The Sound of Thunder

Who are tongues addressed too? Some Pentecostal scholars have suggested that the audience is God and therefore the interpretation of tongues should address God as well in order to be legitimate. Under such a regimen, an intepretation that addressed people (a la prophecy) would be considered out of order out of hand. Is this intimated in scripture and should this be the standard leaders apply in accepting or rejecting intepretations?

No, for two reasons:

For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 1 Corinthians 14:2 (NIV)

1) Although this text says straightforwardly that a tongue speaker speaks mysteries to God, in saying so, is its intent to highlight the direction of tongues? No, in context, this passage states very clearly why a tongue speaker, in effect, speaks to God: because only God can understand him, no one else does. To people it's babble, to God it's understandable-- even if it was directed to men, only God would understand the language and comprehend the message. To extrapolate from that functional reality to say that tongues must be directed conversationally to God is to say more than, and other than the scripture says in context. Although there are passages which anecdotally imply direction toward God (in those instances, anyhow), that is not the same as asserting that the direction has to be toward God just because it was in those instances.

In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord. Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 (NIV)

2) When Paul quotes Isaiah to point to an OT presage of tongues, he clearly reverses the direction of communication, i.e. God speaks to men through the strange tongues other men are speaking. If the model for tongues was directed from God to men, why would anyone doubt the fulfillment could be?

Since God inspires both the tongues and the intepretation, it is up to him to determine what is done with them, especially directionally. The only objective tests we are given in scripture regarding any spoken utterance deal with content, not direction. If we listened to the proponents of directional theory, we would wind up paying undue attention to the pronouns in a message rather than its actual content. What excess or error could that possibly address? Aren't there enough real problems for charismatics to deal with that we don't have to go around turning stones over looking for intellectual trifles to stumble over? Oy vey, from my tongue to God's ear!

A while ago, a commenter asked me to post my views on the Lakeland fiasco. Though not wishing to respond to that request specifically, I do want to broach the broader subject of fleshly inspired antics in ministry. If in doing so, I manage to ruffle your feathers, I hope you'll post a comment and help me see your viewpoint.

The realm of finance is presently teaching us what the realm of ministry has taught us over and over again: people are unwilling to call their superstars on their excesses. Success inexorably excuses excess. Despite red flags, warning sirens, and the inevitable recognition, after the fact of course, that we knew something was fishy, we look the other way if the party in question at least gives the appearance that he or she's getting it done. The Charismatic movement is in disarray because of that unfortunate trait. Are there some simple principles that charismatics could use to assess the actual spirituality vs. fleshly embellishments of ministry, before the result is another boondoggle that embarrasses everyone who cherishes the gift of the Holy Spirit? Yes, I think there are...


More could be said, suggest a rule or two yourself in the comments if you'd like. The bottom line: if a man or woman ministers outside these guidelines, he or she is fleshly at best and an out and out charlatan at worst. That may sound judgmental, but how many dog and pony shows are we going to be subjected to before we start making the judgments Bible believing, Spirit-filled people should able to easily. Or, are we so far out at sea that we cannot tell the difference between show business and ministry?

What a week! America teeters on the precipice of financial collapse. How does one digest that! 401K's, IRA's, bank accounts, stock portfolios, home prices, all are susceptible to sudden and large declines or losses as the grease of commerce (credit) in the consumer society dries up, and all the moving parts of our economy seize into motionlessness. Why does such bad news seem so often to come in the fall, perhaps that's the very definition of poetic justice.

Basically, we're in this fix because this generation of Americans feel we are entitled to have what we want and to have it now. It must be grabbed, after all, before we're too decrepit to enjoy it. Anyone with a bit of chutzpa can live large: dream homes; hobbies; vacations; jobs that are exciting, interesting, even pleasurable; early retirement with walks on sandy beaches. Don't work, scrimp, save, and plan for these things, that's for old-fashioned schmucks. Grow into your mortgage, tap your home equity, borrow from your 401 and pay yourself the interest, Visa is accepted everywhere, no worries--no one even plays the pipe anymore. Dream big, live large.

Wall Street will end up getting the blame for all this, not the irresponsible government and never the avaricious American people that vote it into office. American business exists to make money supplying what Americans want. If we want a stupid thing, there's plenty of smart folk out there who will find a way to market it to us. Once one smart guy finds a way to the meat, the rest of the piranhas flop over each other trying to get a bite too. Is this really surprising to anyone?

Where are the Christians in this Christian nation, particularly in the financial field, the government, and mostly on the consumer side of the counter? Jesus told us we could not serve God and mammon at the same time. Boy, have we tried to prove him wrong. Tell me, what does the the last laugh sound like when it rolls from heaven?

