 1.3:48, 52), althtaugh most of Paul’s audiences also
Acts 2 speaks of believers receiving the Spirit after they have already
been following Christ, but many interpreters consider this example an exception. Although I suspect that Luke intends it in many respects as a model rather than as an exception, for the sake of argument I will turn instead to Acts 8, where people apparently are converted and then after- ward receive the Spirit.
Some interpreters, such as John MacArthur, consider Acts 8 another exception, due to the transitional period covered by Acts. But interpreters who treat examples of subsequence in Acts as exceptions should honestly acknowledge what their approach implies. If only reception of the Spirit at the moment of conversion (Acts 10) is normative, we must explain as exceptions instances in which believers received the Spirit in some sense after conversion (anywhere from a few minutes to a few days; see Acts 2, 8, 9, and 19). When four of our five biblical examples are “exceptions,” however, one is tempted to question the validity of the “rule.”
Acts is history, but very few Acts scholars today would ignore that Luke teaches theology through his history, a fact that 1. Howard Marshall, Charles Talbert, and Robert Tannehill among others have forcefully demonstrated. Paul believed that we could derive theology from history ( 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; 2 Tim. 3:16; see also this book’s appendix). While not every example is a positive or universal one, examples of God's working that do not fit our par- adigms may require us to adjust our paradigms.
Luke does not address all early apostolic history, but he emphasizes those features that advance the themes that will equip his audience. Given that ancient writers normally expected readers to draw morals from their nar- ratives, the burden of proof rests on those who contend that Luke's history does not teach theolr›gy, rather than on those who contend that it d‹aes.
Tc be sure, most of the events Luke reports are exceptional in some sense, narrating the carrying forth of the gospel (w lth the attendant Christian baptism and the gift r›f the Spirit) to different groups of people. But this hardly means that Luke wants us to think that patterns he establishes among clifferent grr ups ceased in his own day. Rather, he wants us to recr›gnize that this pattern folio ws all Christians regardless of their background. Being filled with the Spirit should be a normal part c›f all Christians’ lives.
Acts presents Philip, like Stephen, in an unambiguously positive light (6:3-7; 8:4-5), ftir, unlike the apostles, he was ready to begin crossing cul- tural harriers frs m the start. The inhabitants ‹af a leading Samaritan city, peni‹iJ s ancient Shechem, resp‹ nded with joy to Philip's preaching and
included hostile responses alongside the receptive ones. The description of signs and wonders sounds like those God worked through other of his servants in Acts (2:43; 3:6—7; 4:30; 5:12—16; 6:8; 14:3; 19:11-12). Philip
was preaching “Christ” (8:5) and “the good news of God's kingdom” (8:12), just as Paul later did (20:25; 28:31). One would think that Philip understood the gospel, understood what was essential for conversion, and knew better than to baptize those who had not yet committed them- selves to Christ.
The text also tells us that the Samaritans “believed” (8:12)—a term applied elsewhere in Acts to saving faith (for example, 4:4; 10:45; 11:17; 14:1—2; 15:7, 9; 16:1; 17:12, 34; 19:18), especially when accompanied by baptism, as here ( 16:31-34; 18:8). The text indicates that they believed “Philip proclaiming the good news of the kingdom”; that is, they embraced the gospel. Everywhere else in Acts where followers of Jesus offer baptism, it is because those being baptized have accepted the gospel (2:41; 9:18; 10:47; 16:33; 18:8; 19:5). They “accepted God’s word” (8:14), language that throughout Acts normally refers to conversion (2:41; 11:1; compare 17:11 ). If these baptized believers who received God's message with joy were not converted, is anyone in the entire Book of Acts converted?
Some object that Luke does not mention the Samaritans’ repentance. Repentance seems to be assumed as a part of faith and baptism; after 2:38 it is mentioned (11:18; 13:24; 14:15; 17:30; 20:21; 26:18), but rarely in descriptions of conversions. If we doubt all conversions in Acts in which repentance is not explicitly mentioned, very few converts in Acts may be accepted as true cc nverts. Luke generally includes the notion of repentance in his descriptions of faith and baptism, whether or not he states it expllc- ttly. Similarly, baptism is often assumed in the term believed; here, however, it is explicitly mentioned, providing clearer testimony of conversir›n than some other examples of conversion in Acts.
Yet these new Christians still need to “receive” the Holy Spirit (8:15), although this is the same expression Acts 2:38 promised in response to con- version (10:47; 19:2). The promise was available upon conversion but appar- ently had not yet been appropriated. Whether the early Christians regarded this delay as normal c›r n‹at—the apostles d‹a seem to have been concerned about it—a delay is plainly in view. Even if abnc rmal, such a delay would count as evidence that delays can happen, for whatever reason.7
Res9onses to Acts 8
C*ift and Giver
When Are We Baptized in the Spirit? 165
ous New Testament writers might artlculate their message in different ways, “Ironically, at this point at least, there is greater diversity in the New Tes-
Is there any other way to explain the postconversion reception of the
Spirit in Acts 8 / Indeed there is. James Dunn, whose excellent classic work on the New Testament's teaching about the baptism in the Spirit is in most respects quite helpful, argues that the Samaritans were not genuinely con- verted. In contrast to many scholars before him who suggested that the Samaritans must have received the Spirit earlier with the manifestation coming later (John Calvin, F. F. Bruce, G. R. Beasley-Murray), or that this account refers to a second reception of the Spirit (most Roman and Anglo- Catholics [for confirmation] and Pentecostals), Dunn contends that the Samaritans were not converted until, in effect, the Jerusalem apostles came to lay hands on them.'
If Dunn's interpretation of the text provided a model of conversion, it would suggest an extraordinary precedent (one that, fortunately, Dunn himself does not draw): People may receive God’s Word with joy, may believe, may receive Christian baptism, yet may still require apostles to lay hands on them to complete their conversion! Worse yet, the text would call into question Luke's usual terminology for conversion and leave one wondering if baptism and faith in the gospel of Christ are sufficient toY salvation.
Dunn seeks to avoid this conclusion by presenting Luke's use of the ter- minology in Acts 8 as exceptional. But a survey of Luke's use of terminol- ogy (below) indicates that the variations are too subtle for the average pre- Dunn reader of Acts to catch them. Since most of Luke’s first audience would have simply heard Acts read in church services, Dunn's overly sub- tle case wcauld have surely eluded them. Instead, I believe they would have read this text largely as Pentecostals do.
