Below is an article printed in "The Baptist Press." Following that is a response by Sam Storms:

The Bible & tongues Jimmy Draper

Posted on Apr 17, 2007

EDITORS' NOTE: Today is the second day in a week-long series of columns on biblical doctrine by former LifeWay Christian Resources President Jimmy Draper. The series coincides with "Baptist Doctrine Study" week within the Southern Baptist Convention.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Recently there's been much discussion about the issue of tongues in Southern Baptist life. I know individuals who believe in the gift of tongues and know that they love the Lord and His Word. So with what I write I am not attacking anyone. I only endeavor to summarize the scriptural teaching on this matter.

Primary passages in two books -- Acts and 1 Corinthians -- describe the gift of tongues. One resulted in thousands being saved, the other in confusion and problems in the church. In Acts 2 the apostles and about 120 other disciples were gathered in a room near the temple when the Holy Spirit filled these believers and they began to praise God in other languages. People had gathered from 15 different provinces, yet each person heard the words of praise to God spoken in his or her own dialect.

In Acts 10, Cornelius -- the first Gentile convert -- had a similar experience but without all of the supernatural manifestations. Several years later in the city of Ephesus the Apostle Paul met 12 believers in Christ who had been led to the Lord by a follower of John the Baptist. They had an incomplete understanding of the Gospel, so Paul instructed them, baptized them and placed his hands upon them. The Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke with languages and prophesied (19:6).

Each of these instances involved individuals speaking in a known language they had not learned. Their speaking was understood by those who heard them. No evidence is found that anyone sought or prayed for the gift of speaking in other languages. Every occurrence was the spontaneous work of the Holy Spirit. The fact that this phenomenon was not mentioned in all of the other great experiences recorded in Acts shows its lack of importance as an ongoing ministry.

The emphasis in Acts is not on the gift of tongues, but the filling of the Holy Spirit in believers. That filling revealed the continuous control that the Holy Spirit exercised over the disciples so they could witness in power (1:8).In the 22 books of the New Testament that follow Acts, only 1 Corinthians mentions tongues.

These 22 books contain 143 chapters, yet only three chapters make any reference to this gift, and only one chapter treats the subject in detail. Whatever we may deduct from this, it certainly means that speaking in tongues was not a major factor in the spread of the Gospel or in the practice of the apostolic church.

Additionally, when Paul listed the spiritual gifts in Romans 12 and Ephesians 4, he did not mention speaking in tongues. Believing that the Holy Spirit has inspired every word of the Bible as He spoke through the writers, we must conclude that the gift of tongues was either not a matter of importance, or that it was not practiced by the Christians in Rome, Ephesus and elsewhere.

In the three chapters in 1 Corinthians several things emerge regarding gifts that need to be noted. No one is left out. Everyone is given a spiritual gift or gifts. They are not rewards for spiritual maturity and achievement. It is not the normative experience for all believers. Chapter 12 clearly teaches that the gifts are divinely distributed and work for the good of the entire body of believers. They are designed to prepare a people to function as a witnessing community.

Another thing is abundantly clear in this passage. The abuse of tongues was a problem in the church in Corinth. Care was given to regulate and restrict the use of tongues in the church and not to encourage their use. Clearly it teaches that no believer has all of the gifts and none of them are equated with the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Paul used a distinctive negative participle in all of the questions asked in 1 Corinthians 12:29-30 which indicates that the answer to each one was "no." None of these gifts is bestowed upon all, nor are all bestowed upon any one individual. The great apostle concludes in verse 31 that the Corinthian believers should "desire the greater gifts. And I will show you an even better way." The better way is love, according to chapter 13.

In chapter 14, Paul provides restrictions for the use of the gift of tongues and in-depth instruction on how to correct abuses found in the church. The key is found in the last verse of this chapter when we read, "But everything must be done decently and in order."

Paul noted something positive about the gift of tongues, but each time he did so he followed the positive with a qualifying statement. For instance, he wrote in verse four that tongues edifies only the person speaking, but follows that with the better alternative. It is best, he wrote, to do what builds the body of believers. In verse five he expressed a desire that all of the Corinthian believers should speak with other languages, but he desired even more for them to prophesy. That is, he wanted them to expound the Word of God in a language that was understandable. Paul saw this act of proclaiming the Gospel as being far superior to speaking in other languages. Though he spoke in languages more than those in Corinth, he wrote that he would rather speak five words with understanding than 10,000 in another language (14:18-19).

Careful restrictions were given on the exercise of the gift of tongues in these chapters. Here are just a few. The gift of tongues should not be exercised in the presence of unbelievers (14:23). Only one person at a time is to speak and not more than three in one service and an interpreter must always be present (14:27). This must not cause confusion among believers (14:33). Women are not to speak in tongues at any time in the church (14:34-35). This was probably because it would be too similar to the temple prostitutes' ecstatic frenzies as they practiced their pagan, immoral rituals. In no way does this mean that women cannot teach or speak in church. That issue was settled in 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 when Paul gave instructions to the women as to how they were to dress when they prayed or prophesied in the church.