Addendum: This may shed some light on the question of where were the Christians on the consumer side of the counter. (HT: Paul Grabill)

Concluding positions one might take if biblical religion were actually brought into politics...

Concerning Law and Order

Every neighborhood in this country, rich or poor, should be safe enough for even a stranger to pass through without fear. Wealthier neighborhoods already are, but poorer neighborhoods often do not experience the same level of law and order. Yes, there is a different class and density of population between one and the other, but that is no excuse to abandon entire areas of our cities to the de facto control of gangs, thugs and crime. The poor deserve safe neighborhoods every bit as much as the wealthy.

More police need to be placed on our streets, particularly the mean ones. There's not one square inch of this country that the government, under God, can justifiably cede to the rule of thuggery rather than the rule of law and order. An idea for utilizing our police forces that would help immediately: stop parking them so often along the streets in patrol cars manning speed traps and start placing them more often on the streets preventing crime!

Concerning Political Parties

The Constitution should to be amended to specifically ban elected officials at any level of government from being associated with any political party, and furthermore, should ban any association which seeks to organize candidates or office holders into ideological blocks in order to gain political power. Taxpayers should not foot the bill for party politics as it does now through gridlock; double staffing; witch hunting, grand standing inquisitions; primary elections and matching funds for campaigns. Informational and voter service agencies would not be effected.

I could go on, but I won't. Hopefully, you're reading in between the lines and can see the problem that lies ahead for any who would resolutely attempt to bring biblical religion into politics. Jesus rules, unapologetically, with a rod of iron, and we will rule with him, like him. I don't think the world is ready for that just yet.

Continuing with positions someone who actually brought biblical religion into politics might take...

Concerning Crime and Punishment

Prisons, by and large, should be abolished. Criminals owe their victims, not the state. Those that commit crimes should be indentured to the victims of those crimes until restitution is made. Those too violent to put on the streets should be sentenced to death (government bears the sword not the key). Crimes that are of a personal nature should not be crimes at all.

Concerning Economic Justice

Labor should not be commoditized. The ox is not to be muzzled as it treads the grain. It is a travesty that the most powerful sliver of the workforce uses its power to enrich itself, tapping into the harvest, while the mass of the workforce is forced into ever tighter, constricted competition for less and less. In hubris, the powerful actually believe they deserve that much more than the poor schlubs at the bottom of the ladder. God is no respecter of persons and has no respect for greed. Neither should the law! Whatever profit a corporation disburses in dividends to stockholders and bonuses to the top tier of management should be at least matched and distributed among all of its employees, including the janitor and the receptionist. Sole proprietorships and partnerships should follow similar rules.

Concerning Welfare

Those who will not work, should not eat. Those who cannot work, should be shown mercy. Those who cannot find work ought to be put to work serving the public good.

Concerning Reparations

The bulk of idle federal landholdings, not held in trust for Native Americans, ought to be divided among and deeded to all those who can trace their lineage to former slaves. Those slaves were not only often abused and mistreated, but were given nothing upon achieving freedom, and that needs to be rectified. Whether it's 40 acres or not doesn't matter (presumably, it would be much more); regardless, no mules will be distributed.

Are we having fun yet?

Dr. D asked a question to any takers about religion and politics the other day on his Charismatica blog. He had no takers, and wound up starting the discussion himself. I appreciated his thoughts, but I thought it best to address the issue here from my own, unique (read: outrageous/extreme) point of view.

Biblically, I see the only purpose of government under God as protecting the innocent from the evil doer. This is an absolute secular necessity if life amongst sinners is to continue until Jesus comes back. In the best of worlds, we wouldn't need it, in ours (even in the Millennium) we desperately do. We are told that government doesn't bear the sword for nothing, and we should cooperate with its purposes in ensuring justice. Of special note in all this is the conclusive fact that government bears the sword, not the key. Government is not in place under God to tell anyone what to think, how to run his or her life, what to do for retirement or education, what to do with private property, what to do medically, and certainly never to enforce a belief system (though it did in ancient Israel). Government, at its most fundamental, is there simply to keep the powerful and the violent from doing harm or oppressing the rest of the population (I think the this aligns with the OT prophets as well).

With that Biblical and worldwide mandate in mind, let me suggest a few policy positions a politician who actually brought biblical religion into the realm of politics might take:

Concerning the Use of Deadly Force

That will be sufficient for now. If this has legs under it, I'll add some more. If not, que sera sera!