Dunn's thesis, based on other New Testament passages, does not permit him to accept a postconversic›n experience with the Spirit here:
The problem of Acts 8, It ng the chief stronghold of Pentecc›stal (baptism in the Spirit) and Catholic (Confirmatic›n) alike, centres on two facts: the Samaritans believed and were baptized; they did not receive the Spirit until some time later. The problem is that in the context of the rest of the NT these (acts appear t‹ be mutually exclusive and wht lly irreconcilable.'
But must one force the details of Acts 8 (as I believe Dunn does) to fit “the rest of the New Testament”/ Or might 4 more plausible explanation CXlSt / As Clark Pinnock puts lt, referring t‹a Dunn's own belief that vari-
tament than even Jimmy Dunn is prepared to grant!”'°
Dunn argues that the Samaritans’ conversion was not genuine by appeal- ing to what he thinks are special irregularities in the narrative.1 ' He con- tends that Samaritans were superstitious and easily misled by magic. But ancient texts tell us the same about most other ancient peoples, not least the people of Ephesus (Acts 19:18-19), where some people also believed and received the Spirit (Acts 19:1-6). He further argues that the way the Samaritans “believe” here constitutes only intellectual assent, in contrast to saving faith, because Luke uses a Greek case called the dative. If this argument sounds strong to those who do not know Greek, one should keep in mind that Dunn provides only two examples of“believe” with this dative meaning, neither of which is clear. Luke usually employs the dative with “believe” when the object of faith is a person, with absolutely no indica- tion that the faith is defective (for example, Acts 16:34; 18:8; 27:25). Because few “rules” in first-century Greek functioned without exception, arguments from grammar may be helpful but must always be examined carefully.
Further, apostolic baptism always presupposes faith in Christ (22:16), and the apostles accepted Philip's baptism of the believing Samaritans as legitimate. We know that the apostles accepted the Samaritans’ baptism because, in contrast to Acts 19:5 (a defective baptism by John alone), they do not rebaptize the Samaritans." Dunn is correct that Simon the sorcerer’s inicial faith did not seem to prove as enduring as that of the Samaritans (8:18—24), but Luke (no less than the rest of the New Testament) rectuires perseverance as well as an initial profession of faith (whether to prove one's salvation, as some hold, or to keep it, as others hold). As Ervin points out, Simon proving a false or apostate convert tells us no more about the real- ity of the Samaritans’ faith than Judas's apostasy tells us about that of the Twelve (Acts 1:17).
Gordon Fee is a Pentecostal scholar who, like Dunn, does not differ- entiate baptism in the Spirit from conversion; rather, he regards baptism in the Spirit as the experiential dimension of conversic›n. Nevertheless, he also finds Dunn’s case in Acts 8 weak. He thinks that the point in Acts 8 is not subsequence, which admittedly does not appear to be the ideal for the Christian experience. (Note that the apostles sought fór the Samari- tan convertí t‹a receive the Spirit as ‹quickly as possible. ) Rather, this pas- sage emphasizes “the experiential, dynamic cJuality caf the gift taf the Spirit”
Cift and C•ivcr
that completes the conversion experience. Fee believes that the church in later centuries largely abandc›ned thls experiential dimensic n of con-
› ersion through not expecting it. He is not implying that those who lack the experience are unconverted but (if I have understood him correctly) that most Christians have settled for less than their spiritual birthright as Christians.''
My apprc ach, which emphasizes prophetic empowerment more than an
experiential dlmension of conversion, appears somewhat different from Fee’s (though it seems closely related in practice). Though Fee is correct rhat in Acts it was quite normal for Christians to experience the full work- ing of the Spirlt at conversion, in my view Acts 8 does allow that this expe- rience of prophetic empowerment (implicitly available in conversion itself) may occur after conversion. (My own experience actually fits Fee’s view as well as my own, but it does not fit that of most other committed Christians I know. In the hnal analysis, of course, our experience may be helpful but is not the ultimate norm anyway.)
In any case, however, much of the disagreement on the relationship of
“receiving the Spirit” (in the Lukan sense) to conversion is semantic. Unless one takes Dunn's view here, these Christians plainly experienced some- thing that the apostles considered essential for Christians, and experienced it after conversion. Such delay may not have been the ideal either then or today, but Acts shows us real Christian experience, not just the theologi- cal ideal. Real Christian experience is where the church usually lives, even if we are seeklng to experience the ideal.
Only Two Experiences in Acts?
While Christians in Acts sometimes entered this new sphere of spiritual experietice shortly after conversic›n Acts 8:14—17; 9:17; see also› 1:4-5; 19:5-6), sc›metimes they experienced during c›r almost simultaneous with rlaelr conversion (Acts 10:44; 11:14-15; almost slmu1tane‹aus, 19:4-6). Whar may surprise s‹ me readers, however, is that Spirit-empowerment did not steep with what some call a “second work of grace,” even among those who› had undoubtedly received a full “dose” of the Spirit by that point.
Fr›r example, Peter and john were unquestionably among those who received the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:1—4, 14), but they later received aclditional power for a special circumstance, power reminiscent of God’s Spirit “coming r›n” his prophets c›r tether servants in ancient lsrael (Acts 4:S; see ]urig. 6:34; 13:25; 14:19; 1 Sam. 10:6; 19:20). Likewise, Paul was
When Arc We Baptized in the Spirit?
hlled with the Holy Spirit shortly after Acts 9:17, but God filled him anew for a special situation in Acts 13:9. (The terminology of “filling,” at least, provides no clear distinction between the filling in 13:9 and what we might call his initial filling in 9:17 or the church's initial filling in 2:4.) Whole assemblies of people also experienced outpourings of the Spirit in fervent prayer meetings (4:31 and 13:52). Other experiences with the Spirit undoubtedly occurred; Luke merely provides samples of the Spirit’s works, usually encountered during prayer or ministry of the Word.
In other words, Acts, like Paul, is not simply calling us to a second (or third, or fourth) spiritual experience. As D. A. Carson says, “Although I find no biblical support for a second-blessing theology, I do find support for a second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-blessing theology.”'* Acts summons us to a Spirit-empowered life, by whatever initial and continuing experiences we are introduced into it. That is, the one book of the New Testament that most vividly portrays early Christian experience does not allow us to set- tle for a purely intellectual, rational examination of faith. While we do need the rational aspect of the faith (for example, Acts 19:9; Titus 1:9), the very Bible we rationally study invites us also to experience God's power in and through us.