One thing is clear: pre-occupation with tongues-speaking is childish (14:20). It was a problem with the immature and carnal Christians in Corinth. These chapters were not given to recruit people to speak in tongues, but to correct, control and restrict the use of the gift.

All spiritual gifts are divinely bestowed by our sovereign God. He can give the gifts as He pleases and to whom He pleases. No one can "develop" a gift or be "taught" how to exercise a gift. This gift must not be a test of fellowship, but it must be restricted and regulated by Scripture under the authority of the ministers of the church. It should not be a reason for disfellowship unless the one practicing the gift uses it in a way that promotes confusion and disharmony. We must remember that nowhere in Scripture is anyone commanded to speak in tongues. Gifts are sovereignly bestowed individually by God. The church must be a ministering church expressing love as the greatest gift, "the even better way."--30--

Jimmy Draper is the former president of LifeWay Christian Resources.

A Response to Jimmy Draper on "The Bible and Tongues"
Sam Storms
Apr 18, 2007

In today’s issue of the Baptist Press website (www.bpnews.net) there is an article titled “The Bible and Tongues” by former LifeWay Christian Resources President Jimmy Draper. Given the fact that next week I’m speaking at a conference in Arlington, Texas, on the subject of the Holy Spirit in Baptist life, I perked up when I saw it.

Jimmy Draper is one of the true treasures of the Southern Baptist Convention. Having grown up in Oklahoma, where Dr. Draper pastored for many years, I have benefited greatly from his preaching and evangelistic zeal. However, I fear that this article tends to perpetuate a number of misconceptions about the nature and exercise of the spiritual gift of tongues.

Regardless of whether or not you believe that tongues is a valid gift for the church today, it is important that we all understand what the NT says about this spiritual gift. So, even if you are a cessationist (or, maybe especially if you are a cessationist!), I invite you to join me in this exploration.

(1) I’ll begin with Draper’s belief that tongues is evangelistic in Acts 2 (by the way, since “tongues” is here envisioned as a single gift of the Spirit, I use the singular verb “is” rather than “are” throughout this study). He argues that the exercise of tongues in Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, “resulted in thousands being saved.”

Actually, Acts 2 says no such thing. People did indeed hear “the mighty works of God” from those who spoke in tongues, but their conversion did not come until Peter openly proclaimed the gospel in vv. 14-36 (especially vv. 22-36). Acts 2:37 explicitly says that when the people “heard this,” i.e., Peter’s proclamation of the person and work of Jesus Christ, that they made inquiry about how to be saved. My point is simply that Draper, like so many others, makes the mistake of thinking that the gift of tongues was designed for use in evangelistic contexts. The fact is that tongues is never used evangelistically anywhere in the NT. This isn’t to say it could never be used in this way, only that the NT does not conceive evangelism as one of its functions.

Draper then says that tongues in 1 Corinthians resulted “in confusion and problems in the church.” This is only partially true and therefore somewhat misleading. The problem in Corinth wasn’t tongues but the immature, prideful and ambitious abuse of tongues on the part of the Corinthians. Let’s never forget that tongues is a good gift that God conceived and bestowed on his church for its edification. The problem is never one of any spiritual gift per se, but rather of those who misunderstand and misuse what God has graciously provided.

(2) Draper contends that when Cornelius (Acts 10) and the “disciples” in Ephesus (Acts 19) spoke in tongues it was “in a known language they had not learned.” But nowhere does the text say any such thing. Draper simply assumes that since tongues speech in Acts 2 was known languages that all other instances must also be. But the apostle Paul indicates that there are “various kinds” (or “species”) of tongues (1 Cor. 12:10,28) and a close study of 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that they are not always human languages previously unlearned by the speaker. So it is unwarranted to simply assume that such was the “kind” or “variety” of tongues spoken in Acts 10 and 19.

Furthermore, the reason why tongues speech in Acts 2 was human languages is due to the presence there of unbelievers of differing dialects. But the only people present in Acts 10 and 19 to hear the tongues speech were Christians. Clearly, then, tongues had no evangelistic purpose in these two instances.

(3) Draper concludes from the instances of tongues speech in Acts 10 and Acts 19 that “no evidence is found that anyone sought or prayed for the gift of speaking in other languages.” Instead, so he suggests, “every occurrence was the spontaneous work of the Holy Spirit.” But this leaves the impression that it would always be wrong for someone to seek after or pray for the gift of tongues. Yet Paul clearly exhorts the Christians at Corinth to pray for the gift of interpretation of tongues (1 Cor. 12:13). Indeed, he exhorts the Corinthians to “earnestly desire [or seek after] the spiritual gifts” (1 Cor. 14:1), one of which is speaking in tongues.

And there is no inconsistency between spiritual gifts being distributed according to the sovereign will of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11) and the responsibility of believers to seek after and pray for such gifts. God accomplishes all things according to his sovereign will (see Eph. 1:11), but that does not eliminate the need for humans to pray and pursue in accordance with biblical commands. This is a problem only for someone who believes that divine sovereignty eliminates or is inconsistent with human responsibility.

