From: Jerry L Steen bigjersteen@juno.com
Well, Keith, I am either on target with my doctrinal stand or I need to check my pulse. I scored a "0" by not marking anything. Again, you have found an unusual way of bringing home a point. I have heard all of these statements at one time or another in my Christian walk. Many of those statements separate and polarize the body of Christ. None of the statements have a basis in scripture. I am sure that Satan is laughing at us when he sees how he can divide us. --Jerry Steen,
From: "Pierpont" pierpont@mail.riverview.net
You've left no room here for those who are sincere cessationists but love and respect all those in the body of Christ. (But do give yourself credit for stimulating a response).
Your survey makes room for Charismatics of various degrees, and those who fear or bash charismatics. I have no fear of charismatics and would not "bash" them. I believe I can disagree with their view of the congruence of first century tongues and the modern tongues phenomenon, but still agree with them on a vast body of other truths held in common.
It would be the same way I view a brother who came from a holiness point of view on sanctification. I would not fear or bash him, but learn from him and share a common commitment to holiness of life, but disagree about some of the theology.
This was my experience last week in grad school. I enjoyed rich fellowship and oneness of mind with a Wesleyan pastor with whom I shared a common commitment to personal holiness. I didn't have the same depth of agreement with a number of the other pastors. They have the same construct as I do regarding sanctification, but consider us legalists who have standards they don't share.
Thanks for your provocative essay. --Kenneth L. Pierpont, Fremont, Michigan
From: Jeff Switter jswitter@intrstar.net
I don't know about my church, but I come out between Charis-friendly and charis-phobic I'd probably call it charis-leave-me-alone. My biggest disagreement with charismatic (or Pentecostal) churches is their insistence that tongues are a must. I believe that if God wanted me to speak in tongues He would have me do so whether I knew it or not. This is part of that idea that" if God doesn't deal with you exactly the same as me that you aren't as good as I am" I am sad to say that many of the no-tongues people are as bad at that as the most extreme Pentecostals are on the other side of the argument. Why can't we get to the point that we can accept that God will reach and work within us as He will not as we think He ought to. That those of us whom God has never moved to speak in tongues would not point fingers and condemn as fakes all those who do, and those who do speak in tongues would accept the idea that when God purifies and fills with his Spirit that sometimes the only sigh is a changed heart and life? When God's people are so bitterly divided over something that is ultimately so small a part of our theology, the only one receiving glory from it is the adversary.
From: Bob Younce ryounce@midcogen.com
OK, real quick here were my answers:
____ (+5) If someone in our church has public tongues they should be allowed to speak publicly.
____ (-5) Forget "Prayer languages" -- spiritual gifts are for church, not to aid individual Christians.
____ (-10) If charismatics join a non-charismatic church they usually eventually cause a split.
____ (-15) All the tongues recorded in the New Testament were actual languages people had never learned.
I guess I was surprised to find myself on the charis-phobic side of the aisle. I would comment on a couple of items. Actually, I would restate one of them to say that "If charismatics join a non-charismatic church a split generally ensues." Is it because tongues is in itself so divisive? Not necessarily. I have a suspicion that what usually happens is this: A church that has lost its zeal and compassion has some charismatics join. Some of the members that are hungering for spiritual passion seem to find it in the charismatic practices. At that point, they may try to spread their newfound zeal among the other members. The other members often react negatively (perhaps for good doctrinal reasons, or perhaps just because they are embarrassed by their own lack of zeal) and either they or the charismatics wind up leaving the church. Whose fault is it? Either. Both. Neither. Take your pick.
Now, as regards the "prayer language" vs. "unlearned language" debate... this one seems to creep up quite a lot more than you might think, at least among many of the neo-charismatics that I have come in contact with. There are some that are abandoning tongues as a prayer language altogether. Of course, there are some that have gone to the opposite extreme (no tongues, no salvation).
As Wesleyans, I think you and I are in a pretty good position on tongues. We don't go as far as to say that God cannot give such a gift, yet we tend to put Scriptural safeguards (such as orderly public worship and Christian unity) in place. We Wesleyans have worked alongside the Pentecostals and Charismatics for a long long time. And as members in the parent "holiness movement", we tend to be a little more allowing of our tongue-speaking brethren than some other evangelical groups. That's not to gloss it over, we have many among us who are truly charis-phobic and charis-bashers, but doctrinally we are in a good spot. --Bob Younce , Midland, MI