On the one hand, Acts challenges many Pentecostals and charismatics who are satisfied to pray in tongues but neglect God's power in other ways (especially power for witness). On the other, it challenges many non-Pen- tecostals who are satisfied with a static devotional life devoid of real pas- sion or power. That is, Acts challenges most of the church to a deeper encounter with God's Spirit. If my observations of today's church are accu- rate, I suspect that those most clearly experiencing God's power like that found in Acts are those living on the cutting edge of evangelism—Chris- tians challenging the powers of darkness on their own turf by reaching unevangelized and often hostile people with the gospel. When those wht› are b‹ rn of the Spirit enter crisis situatir›ns ln obedience tc God's call, they learn dependence on Gc d's Spirit.
Second-work Pentecc›stals and their theological c‹ usins in the Wesleyan
and Holiness traditions have br‹aught a gift t‹ the rest of Christ's body by reininc4ing us that we all need an experiential empowerment of the Spirit, just as other traditions have rightly emphasized the need to depend on the finished work of Christ. Whether we think ‹af that empowerment as 1 r icit
in our conversi‹ n, in our water baptism, c›r in a sec‹and or third spccial work,
we reef pnize th‹it in practice we must yield more fully to God's grcice and power in ‹our lives.
Cift and Gix'er
The prirriary issue in Acts, however, is n‹at subsequence or lack of sub- sequence. Although it was thec›1ogically ideal to receive the full impact of the Spirit at conversion, whether people had the experience of empower- rent was more important than when they received it. Have we yielded c urselves the way God wants us to, either at conversion or afterward, to the r verwhelming direction of the Spirit in uttering praise, prophecy, or witness? That the apostles laid hands on the Samaritan Christians to make sure that they received the Spirit shows that they regarded receiving the Spirit in this empowerment sense as normative, something Christians need to have.
Luke nowhere suggests that we need this particular work of the Spirit for salvation or spiritual virtue; it is a special empowerment for evangelism and the work of the kingdom. People differ over whether all Christians receive complete access to this power at their conversion (1 believe they do receive full access, though not always the full experience); they also debate what kind of manifestations may accompany the believer's experi- ence of this empowerment (we discuss one of these debates in the follow- ing chapter). But aside from these issues, the fact remains that in practice we need the Spirit's power. The Spirit is not just something we haee; the Spirit is someone whose power we need to embrace and depend on. Because we seek to cultivate an intimate relationship with God, we can seek him for his power and activity in our lives. If Luke wrote Acts to teach us any- thing in particular, he expects the missionary church to be a Spirit-empow- ered church in experience, not just in theory.
Conclusion
Wc are complete in Christ and head tr› sin, but in practice that iueans neither that ,all ‹if tie always live accordingly nor that we always apprr›pri-
‹ttc the owcr of the Spirit t1a‹it en‹ib1es us tr d‹ so. Conversion tives us
‹Access to all wc need, but neither conversion nor a single experience after conversic›n frees us from the need tr› seek God’s empowerment in practice. That ineans wc seek not a single experience but a cc ntinuing relationship, monty encountering our master in the power of hls Holy Spirit, living out of the power already imparted to us when wc becaine f‹ llowers ofJesus Christ. ut if wc become more yielded to his power in our lives through such expe-
! CS US CtS ÙOSC f 1ÉCS, th Cn Ùÿ FI) 1T1 nljs Vt ¿[1tjtl}C} )p p ;qç]ÿ ttj ptjptj(jJjtpp
Gr›cJ in such w'‹ays.
When Are We Baptizcd in the Spirit I 169
All Christians must cultivate a deeper dependence on the Spirit's power in our daily walk ‹ I obedient faith in God. I am sure that I, at least, would not dare to face my calling and the conflicts that my calling entails with- cout the Spirit's help. Whether I am offering outreach lectures on secular campuses about the histc rical reliability of the Gospels or lecturing to min- istry students in my seminary classes about matters of faith and obedience, 1 need the Spirit's strength, guidance, and boldness.
While much of the ccantemporary church has divided over whether bap- tism in the Spirit occurs at or after conversion, we have often neglected the sense of exactly what this baptism in the Spirit means for our daily lives in Christ. Whichever view we take concerning the chronology of Spirit baptism (some readers may, with us, opt for both), all believers need to know what the Spirit means in practical terms for our relationship with Christ.
What is baptism in the Holy Spirit? Aside from debates about how much of God’s empowerment occurs at what point in a believer's life, the bap- tism in the Holy Spirit includes God's empowerment for the mission he has given us, his church. I have summarized some of the diverse emphases about this power earlier in the book (in the chapters on evangelism, the Spirit's fruit, and salvation). God has made us new by his Spirit and now enables us to live holy lives and build up our fellow believers by the Spirit's fruit and gifts (Paul). God has washed us, causing us to be born from him with a new character (John). Through the empowerment of God’s Spirit, we are called to take Jesus’ message both to those around us and to the ends of the earth (Acts). Through the empowerment of God's Spirit, Jesus prepares us to face the c‹anf1icts involved in our mission, confronting and defeating the devil at the point of human need (Mark). The Spirit transforms us when we come to Christ; from that point fc rward we must continue to depend on his power to carry out the missi‹ n Jesus gave us.
Tongues and the Spirit
hen 1 was a graduate student at Duke, Julie, a Catholic under- graduate working with Young Life, asked me curiously about prayer in tongues. I talked with her about the subject, and she
sounded intrigued but assured me that it would never happen to her. About a month later, however, she was praying ctuietly with a group of other Young Life staff, and her quiet prayer began to come out in an‹athcr language.
One day 1 was talking with Missy, rhe Episcopalian treasurer of tour Inter- Varsity group, when Julie walked up. Julie and 1 started discussing her new experience. I suddenly realized that we might be scaring Missy. “Missy, is this disturbing you /” I inquired, trying to be sensitive,
“Oh, no, I pray in tr ngues,” Missy responded.
I smiled. “A number of people in the InterVarsity chapter have told me they do it privately,” 1 remarked, “but none of them wants me to tell any-
‹one else. They think people wll1 think them strange if c›thers fine) out.” “Does Derek pray in tongues /” Missy inquired. Derek was the Southern
Baptist large gr‹ up leader. 1 hesitated. I3erek didn't want anyone to know. Gift and Gi› er
“You'd bettcr ask l)erek,” I suggested. At that m‹»nent, Derek appeared out of nowhere; West Campus is fairly large, so this was a significant “coincidence.”
“Hey, guys, what's ups” Derek asked.