(4) Again, Draper says that in both Acts 10 and Acts 19 the tongues speech “was understood by those who heard them.” However, there isn’t anything to this effect in Acts 19. Nothing suggests that Paul or others who witnessed this event understood what was being said in tongues. They certainly understood what these “disciples” said when they prophesied, but that’s to be expected given the fact that prophecy is always something delivered in one’s native language.

As for Acts 10, we are told that those present “were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God” (v. 46). There’s no indication that they understood what was said in tongues, unless one insists that “extolling God” defines the content of what they spoke. More likely is that “extolling God” refers to a second, albeit related, proclamation that was delivered in their native language. The verb translated “extol” is used three times in Acts, only two of which refer to humans praising God. Aside from its use in Acts 10:46, it is used in Acts 19:17 where it has nothing to do with tongues but simply describes people extolling or praising Jesus in their normal language.

(5) Draper says that since tongues is not explicitly mentioned in other instances of conversion in Acts that “its lack of importance as an ongoing ministry” is indicated. This sort of argument from silence proves little, if anything at all. How many times is it necessary for a gift to be mentioned for it to be a valid expression of spiritual life? Outside of 1 Corinthians the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is never mentioned in Paul’s epistles. Would Draper want us to conclude from this that Communion is therefore unimportant? I suspect that any number of other examples could also be cited. The simple fact is that tongues is mentioned three times in Acts and numerous times in 1 Corinthians 12-14. That it is not the most important gift or ministry is obvious. Who would suggest it is? But that doesn’t give us grounds for ignoring, marginalizing, or neglecting it altogether.

(6) Again, Draper says that since, aside from Acts, only 1 Corinthians mentions tongues “it certainly means that speaking in tongues was not a major factor in the spread of the Gospel or in the practice of the apostolic church.” But as noted above, if I may use Draper’s own words, “in the 22 books of the New Testament that follow Acts, only 1 Corinthians mentions” the Lord’s Supper. What are we to conclude from that? Nothing, aside from the fact that since Paul’s instruction on the Lord’s Table was so clear and decisive in 1 Corinthians there was no need to mention it repeatedly in his other letters. Are we not warranted in concluding from the lack of reference to tongues in his other epistles that this gift was not a problem in those churches and that Paul’s guidelines for its exercise as given in 1 Corinthians were sufficient for the life and ministry of believers in other congregations? I think so.

Furthermore, there is not the slightest indication anywhere in the NT that tongues was designed by God to be “a major factor in the spread of the Gospel.” Tongues were not evangelistic!

(7) Draper thinks it is highly significant that Paul did not mention tongues in his list of spiritual gifts in Romans 12 and Ephesians 4. He argues from this that “we must conclude that the gift of tongues was either not a matter of importance, or that it was not practiced by the Christians in Rome, Ephesus and elsewhere.”

In the first place, virtually all NT scholars acknowledge that no NT epistle contains an exhaustive list of all spiritual gifts. Whether 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, Ephesians 4, or 1 Peter 4, what we have are representative lists, not comprehensive ones.

In Romans 12 Paul only mentions seven spiritual gifts, yet all acknowledge that there are a minimum of nineteen gifts listed in the NT. So, would Draper have us believe that these twelve gifts that Paul doesn’t mention were unimportant or, worse still, non-existent in the church at Rome? In Ephesians 4 only five gifts are mentioned (some scholars believe it is only four). So, I suppose on Draper’s logic that fifteen spiritual gifts were absent for the church in Ephesus or were deemed unimportant by the apostle.

(8) I applaud Draper’s statement that spiritual gifts are not rewards for spiritual maturity or achievement and that the gifts were distributed for the good of the entire body of believers. But let’s not forget that among those gifts distributed for “the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7) of the body were “tongues” and “interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:7-10; see especially 1 Cor. 14:26 where the purpose of tongues and their interpretation is explicitly said to be the “building up” of the body of Christ).

(9) Concerning 1 Corinthians 12-14, Draper rightly notes that Paul’s concern was with the “abuse of tongues.” He says that “care was given to regulate and restrict the use of tongues in the church and not to encourage their use.” This is only partly correct. Paul certainly regulated the use of tongues in the corporate gathering of the church. His instruction is unmistakable: in the absence of an interpreter, there is to be no speaking in tongues in the corporate assembly. But this isn’t to say he didn’t “encourage their use.” If there is an interpreter, Paul is happy for tongues to be expressed in the corporate assembly (see 1 Cor. 14:5). That is why he encourages the one with the gift of tongues to pray that God would also impart the gift of interpretation, that is, so that tongues could be used properly in the assembly for the edification of all present.

If Paul didn’t want to encourage the use of interpreted tongues in the corporate assembly, then why did he give the Corinthians this explicit word of instruction: “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” (1 Cor. 14:26)?

(10) It is also misleading for Draper to say that according to 1 Cor. 14:4 “tongues edifies only the person speaking.” Paul is talking about uninterpreted tongues (cf. v. 2). This is clear upon reading v. 5 where he says that if the tongues speech is interpreted the church is edified. So, it is true that only the tongues speaker is edified if he speaks in private or if his public speech remains uninterpreted. But with interpretation, the tongues speech becomes a means for the edification and building up of the entire body of Christ.

(11) Draper also says that the gift of prophecy entails expounding “the Word of God” and “proclaiming the Gospel.” But prophecy is not preaching. Prophecy is speaking forth in human words a spontaneous revelation that comes from God. This is clear from what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:24-25 and especially in 14:30,32.

(12) He also argues that “women are not to speak in tongues at any time in the church.” But this would be strange indeed, given that women clearly prophesied in church (1 Cor. 11:4ff.). A closer examination reveals that the sort of speaking that Paul prohibits is the passing of judgment on prophetic utterances (most likely because this would be an exercise of authority by women inconsistent with Paul’s instruction concerning male headship in the church and home). I encourage the reader to consult my more in-depth analysis of this passage (1 Cor. 14:34-35) at my website, www.SamStorms.com (it is in the Biblical Studies section under Deciphering Difficult Texts).

(13) Draper believes the reason Paul prohibited women from speaking in tongues was because it would be “too similar to the temple prostitutes’ ecstatic frenzies as they practiced their pagan, immoral rituals.” But there isn’t so much as a word in 1 Corinthians to indicate this was in Paul’s thinking. Tongues is nowhere portrayed as being “ecstatic” or entailing any degree of “frenzy”. Be it noted that contrary to what some believe, the word “ecstatic” is never used of tongues in the NT. You may find it in some English translations but it is utterly absent from the Greek text. Paul portrays those who speak in tongues as capable of starting and stopping at will (1 Cor. 14:15-19, 27-28, 40), hardly the sort of thing one associates with uncontrolled ecstasy or frenzy.

(14) Draper believes “one thing is clear: pre-occupation with tongues-speaking is childish (14:20).” Again, this is misleading. Tongues-speaking per se isn’t childish. It’s a good and glorious gift of God. Nor is a desire to possess this gift a sign of immaturity. What Paul characterizes as childish and immature is (a) the belief that tongues (above and beyond other gifts) was a sign of heightened spirituality and (b) the determination on the part of some in Corinth to dominate the meeting with uninterpreted tongues speech.

(15) Finally, Draper says (and I agree) that “spiritual gifts are divinely bestowed by our sovereign God. He can give the gifts as He pleases and to whom He pleases.” But I’m concerned when he goes on to say that “no one can ‘develop’ a gift or be ‘taught’ how to exercise a gift.”

If what Draper means by this is that no one can do anything to induce or persuade God to grant a gift contrary to his sovereign will, of course I agree. But I want to make sure that he does not mean to suggest that once a gift is bestowed that we cannot develop, grow, improve and be instructed on how to use it more effectively. This would apply to virtually all gifts, such as the gift of evangelism, or the gift of leadership, or the gift of giving, or any and every spiritual gift. If Christians can’t be “taught” how to exercise a gift, what are we doing offering courses in homiletics (preaching) in our colleges and seminaries? What are we doing offering seminars on how to more effectively share our faith with non-Christians? And the list could go on.

As you can see, I have some profound concerns with the way Dr. Draper has portrayed the gift of tongues in the NT. I hope my response has been helpful and above all else respectful in the way I have expressed my disagreement with him. Would that we all might live and serve the body of Christ as faithfully as Jimmy Draper has these many years!

Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit preview: Interview with Sam Storms
Published April 5th, 2007 in
SBC, General Christian, Church.

In just three short weeks, the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit will take place in Arlington, Texas. One of the featured speakers is Dr. Sam Storms. As a preview to the conference, I thought I would post an email interview in which I was privileged to participate with Dr. Storms. Some of it relates directly the confrence, but some deals with the SBC in general. I hope you enjoy it.
Here it is:

12 W: For those who don’t yet know you, can you tell us a little about yourself?

SS: Sure. I was born and raised in Oklahoma and was blessed to have Christian parents and a Christian sister. My parents led me to the Lord, although I’m not sure when I actually came to saving faith. I walked the aisle during a “revival” service at First Baptist Church in Shawnee. I was nine at the time, but I may well have come to faith before that.
During my teen years the only thing that mattered to me (sadly) was athletics. By the time I reached high school (in Duncan, Oklahoma) I was reduced to playing basketball and golf because of four major surgeries I had undergone. It was pretty clear that the Lord was re-directing me from athletics to ministry. I still had aspirations of playing golf professionally, but by the end of my freshman year at the University of Oklahoma I realized that a notoriously bad temper and a lack of skill made that highly unlikely.
I met my wife, Ann (to whom I’ve now been married 35 years), while at OU. We got married after our junior year in 1972. I attended Dallas Theological Seminary and received my Th.M. in Historical Theology there (1977). We were members at First Baptist in Dallas for the first year, having been drawn there by the preaching of W. A. Criswell. However, I soon left in order to fulfill requirements in church ministry for a class I was taking. Ironically, I ended up spending my final three years of seminary serving as interim pastor of a small Presbyterian church. I knew it was only temporary, as my baptistic convictions run quite deep!
I joined the pastoral staff at Believer’s Chapel in Dallas in 1977, a non-denominational Bible church. I served there for eight years, during which also I studied for my Ph.D. at the University of Texas at Dallas. I received my doctorate in 1984 and hoped to teach in a seminary, but the Lord had different plans. I took the position of Senior Pastor at Christ Community Church in Ardmore, Oklahoma, in 1985 (another non-denominational Bible church) and ministered there for eight years, until 1993.
It was in late 1987 into early 1988 that I underwent a major theological shift. I rejected cessationism and embraced the view that all spiritual gifts (even private prayer language!) are valid and available to the church today. This led eventually to my accepting a position with Metro Vineyard Fellowship in Kansas City. I served there for another seven years, primarily as Associate Pastor and President of Grace Training Center, our full-time Bible school. I left Kansas City in August of 2000 and accepted a position teaching theology at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. In August of 2004 I resigned at Wheaton and returned to Kansas City to establish Enjoying God Ministries.
My wife Ann and I have two daughters (Melanie and Joanna) and two grandsons.
One more personal element. Although we live in Kansas City and serve with Enjoying God Ministries, we are members of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Oklahoma, where your friend Wade Burleson is pastor.
Those who may want to read in more detail of my spiritual journey and especially how I’ve labored to integrate Word and Spirit in life and ministry can get my book, “Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist” (at www.SamStorms.com).