“Derek, do you speak in tongues /” Missy pressed immediately. Derek paused, lowered his face, and quietly admitted it. “I do roo!” Missy declared. “You dot” Derek rebounded happily. We decided to go up to Missy's room and have a little “charismatic prayer meeting to celebrate. As we were preparing to do so, htawever, Alison, a Presbyterian freshman from the group,
walked up.
“Hey, guys, what’s ups”
“Ah, we're going to pray,” Derek responded nervously. “Oh, cool. May I join you /” she asked.
“Of course,” we responded, starting to march up the stairs of Missy's res- idence hall. Befrare reaching Missy's room I decided I'd better check whether it would bother Alison if anyone prayed in tongues.
“Oh, no, I pray in tongues too,” Alison replied. After that the Christians who secretly prayed in tongues started coming out of the closet.
For Somebody, Anybody, Everybody, or Nobody?
In this chapter I will try to represent fairly the best arguments for both the traditional Pentecostal pc›sition and that of those who affirm the gifts but doubt that tongues always accompanies baptism in the Spirit. The argu- ments for each side are better than the other side usually gives them credlr for.
* *°** g the issue, however, we sh‹ uld place it in perspective. Varir›usly lifted parts of Christ's beady can help one another by sharing their gifts rather than by negating c›thers’ gifts, whether the gift be tongues or wis- dom c›r knowledge. Those who have never experienced particular gifts can
learn much from the experiences of rhose when have experienced them. Sim-
ilarly, most Christians can learn more abc›ut how to read the Bible from those who know and understand it best, about G‹id's concern fair the broken and wounded frc›in these who have been through pain and learned to share oth-
e rs' Pai n , **nd Sc* ten. We are rune body, and we need one another's gifts. If
**an's kmpdcxn cannot stand if divided, we must also questi‹an whether the church serves Christ best when members divic4e from rune mother. We are
Tongues and the Spirit
members of one another and should bring all our gifts together to build up his one body (Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cr›r. 12:7).
The Controversy Today
T‹ ngues is not listed among the fruits of the Spirit, nor is it the most dra- matic gift of the Spirit. lt remains, however, the most controversial gift of the Spirit today; hence, it warrants special treatment in this book. We dis- cussed tongues briefly in the chapter on spiritual gifts, but in this chapter we discuss its proposed connection with baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Although a consensus seems to be emerging on many points about the Spirit, differences of opinion on tongues remain. The extreme and relatively rare view that tongues-speaking is mandatory for salvation is currently declin- ing, even in circles that officially hold it. Beyond this, however, many divide. Some affirm that tongues is a valid gift for today and is useful for those who practice it, but it is not necessary for everyone. Most Pentecostals and many independent charismatics, however, see it as the initial physical sign of bap- tism in the Holy Spirit.
I will begin the discussion assuming that most readers accept tongues as a valid gift for today. Even most of those who do not affirm that tongues occurs today believe that those who do pray in tongues can be committed Christians, and they are willing to work with these Christians in the cause of Christ. Christians who refuse all fellowship with Pentecostals are, at least in the parts of Christendom I know, usually out of fellowship with most other parts of Christ's body as well.
The fact that tens of millions of Christians believe that tongues must accompany baptism in the Spirit (anJ tens of millions of other Christians do not) is reason enough to continue c›pen dialc›gue about the issue in Christ's body today. There seems to be less middle ground ‹ n this issue than on some other matters, and readers from varying perspectives who find most c›f this book agreeable may disagree with my argument here. Not all readers will agree with all of my conclusi‹ans, but I hope to present the arguments for various positions clearly and fairly enough to further dialogue. My hope is that if Christians who hold c)ifferent positions can at least hear one another's arguments clearly, we can understand why others hold their positions and work tt gether more charitably. Christians need not agree on every matter, but we cannot afford to disrespect or mistrust one another.
174
Tongues-Speaking and Baptism in the Holy Spirit
Tongues and the 5pirit
My Experience with Tongues
175
Thc assertion that tc ngues-speaking always accompanies baptism in the Spirit may represent the major, irreconcilable difference between traditional Pentecostals and those who disagree wirh them, as D. A. Carson notes:
If the charismatic mc›vement would firmly renounce, c›n biblical grounds, not the gift of tongues but the idea that tongues constitute a special sign of a sec- ond blessing, a very substantial part of the wall between charismatics and noncharisinatics would come crashing down. Does 1 Corinthians 12 demand any less!'
One can pray in tongues yet avoid the controversy. In the circles in which 1 move, most believers—including those of us who pray in tongues—treat tongues as simply one gift among many and as a useful resource for prayer (see our discussion of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, under spiritual gifts).
Traditional Pentecostals and many charismatics, however, typically asso- ciate tongues with baptism in the Holy Spirit in Acts, and this position deserves a fairer evaluation than it usually receives outside Pentecostal cir- cles. Whether or not we wish to connect tongues with that experience, we cannot avoid the fact that in Acts at least sometimes, and probably several times, the connection is made. The primary debate today is what we should make of that connection.
It is easiest to speak about tongues simply the way Paul does (a way of praying with one’s spirit); most people who agree that the gift is for today find little offense in Paul's description. But we must also be fair to Luke's apparently more “Pentecostal” perspective in Acts. A central practical ques- tir›n is whether Luke provided a mociel that he expected all subsequent believers to duplicate. I believe that Luke did pre vide a nil del (see the dis- cussion in the appendix as to what we can learn from accounts in the Bible); exactly what that model teaches us, ht wever, is a more complex ctuestion. Three times when believers in Acts “receive the Spirit,” they speak in tongues; in at least two other cases, speaking in tongues is n‹ t expressly men- try ned. Because we f‹ cus here on the evidence in Acts, I will concentrate on clarifying two positions: ( 1) the belief that t‹angues always acc‹ampanies the Spirit's empc werment c)epicted ln Acts and (2) the belief that it is nc›- inal and not surprisllag, but also next mandatr›ry, for tongues to accompany
^* fil°tfit's eiTipowerment c4epicted in Acts.
It is helpful to readers if those who write about spiritual gifts share their background—whether charismatic, noncharismatic, or anticharismatic— since past experiences may shape how we approach the issue. My experi- ence with tongues is so much a part of my Christian life that I must allow you to take it into account as you read how I address this issue.