Could you give your academic credentials?

I have a B.A. in History from the University of Oklahoma, a Th.M. in Historical Theology from Dallas Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Intellectual History from the University of Texas at Dallas.

According to your pastor, you are a prolific writer. Could you give some of the books that you have written? What are you working on now?

I think I’m up to thirteen books, with two new ones coming out in the next 12 months. The ones that are still in print include “Pleasures Evermore: The Life-Changing Power of Enjoying God” (NavPress), “One Thing: Developing a Passion for the Beauty of God” (Christian Focus), “Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist” (Enjoying God Ministries), “The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts” (Regal), “The Singing God: Discover the Joy of Being Enjoyed by God” (Creation House). I’m also one of the four contributors to the book, “Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views” (Zondervan).
In February of this year, Crossway Publishers released my book, “Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election.” In July they will publish “Signs of the Spirit: An Interpretation of Jonathan Edwards’ ‘Religious Affections’” Finally, in January or February of 2008 they will release “The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Paul’s Letter to the Colossians.”
I’m currently working on three more books: one on eschatology, one on experiencing the Spirit, and one that will consist of about 50 daily meditations on the seven letters of Revelation 2-3.

What is your experience with Southern Baptist life?

My roots are deep within the convention. My mother and father were members at Bellevue Baptist in Memphis after WW II, where my dad was a deacon and my mom served for a while as R. G. Lee’s secretary. As I noted above, we attended First Baptist in Dallas for a while, and then got involved in a number of other churches for the next thirty or so years. I’ve always been baptistic in theology (although I recently read a SWBTS professor who said that those who use the term “baptistic” are under the influence of postmodernism; go figure!), but the Lord has led me to serve in a variety of church contexts (including independent Bible, Plymouth Brethren, Vineyard, Anglican). As I said, we are now members at Emmanuel Baptist in Enid.

Within the Southern Baptist landscape right now, what issues do you see driving our mutual discussion? Is there an overarching issue that relates to all of the things abuzz in the Convention? If so, what is it?

The issues are much the same as they’ve been for generations. The things Christians disagree and argue about are fairly constant: the sovereignty of God and human responsibility, especially as it relates to evangelism and missions; the role of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts in particular; the role of women in ministry and leadership; eschatology, spontaneity vs. liturgy in worship, etc. These and a few other issues are almost always at the center of debate, not just among Baptists but across denominational lines.
The one thing these issues have in common is that none of them is central to the gospel itself. They are all, at best, secondary doctrines, or doctrines on which Christ-exalting, Bible-believing Christians can and often do disagree. Sadly, some question the evangelical credentials of anyone who might dare to differ with their view on Calvinism or whether miraculous gifts occur today or the timing of the rapture or the nature of the millennium.
But there is something else that is even more disturbing, and that is the angry and divisive dogmatism that is emerging over behavioral issues on which the Bible is either silent or leaves one’s decision in the realm of Christian freedom. Perhaps the greatest threat to unity and acceptance in the Church is the tendency to treat particular life-style and cultural preferences as though they were divine law. To be even more specific, it’s the tendency to constrict or reduce or narrow the boundaries of what is acceptable to God, either by demanding what the Bible doesn’t require or forbidding what the Bible clearly permits.
My experience has been that this is typically driven by one of three things: either an unjustified fear of being “spiritually contaminated” by too close contact with the surrounding culture, or an unbridled ambition to gain power over the lives of others, or a failure to believe and trust in the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ (or all three combined).
I’m concerned that in certain segments of the Convention there is a mindset reminiscent of the old “fundamentalism” that is characterized by isolationism, separatism, anti-intellectualism, cultural withdrawal, and a generally angry and judgmental attitude toward all those who dare to differ on these matters that quite simply don’t matter; at least they don’t matter nearly as much as whether or not you believe in the deity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Whereas conservative evangelicalism has typically drawn the line on theological essentials, this more recent fundamentalism draws the line ever more narrowly on issues such as total abstinence vs. moderation in the use of alcohol, the degree of freedom and the role of affections in public worship, the legitimacy of so-called “private prayer language,” etc. Sadly, when one’s commitment to Christ and the authority of Scripture is judged on the basis of this latter group of issues, rather than the former, the situation is bleak indeed.