Although I pray in tongues, my initial experience with tongues came entirely unexpectedly. I first heard the gospel on the way home from high school one day, and after arguing for forty-five minutes with the fundamental Baptists who shared it with me, I walked home trembling. Although I had been an atheist and found their intellectual arguments unconvincing, the Spirit was pressing me for a decision and would not stop pressing until I sur- rendered or told him to leave me. Within an hour I fell to my knees on my bedroom floor and acknowledged that, though I did not understand it, I accepted God’s claim that Jesus died and rose to save me. “But I don't know how to be saved,” I confessed. “God, please save me yourself.” Instantly I felt something rushing through my body that I had never felt before, and I quickly jumped to my feet, wondering what was happening.
Though I had long doubted what little I knew of the claims of Chris- tianity, I had also decided that if I ever did discover that Christianity was true, I would serve my creator with everything I was and had. I had even clandestinely asked God, if he was there, to reveal himself ro me. I had wanred empirical evidence, but that day God confronted me first with the evidence of his presence. The power of his presence was so strong that I resolved to be a Christian henceforth, although I was not yet certain of exactly what details this commitment entailed. On Sunday 1 went to a church, and a pastcar prayed wirh me to turn my life over to Christ. Assured now that I had accepted Christ “properly,” 1 felt the same overwhelming presence of God I had felt two days before and this time decided to yield to it fully.
In a moment I was so overwhelmed with the awesome majesty and pres- ence of God that I understood that only he could provide me adequate words with which to praise him. And because I intuitively understood that God knows all languages, it somehow did not surprise me when the Spirit gave me another language in which to praise him. For an hour or two I worshiped God in tongues—often punctuated wirh deep, cathartic laughter (which has recurred on occasion since)—experiencing a joy I had never known
Oift and Giver
Tongues and the Spirit
177
bcfc›re. When 1 finishecl, I was convinced that the purpose in life 1 had hung sc ught must be to promote the g1‹ ry of Jesus Christ alone.
Over the years God provided either experiences (including learning how to read the Bible in context) that rnade this experience ‹af prayer in tongues one experience among many, but it remains an important part of my per- sonal prayer life. Having never read the Bible befc›re that day or been exposed to speaking in tongues, I did not know “tongues” existed, nor did I hold pre- concepti‹ans about what tongues should involve. God simply granted me the gift as an act of grace to a completely unchurched convert who desper- ately needed an overwhelming experience of his presence.
I recognize that everyone’s experience is different, but I offer my own story as an example of how God might provide an experience similar to the ones ln Acts for a person who had not been taught anything pre c r con about tongues. I also mention it so you may evaluate how my experience’may have
shaped my Ferspective in ways of which I am not aware. I ask only that you be equally honest about he w your own experience or nonexperience may shape the way you approach the biblical evidence.
Because the circles in which we move may affect the way we approach issues, I should also acknowledge that my personal experience is intensely pervaded by gifts such as tongues and prophecy, but many or most of my cir- cles of fellowship and) teaching are outside circles in which these are prac- ticed. In addition, many of the charismatics with whom I currently fellow- ship are the sort of charismatics for whom speaking in tongues is a “normal” (common) but not “normative” (mandatory) evidence of the Spirit’s work.' Other charismatic friends who believe it is “normative” nevertheless prefer to emphasize other distinctives they feel are more important.
Tongues comes up rarely in my work as a biblical scholar (it appears clearly in only six chapters in the Bible); further, none of my close friends who dc› not pray in t‹ ngues, including cessationists, have objected to me doing it, giving inc little pers‹ nal reas‹in to make an issue out of it. As mentloned earlier in the book, many or most of icy closest ministry c‹ lleagues, people 1 trust minister in the power of God's Spirit nc› less than I, do n‹ t pray in tongues. I think of Dr. Danny McCain, a friend in Nigeria whose ministry touches millions of lives; I dedicated a book to him, and his ministry looks “ape stc›lic” to me in most ways. He affirms those who pray in tongues, but as of the time of this bc›ok's writing, he has not done it himself. I think of an‹›ther frlend in Africa whoa has given her life to w‹ rking among the poor, especially tc reaching and transfrarming prostitutes. She literally sacrificed all her possessions fear the kingd‹xn, holds back nothing from G‹ d’s wc›rk,
and strikes me as “apostolic” in some sense as well. (In her humility, she did not want me tr use her name!) But though she also affirms tongues as a good gift, she has not yet received that gift herself. Would tongues refresh and strengthen them? They themselves may be open to that idea. But it is diffi- cult for me to doubt that the S›pirit empowers their ministries more power- fully—for the things God called them to d than that of very many people who pray in tongues.
At the same time, I often see young believers pray in tongues when I pray for them to experience the empowcrment described in the previous chap- ter. In these times of prayer, the vast majority of people I pray with dramat- ically sense the overwhelming presence of God's Spirit, many in ways they have never sensed before. Often (though not always) they begin to pray in tongues at that time; many others (though not all) end up doing so later (including some who insisted they never would! ).
If I wanted to argue purely from my experience, it would probably push me toward the general consensus that tongues are useful but not a valid way to measure sc›meone’s spiritual commitment. Our experiences, however, are limited, so the question remains: What does the Bible teach /
Tongues as Evidence of the Spirit in Acts
Some texts appear to fit the traditional Pentecostal model better than many non-Pentecostals acknowledge. Although Luke's focus for baptism in the Spirit is evangelism rather than speaking in tongues (Acts 1:8), tongues clearly functions as the initial sign of baptism in the Spirit in Acts 2.
In that chapter, the hearers who recognize the languages demand, “What dries this mean?” (2:12 miv). Others in the audience charge the disciples with drunkenness (2:13). Peter responds to these comments in reverse order: The charge of drunkenness is absurd (2:15). Conversely, what this means (2:12) is clear: This is what Joel meant when he said the Spirit would be pc›ured out and God’s people would prophesy (2:16-18). And if that part of Joel's prophecy is fulhlled, then the time of salvation has also come (2:19-21). Peter regarded tongues as evidence that the Spirit had come, as evidence ‹af the prophetic empowerment promised by Joel. Acts 2 thus becomes a model for the Spirit-empowerment of the church in Acts.
Does Luke intend for other Christians to follow this model / Interestlngly, unlike some aspects of the Pentecost model, tongues are repeated later in Acts (Acts 10 and 19). Tongues-speaking evidences the reception of the
Gift and Givcr
Spirit in Acts 10:4Ó—47 (“they recelved the Spl@t the same way we Cid”). It accompanies prophecy as evidence of prophetic empowerment in Acts 19:6 (perhaps suggesting that other kinds of inspired speech can serve the same function) . Tongues-speaking is not mentioned at the initial reception of the Spirit among the Samaritan concerts in Acts 8 or by Paul in Acts 9. However, many scholars point out that something tangible happened in Acts 8 (Simon saw and wanted lt), and 1 Corinthians 14:18 indicates that
Paul at some point did begin praying in tongues.