Where do you see the tension over Reformed theology going in the SBC?

If you have in mind agencies and institutions within the convention, I fear that we may see seminaries and colleges and other agencies drafting statements similar to the one by Southwestern Seminary concerning charismatic gifts and practices. But in this case it would be to eliminate and forbid from the faculty those who embrace five-point Calvinism, or conversely, four-point Arminianism (I can’t image any Southern Baptist agency or institution ever taking a stand against the doctrine of the security of the believer).
I hope this never happens. The healthiest and most instructive and edifying atmosphere in an educational institution is when both perspectives are fairly and objectively represented. I’m a five-point Calvinist but I’ve worked for years alongside colleagues who were five-point Arminians. I’ve found most of them to be Christ-loving, Bible-believing evangelicals that served only to enrich the educational experience.
As far as the Convention as a whole is concerned, I suspect that someone somewhere along the line will propose amending the BFM to exclude Calvinism. If that ever were to happen, I predict a significant exodus from Southern Baptist life of those whose convictions would prohibit them from affirming such a statement. That would be tragic. Short of that, I encourage both sides within the Convention to continue the pursuit of civil dialogue and biblically-based discussion.

The claim has been made, specifically by Dr. Malcolm Yarnell of SWBTS, that there is NO Biblical evidence for the existence of a “Private Prayer Language.” How do you respond? What Scriptures do you think are relevant to the discussion of such a claim?

I’ll be brief on this one, since I’ve written a couple of articles setting forth my view on tongues. I’ve also written more extensively on this in my book, “The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts” (Regal).
As I read 1 Corinthians 14, it seems clear that Paul advocated and personally practiced a “private” prayer life that entailed speaking in tongues. If he is thankful that he speaks in tongues more than all (14:18), yet declares that he rarely does so in the corporate meeting of the church (14:19; indeed, in the absence of interpretation he never would do so), one is forced to ask: Where is Paul praying in tongues? It can only be that this takes place in his “private” prayer closet (cf. also 14:28). Therefore, this practice is “private”.
It is certainly “prayer” because Paul calls it such on several occasions (1 Cor. 14:14-15). It is speech, of whatever sort it may be, directed to God (1 Cor. 14:2) in which he “gives thanks” (14:16) and, I assume, since it is “prayer,” petitions God, intercedes, praises (14:15), and whatever else one typically does when engaged in communication with God. Therefore, this practice is “private prayer”.
Is it “language”? Yes, if by “language” one means a form of communication. Whether tongues is always a human language un-learned by the speaker (which it isn’t, in my opinion) or also some form of heavenly or angelic dialect (which I believe it is), it is linguistic in nature. The Apostle Paul speaks of “various kinds of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:10), indicating that the expression of this Spirit-induced ability may take any number of forms.
Certainly one is free to argue that the “private prayer language” described in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is no longer valid today, having been designed by God solely for the church of the 1st century, but one can hardly deny that it was precisely that: a private prayer language. Of course, I don’t believe there is anything in the NT that would justify belief that tongues speech ceased with the passing of the apostles, but that is another issue entirely.

What do you say to the claim that the acceptance of a “Private Prayer Language” among our missionaries is allowing an influx of Pentecostal theology?

First, we need to define what is meant by “Pentecostal” theology. The word “Pentecostal” has traditionally been used solely of those churches, denominations, and theological practices that came out of the Azusa Street Revival at the turn of the previous century (most notably, but by no means restricted to, The Assemblies of God). “Pentecostalism” typically affirms three things of tongues speech: (1) it is the initial physical evidence of one having been baptized in the Holy Spirit (thus if one has not spoken in tongues one has not been Spirit-baptized); (2) there is a distinction between tongues as a “sign” (that accompanies Spirit baptism) and tongues as a “gift” (which is designed for one’s devotional experience); and (3) God desires for all Christians to receive the “gift” of tongues.
Those who embrace a modified “Charismatic” view or what some have called a “Third Wave” theology would reject all three of these points at the same time they believe that tongues is a valid gift for the body of Christ today. But like all other gifts it is sovereignly distributed by the Spirit to whomever he wishes. It is not a gift possessed by all. There is no basis for distinguishing tongues as “sign” from tongues as “gift,” although Third Wave folk (such as myself) acknowledge that tongues can be manifest in a number of ways or settings depending on context and intent. Finally, no single spiritual gift, not even tongues, proves anything other than that the Spirit has sovereignly chosen to bestow it. It is not an infallible or necessary sign that one is either “baptized” or “filled” with the Spirit.
The point of this is simply that I seriously doubt if there are many (any?) Southern Baptist missionaries who are advocating a “Pentecostal” perspective on tongues. They may well be in favor of a Third Wave perspective. Personally, I hope the IMB would allow the freedom for this view and practice to exist on the mission field. However, if someone on the field was insisting that all must speak in tongues or that those who do not have not been Spirit-baptized, this raises another issue that would need to be addressed. I don’t necessarily think that such a “Pentecostal” view should exclude someone from the foreign field, but my opinion on that would probably run counter to most Southern Baptists today. Still, I would hope if such a “Pentecostal” view emerged among SBC missionaries that careful and loving instruction would be provided in an effort to bring them into alignment with the teaching of Scripture. But as I said, I suspect my approach to this matter would very much be a minority position within the SBC.

How do you see the debate over moderation concerning the consumption of alcohol? Do you see a disparity in the approach to the alcohol issue and other issues under debate?

Honestly, I’m weary of this debate. Certainly anyone who embraces the authority of Scripture must denounce drunkenness. But I’ve never been persuaded in the least by the alleged “biblical” arguments for total abstinence. Having said that, I think total abstinence is a perfectly honorable and permissible practice to embrace. Any Christian is free to abstain from alcohol. But they aren’t free, in my opinion, to insist that others do the same. They are even less free to accuse those who drink in moderation of being sub-Christian. Abstinence per se is neither a sign of spiritual weakness nor of spiritual strength. Neither is one’s choice of moderation in the use of alcohol a sign of weakness or strength. Whether one totally abstains or drinks in moderation is simply irrelevant to Christian spirituality.

What are your thoughts on the Traditional church, the Missional church and the Emergent church?

That’s a huge question that warrants a dissertation! But I’ll keep my comments brief.
I’m glad to see that you distinguish between the Missional church and the Emergent church (some mistakenly equate them). Every church ought to be missional, if by that you mean that mission is what the church is and not simply one program that it pursues or funds. The church is by biblical definition and divine calling “sent” to the world, whether that world be across the street or across the ocean.
Sadly many conceive of “mission” as something a segment of the church does or as a program the church “funds” rather than as the very identity of what the whole church is.
My primary concern for the Traditional church is that its customs, rituals (yes, even Southern Baptist’s have rituals; they just don’t call them that), habits, and accepted patterns for ministry and worship are so deeply entrenched in the spiritual psyche of a people that the Bible itself is not allowed to critique what is done or provide direction for new expressions of life as the body of Christ.
There is also the potential threat of a Traditional church losing touch with the surrounding culture. They can often create a “fortress” mentality, circle the wagons, hunker down so to speak, and rarely engage with the developments in society or the unsaved who populate it.
Too often, in the name of tradition, freedom in worship is stifled, the power of the Spirit is suppressed, age old “doctrines” are immune from biblical scrutiny, and what makes people “feel comfortable” is the decisive factor in evaluating fresh proposals or efforts to reach the lost and more effectively communicate with the saved.
I have deep disagreements with the agenda of many (not necessarily all) in the Emergent church. People who want to know the specifics can go to my website (www.SamStorms.com) and click on Recommended. There is a seven part review of Don Carson’s book, “Becoming Conversant with Emergent” that should give them a pretty good idea of where I stand.
What concerns me most about Emergent isn’t the “style” of ministry or the use of “candles and couches” or the commitment to “relevance”. I believe we have to engage with culture if we are going to effectively communicate the gospel to it. What bothers me, though, is the tendency to minimize or, in some cases, altogether jettison the possibility of our knowing absolute truth as it is revealed in Scripture. Too many in Emergent give the impression that because we cannot (and never will) know revealed truth comprehensively or exhaustively that we cannot speak of “absolute truth” in any meaningful sense of the term. Thus they balk at any talk of doctrine or theological boundaries or the importance of identifying “heresy”. Expository preaching is set aside as “modernistic” and ideologically oppressive. This is a serious error that in the long run will threaten the uniqueness of Christianity and undermine our efforts to evangelize the lost.
Again, as I said, there’s so much that could be addressed on this point, but I should probably stop and suggest your readers take a look at my review of Carson’s book.
How serious is the divide within the SBC right now? Do you think it will survive? If it does survive, in what shape will it be?
The divide is certainly real. How serious it is, I’m not sure. There is an unmistakable presence of a “fundamentalist” mentality that I fear will become increasingly belligerent and narrow and critical of those who don’t “toe the line” on their cherished secondary and tertiary issues. I hope those in the Convention can unite on their commitment to the “Fundamentals” of the faith and build a cooperative and effective witness on that basis. But there is, sadly, always an element within any movement or group or denomination that is convinced that true spirituality will always look the same, act the same, worship the same, even when the Bible is either altogether silent on such matters or permits a freedom that such zealots find uncomfortable (if not dangerous).
Yes, the SBC will most certainly survive. But I dare not speculate on what form it will assume.

You are a featured speaker at the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit later this month. What do you hope this conference will accomplish? How do you think the make up of the conference speakers will help achieve this?

Conferences are a strange thing. Too often they can become an escape from the routine rigors of Christian living. At other times people fall into the mistake of thinking that the spiritual “highs” of a conference are typical of what the Christian life in general is to be. But neither of these is necessary. We need to view a conference like this as an opportunity for honest and open dialogue on issues facing Baptists today. I have high hopes and great expectations for this time in Arlington. I think, if nothing else, it will reveal that there is room under SBC tent for both positions on the ministry of the Holy Spirit. More than that, I hope that cessationists in particular will recognize that their continuationist or charismatic brothers and sisters are as equally committed to the Great Commission and the authority of Scripture as they are.
The speakers represent virtually all possible positions. This is really unusual for a conference on the Spirit. Typically there is only one view that is promoted. There’s always a risk in doing it the way Dwight has chosen, but I think he made the right choice. Let’s pray that in the midst of what will undoubtedly be heated disagreement there will prevail a commitment to loving one another and exalting Christ. That’s certainly what the Spirit would want!

Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?
Posted: Friday, March 02, 2007 at 3:40 am ET
What if you could know that your unborn baby boy is likely to be sexually attracted to other boys? Beyond that, what if hormonal treatments could change the baby's orientation to heterosexual? Would you do it? Some scientists believe that such developments are just around the corner.
For some time now, scientists have been looking for a genetic or hormonal cause of sexual orientation. Thus far, no "gay gene" has been found -- at least not in terms of incontrovertible and accepted science. Yet, it is now claimed that a growing body of evidence indicates that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation.
The most interesting research along these lines relates to the study of sheep. Scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station are conducting research into the sexual orientation of sheep through "sexual partner preference testing." As William Saletan at Slate.com explains:
A bare majority of rams turn out to be heterosexual. One in five swings both ways. About 15 percent are asexual, and 7 percent to 10 percent are gay.
Why so many gay rams? Is it too much socializing with ewes? Same-sex play with other lambs? Domestication? Nope. Those theories have been debunked. Gay rams don't act girly. They're just as gay in the wild. And a crucial part of their brains--the "sexually dimorphic nucleus"--looks more like a ewe's than like a straight ram's. Gay men have a similar brain resemblance to women. Charles Roselli, the project's lead scientist, says such research "strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans."
What makes the sheep "sexual partner preference testing" research so interesting is that the same scientists who are documenting the rather surprising sexual behaviors of male sheep think they can also change the sexual orientation of the animals. In other words, finding a biological causation for homosexuality may also lead to the discovery of a "cure" for the same phenomenon.
That's where the issue gets really interesting. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] has called for an end to the research, while tennis star Martina Navratilova called the research "homophobic and cruel" and argued that gay sheep have a "right" to be homosexual. No kidding.
Homosexual activists were among the first to call for (and fund) research into a biological cause of homosexuality. After all, they argued, the discovery of a biological cause would lead to the normalization of homosexuality simply because it would then be seen to be natural, and thus moral.
But now the picture is quite different. Many homosexual activists recognize that the discovery of a biological marker or cause for homosexual orientation could lead to efforts to eliminate the trait, or change the orientation through genetic or hormonal treatments.
Tyler Gray addresses these issues in the current issue of Radar magazine. In "Is Your Baby Gay?," Gray sets out a fascinating scenario. A woman is told that her unborn baby boy is gay. This woman and her husband consider themselves to be liberal and tolerant of homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality now; it is about their baby boy. The woman is then told that a hormone patch on her abdomen will "reverse the sexual orientation inscribed in his chromosomes." The Sunday Times [London] predicts that such a patch should be available for use on humans within the decade. Will she use it?
This question stands at the intersection of so many competing interests. Feminists and political liberals have argued for decades now that a woman should have an unrestricted right to an abortion, for any cause or for no stated cause at all. How can they now complain if women decide to abort fetuses identified as homosexual? This question involves both abortion and gay rights -- the perfect moral storm of our times.
Homosexual activists have claimed that sexual orientation cannot be changed. What if a hormone patch during pregnancy will do the job?
As Gray suggests:
In a culture that encourages us to customize everything from our Nikes to our venti skinny lattes, perhaps it is only a matter of time before baby-making becomes just another consumer transaction. Already have a girl? Make this one a boy! Want to impress your boho friends? Make a real statement with lesbian twins!
More to the point, Gray understands that such a development would reshape the abortion and gay-rights debates in America:
Conservatives opposed to both abortion and homosexuality will have to ask themselves whether the public shame of having a gay child outweighs the private sin of terminating a pregnancy (assuming the stigma on homosexuality survives the scientific refutation of the Right's treasured belief that it is a "lifestyle choice.") Pro-choice activists won't be spared either. Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own? And exactly how pro-choice will liberal abortion-rights activists be when thousands of potential parents are choosing to filter homosexuality right out of the gene pool?
The development of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis [PDG] is one of the greatest threats to human dignity in our times. These tests are already leading to the abortion of fetuses identified as carrying unwanted genetic markers. The tests can now check for more than 1,300 different chromosomal abnormalities or patterns. With DNA analysis, the genetic factors could be identified right down to hair and eye color and other traits. The logic is all too simple. If you don't like what you see on the PDG report . . . just abort and start over. Soon, genetic treatments may allow for changing the profile. Welcome to the world of designer babies.
If that happens, how many parents -- even among those who consider themselves most liberal -- would choose a gay child? How many parents, armed with this diagnosis, would use the patch and change the orientation?
Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms should think carefully about these points:
1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.
2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.
3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment.
4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible's moral verdict on homosexual behavior.
5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.
6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons -- the fact that all humans are made in God's image -- reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God.
7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.
8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.
9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.
10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God's moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.