Because the narrative in Acts 9 predicts (but does not describe) Paul’s reception of the Spirit, one cannot conclude from Luke’s silence that tongues- speaking did not occur on that occasion. Still, one may conclude that whether or not it occurred, Luke did not seek to emphasize it at that point. Some Pentecostal scholars have argued that tongues accompanies baptism in the Holy Spirit the way water baptism accompanies conversion: Luke does not mention baptism after every conversion, but he expects the reader
to infer it from the cases in which it is stated. Perhaps the experience of tongues was so typical in Luke's circle of Christianity, they argue, that read-
ers simply assumed tongues accompanied baptism in the Spirit, even when tongues was not mentioned.
Conclusions from This Pattern and Objections
Traditional Pentecostals find in such observations a confirmation of their belief that speaking in tongues provides the initial physical evidence of bap- tism in the Holy Spirit. According to one version of early Pentecostal his- tory, Charles Parham in December 1900 instructed his students to deter- iine inductively and independently the evidence of baptism in the Spirit in Acts. When all the students independently arrived at the conclusion that tongues was evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit, the group decided to pray for the gift. God initiated a revival movement, especially launched under William Seymour’s direction at Azusa Street, that now counts over four hundred million Pentecostals and charismatics around the world. Sey- mour himself was so convinced that speaking in tongues was biblical that he began preaching it months before he experienced it himself.
Most traditional North American Pentecostals argue that tongues-speak- itig ahrays accompanies Spirit baptism. Yet some Pentecostals disagree (espe- cially Pentecostals in some other parts of the world, such as Chile and Ger-
Tongue* and the Spirit
many), as do a significant percentage of n‹ ndenominatic nal and mainline charismatics, including those of the growing Vineyard movement.
Given the evidence above, many of those who believe the gi(ts of the Spirit continue today concede that tongues often accompanied baptism in the Holy Spirit in Acte and fail to be surprised when the two occur together today. For reasons supplied in our appendix, “What Can Bible Stories Teach Us /” many concede that Acts prcavides models for the Spirit-filled church (especially where the Spirit himself acts directly), not solely a description of an early stage of the church.
But despite these concessions, noncharismatics, many charismatics, and some Pentecostals today point out that Luke's use of narrative to teach does not automatically guarantee consensus concerning what Luke wished to teach. Thus, British New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn traces the initial reception of the spirit through Acts and concludes that in every instance in which reception of the Spirit is described, Christians seem to have spoken in tongues. Thus, “the corollary is then not without force that Luke intended to portray ‘speaking in tongues' as ‘the initial physical evi- dence' of the outpouring of the Spirit.” But Dunn goes on to note that while Luke focuses on such tangible evidences of the Spirit's presence, he also clearly includes praise (10:45-46), prophecy (19:6), and boldness (4:8, 31); and if Luke wished to emphasize tongues as the necessary evidence, he would have mentioned it more explicitly in Acts 8.’
Those who believe in rongues but who doubt that it always accompanies baptism in the Spirit thus can raise important objections to the view that tongues invariably accompanies baptism in the Holy Spirit. The question is not whether Luke is teaching something through his narrative (2 Tim. 3:16; see appendix); the question is simply irhnt he is teaching. Because tongues is a form of inspired speech, Luke could often use it to inform read- ers that people in his narrative hab received prophetic empowerment. Say- ing that genuine manifestations of tcangues guarantee that prophetic empow- erment has come need not, however, imply that prophetic empowerment always is accompanied by tongues. That is, because genuine tongues-speak- ers are baptized in the Spirit, this need not imply that all Spirit-baptized people must speak in tongues. (In the same way, one might reason that all true apostles are Christians, but not all true Christians are apostles.)
Luke’s intention, as well as we can infer it from his text, is to demonstrate that the outpouring ‹ f the Spirit on Pentecost continues to mark the advance of Christianity to all peoples. Each stage in the expansion of the gospel in Acts is marked by prophetic empowerment empirically demtanstrated, as in
150
Gift and Giver
Tongues and the Spirit 181
the church's first experience, with tongues. That is, Luke teaches us abtaut the transcultura l spread c›f the Splrir's wofk by means of the evidence of tongues, rather than about tongues by examples of people receiving the
Spirit.
Why would Luke emphasize tongues more rhan other gifts or signs he could have mentioned? Remember that his central theme is Spirit- empowered cross-cultural witness (Acts 1:8). What more crucial sign could the Spirit offer that he is empowering us to cross cultural barriers / In this case, Luke mlght mention tongues at every available opportunité. lf so, it is possible that when he does not mention it, it may not have occurred, ar
least not at that time.
Whatever one might wish to inter happened in the cases in Acts in which tongues are not expllcitly mentioned, most readers note that the fact that Luke did not mention their occurrence suggests he is not intentionally tenCh- ing that tongues always accompanies Spirit baptism. And if he is not teach- ing ir, they note, we lack a single New Testament passage that explicitly
teaches the doctrine.
Round Two: Objections to Objections
Classical Pentecostals may respond, however, that this caveat does not settle the case against tongues accc›mpanying baptism in the Spirit. Some have argued that even if the Book of Acts does not explicitly teach this doctrine, it may nevertheless serve as a window into early Christian expe- rience. At the very least, Acts indicates a pattern in which t‹angues often accompanied the experience it describes. (This much is difficult to dis- pute; the pattern is in the text, even if Acts is too short tr provide us
iiiany exemples.)
Given the brevity and narrow ftacus of Acts, we can assume that the Spirit wc›rked in many ways for which little clear recr›rd romains. Marié iin[aortarlt early Christian doctrines appear in the New Testament writings only because controversy surr‹aunded them (for example, the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. 11:17—34). The New Testament is not a doctrine manual written by a sym- posium of theologians but a collection of essential inspired writings from the earliest Christians commissioned by our Lord. Thus, claiming that no texte in the Bible conciusir ly prove the Pentec‹ stal p‹asiti‹an is n‹at the same
as saying that this disproves the Pentecostal pu sition The usual classical Pentecostal view that tongues-s reaking necessarily and iminedlately accom-
panies baptism in the Holy Spirit could still be true, attested to by some other means such as Pentecostal experience. Further, the close connection in Acts between tongues and baptism in the Spfrit would have made the most sense to an audience who saw that the two frequently occurred together. Non-Pentecostals will, however, also respond to this Pentecostal objec- tion. If early Christians did not acknowledge that baptism in the Spirit had occurred unless the person began speaking in tongues, it is surprising that the rest of the New Testament does not preserve more testimonies to such a central evidence. Further, it is questionable whether even modem Pente- costal experience proves that tongues must always accompany baptism in the Spirit, at least immediately (unless one argues circularly that a power- fu1 charismatic experience is not genuine Spirit baptism without tongues). Statistics suggest that a large percentage of Pentecostals do not speak in tongues! (Some argue that this is over half of all Pentecostals.* The Pente- costal argument from Scripture at this point is stronger than their argument from experience.) Some charismatics 1 know consider it presumptuous to insist that tongues accompanies baptism in the Spirit, as presumptuous as
declaring that God heals without exception if we have enough faith.
Further, one may argue, most Pentecostals do not hold God to every other pattern in Scripture. Although in both Acts and 1 Corinthians tongues seems to be used only in prayer (see the discussion of tongues among spiri- tual gifts), some Pentecostals justify a “message in tongues” by insisting that God can do whatever he wants. I would accept this response; God can pro- vide a “message in tongues” if he wants, whether because he has long done so or because he is willing to speak to us in a way that we expect to hear him. Yet if the normal biblical pattern does not hold in all situations (God can, after all, do anything that does not contradict his nature), must God always conter tongues when baptizing his children in his Spirit? For instance, would God withhold the empowerment of his Spirit from those who had been taught to fear tongucs / Would tte wait to empower them for evangelism until they had overcome their fear of this specific gift / Most of us who move in noncharismatic circles have many Christian friends who live deeply Spirit- led lives without tcangues, some of whom act more empowered for holiness and witness than many who speak in tongues. The addition of tongues might strengthen their prayer life still further, but they already have saine greater gifts to offer the rest of Christ's body. Noncharismatics also point to Paul's claim that nent all speak in tongues ( 1 Cor. 12:30). In the context, Paul is arguing that although we need all the gifts in the body of Christ, cane should
not regard one's own gifts as superior or inferior to the others.
Pentecostals usually respond to thls an ument in ‹une of two WHys. First, they traditionally argue that Paul here refers to the public gift of tongues tather than to private prayer language. (The context may support this dis- tinction, though lt may have more to do with the way the gift is being used than with an intrinsic difference between the two forms of tongues them selves.) Second, some Pentecostals also cite 1 Corinthians 14:5 to suggest that even if not all Christians speak in tongues, Paul thinks that it would be a good idea for them to do se . Whether one interprets 14:5 in light of 1 Corinthlans 12:30 or the reverse, however, often depends on the view with which one begins, stalemating the arguments for either side on this point.
D ifferences among P entecostals
Some charismatic writers have pointed out that the traditional Pente- costal position is not completely monolithic; some classical Pentecostals in fact rejected the position. Agnes Ozman (the first person to speak in tongues
Tongues and the Spirit 183
the primary evidence. For instance, Pandita Ramabai, the leading figure in a major early-twentieth-century outpouring of the Spirit in India, stressed that while tongues was one sign of baptism in the Spirit, the essential and inevitable sign was love.’
Classical Pentecostals usually respond that the Spirit's fruit is an essen- tial sign of his presence, but tongues-speaking is (as noted above) the most frequent mark of the initial experience depicted in Acts, a pattern most Pen- tecostals believe is normative.
Here is where the biblical evidence in the debate between many Pente- costals and non-Pentecostals ends: Acts shows that tongues often accom- panies one's first filling with prophetic empowerment, but Acts by itself is hard-pressed to prove that it always must do so. Most non-Pentecostals there- fore remain skeptical about whether we can conclude that someone is not filled (even in the Acts sense) because he or she has not spoken in tongues. Beyond this, the debate often becomes one of which side bears the burden of proof, because each side has often felt that the other side dismisses their side's spiritual experience.
at the beginning of the twentieth-century
Pentecostal revival), F. F.
Nevertheless, all those sensitive to the text should at least appreciate tra-
Bosworth, and other prominent early Pentecostals questioned whether tongues always accompanied Spirit baptism.’ lndeed, even a shared experience rather than a common way of formulating that experi- ence that connects those who pray in tongues in Pentecostal and various
independent and mainline churches.
Perhaps most significantly, William Seymour, leader of the Azusa Street Revival, ultimately denied that tongues was “the evidence” of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Seymour had originally accepted Charles Parham’s teach- ing that tongues represented the initial sign of Spirit baptiSiTi, fiutwhencon- fOFttCd Wlth Parham's own behavior— repc›rtedly including his white racist
came to question whether Parham was even saved, since tte lacked the fruit
‹af the Spirit in his life. Although Seymour continued to tance r›f tongues-speaking, he rejected the doctrine that tongues must always accompany Spirit-baptism. Considering it a false doctrine that bound God,
ditional Pentecostal scholars for bringing to our attention an inescapable feature of the accounts in Acts: In Acts, tongues frequently accompanies being filled with the Spirit for the first time, sometimes in conjunction with other Spirit-anointed speech such as prophecy.
Although Christians continue to dispute whether tongues occurs in every instance in Acts (and even more so whether it must regularly occur today), Luke uses tongues far more than any other sign to indicate that believers have received the Spirit's prophetic empowerment. By pointing to tongues, Pentecostals have reminded us that being filled with the Spirit in the Lukan sense is empowerment to speak Gcad's message (Acts 1:8), an ability to speak with special sensitivity what thc Spirit puts in our hearts (Acts 4:31; com- pare Eph. 5:18-20). I believe that Luke also intended us to see in this gift a sign that God has called his church to evangelize all peoples and cultures.
Whether by praying in tongues or by other means, all of us can profit by inculcating deeper sensitivity to the Spirit's leading in our words. Some of
he regarded it as a form où idolatry.‘
S‹ me others wh‹a affirmed supernatural empowerment the Spirlt's frult is a clearer sign of the Spirit'S york than
also stressed that
tongues. Wesley
us who pray in tongues have found that spiritual sensitivity developed dur-
ing prayer in a language we do not know has helped us pray and witness more effectively in the languages wc do know. But ultimately, all Christians will
acceptcd revelatlons, prophecies, healings, and so forth among DIS f‹l1lOw-
ers, but tte emphasized that the true cvidence of the Spirit was matu£atit›ri toward Christian perfection. Some e‹ir1y Pentec‹ stale also stressed love as
agrce that prayer and witness are more important than whether they are done in an unkncawn language.
Gift and Giver
Tongues and the Spirit
185
Considering the Practical Issues
Entirely aside from the above questions, both charismatics and non- charismatics agree that our spiritual ‹quest should emphasize the Spirit, not tongues. When we ask God to empower us to pray in tongues, should we be asking him for “evidence” that we have had a spiritual experience or for a fresh way to pray and worship him/ Even if one believes that tongues was evidence of Spirit-reception in Acts (and in three cases Luke does mention it for that purpose), Acts does not suggest that Christians should seek tongues
for this purpose.
1 recall friends who went on long fasts, experienced visions, or witnessed boldly but who later rejected the Christian faith. Ultimately, any focus— no matter how good in itself—that replaces allegiance to Christ will become a counterfeit. Tongues, as every other gift, functions best when Christ rather than the gift summons our attention. 1 like to worship God in tongues for the same reason I like to worship him in English: God merits our worship, and our hearts are most at home when turned to him.
This book will not be able to reconcile the two positions on tongues and
baptism in the Spirit that differ as much as do the classical Pentecostal and
heard some Pentecostal schc›lars suggest that it ls more Pentecostal to pro- mc te spiritual experience, not only gifts but other openness to God's Spirit, than to promote the hne points of this doctrine.)
Praying in tongues, like other forms of prayer, can add a new dimension to one's prayer life. Few of us would claim to be proficient in all forms of prayer, and most of us desire more help from the Spirit when we pray. This emphasis may also make immediate results seem less urgent, help us avoid the temptation to grade people spiritually on the basis of whether they speak in tongues, and prevent despair among those who have long sought the gift and not received it. (This is not to say that advocates of the tongues-as-evi- dence position want people to feel second-class because they have not spo- ken in tongues; yet I have known Christians who have felt this way).
I do not here propose a pragmatic test of truth that decides the genuine- ness of the classical Pentecostal position based on results. Pentecostals could as easily point to their success in worldwide evangelism as a pragmatic proof that their position has God’s blessing (I suspect that at least their emphasis on the Spirit's empowerment does have God's blessing). My point is that one can maintain a strong appreciation for the gift yet articulate it in ways that will commend it to a wider cross-section of the body of Christ, ways
non-Pentecostal positions. Nevertheless, I hope that ChristiariS ir
both
that may actually lead to more people sharing the gift even if they do not
groups will be able to understand why other Christians hold different views and recognize the depth of their spiritual commitment. We should not use the negative examples on either side ro caricaturize an entire movement. Further, on the central issues, both sides can have more biblical common grc›und than differences. Biblically we should acknowledge that tongues often accompanies a spiritual experience described in the Book of Acts. We can also agree that what iS most important about the experience is not
tongues-speaking itself but empowerment for misslon.
In practice, some of the traditional discussion may be less about initial evidence than about other concerns. One of the standard pragmatic reasons
‹offered for traditional Pentecostal insistence on maintaining the “initial evi-
dence” doctrine has been the concern that Pentecostals will steep seeking the ability to pray in tongues if the doctrine is abandoned. As long as tra- ditional Pentecostals and charismatics believe they are the only people seek- ing the gift, many may continue tc› feel the pressure to make sure as many as possible c f their number function in that gift. ¥et if (as I suggest in my comments c n spiritual gifts) tongues is a useful gift for private prayer and cone may approach God in prayer for spiritual gifts, “necessary evidence of Spirit baptism is not the only reason fr›r seeking the gift. (Indeed, 1 have
share all details of classical Pentecostal theology.
Because most Christians today are not against speaking in tongues, as was the case in earlier eras, some Pentecostals have begun to feel that it is less important to focus as much attention on defending the doctrine as it was previrausly. Many other Christians, having learned from what Pentecostals offer, seem ready to move beyond the controversy over tongues and begin to explore all that God’s Spirit has for the church (including, but not lii- ited to, prayer in tc›ngues).
Conclusion
I have tried to present both sides fairly. $ince my own convictlons do not fall exactly into any of the traditional “camps,” I have tried to learn from the best biblical arguments of each. In my view, in Acts, God often dem- onstrated that he had empowered his people to speak prophetically across cultural barriers by enabling them tr› speak in tongues. The pattern in Acts suggests that we should not be surprised when God empowers his people ln similar ways today. Luke does not report the pattern in every case, however,
C.ift and Giver
hand we should therefore not claim that he was “teaching” it as mandatory for every case. Tongues are a good gift and helpful for prayer, but we dare not claim that some Christians lack a special empowerment of the Spirit simply because they do not pray in tongues.
When in doubt, most Christians fall back on denominational views, hope- fully without disrespecting Christian brothers and sisters in different denom- inations. I believe, however, that most readers can agree on some practical issues clear from the New Testament witness: (1) Speaking in tongues is a biblical evidence of the Spirit's empowerment for evangelism (even though many of us remain doubtful that all Spirit-empowered people experience it); (2) tongues constitute a valid form of worship to God (see the chapter
‹an spiritual gifts); (3) the purpose for desiring this gift shc›uld be the wor- ship of God rather than spiritual elitism; and (4) tongues used for private u orship can strengthen one's prayer life. If some Christians have overem- phasized tongues in response to others who have played it down, they have at least called the church back to a biblical appreciation of the gift and, most importantly, called many to a hunger for deeper intimacy with God.
In light of the entire biblical perspective concerning the Spirit, we must focus on the Spirit's provision of an intimate relationship with our risen Lord Jesus and empowerment to make him known and to live out the fruit of God's character. We need the Spirit to transform our hearts to imitate Christ's character and to persevere through testings. Tongues is useful for prayer and can help cultivate our sensitivity to the Holy Spirit; for that reason, we can ask God for the gift, as for others. Th‹augh in his wisdom he does not grant every request, God usually delights to bless us with gifts that will draw us closer to him. We should therefore pray expectantly—and then worship however he empowers us.
But if we think ourselves filled with God’s Spirit because we speak in tongues, yet neglect his call to evanyclize the world and to stand for justice for the oppressed cmd for the righteousness r›f God's W‹ard, we dece we orr- selve5. True, biblical Pentecostals and chcirismatics must live their wh‹ale lives in the power of God’s Splrlt. If all Chrlstians began speaking in tongues ttamorriiw, that would neat c‹institute revival. But if all Christians began lov- ing Jesus and one another passionately enough to fulfill the Great Cum- mission, we would experlence a revival like the world has never belt re seen.
(Note By Blogger: Due to the length of the book which this content is from I have broken it up into a short series of blog posts.)
No comments:
Post a Comment