Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

Men from different religious backgrounds have united in opposing the new morality. Conservative Catholics and Protestants have opposed it. Most of our institutional brethren have opposed it. Our question now is: Can they oppose it consistently?

Who Can Consistently Oppose Situational Ethics?

Not Catholics. Fletcher’s doctrine that “circumstances alter cases” is merely an enlargement on the Catholic doctrine of mental reservation (” . . . so that a false statement knowingly made to one who has not a right to the truth will not be a lie,” Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, p. 471). The Catholic church has set aside the word of God on the subject of honesty on the basis of situations that might develop in which it would not be beneficial (in this life) to tell the truth. Fletcher has simply enlarged on that and applied it to other areas of morality. He can set aside adultery on the basis of circumstances if something beneficial (in this life) results. On what basis can Catholics oppose situation ethics? Not any. They were practicing it on th matter of bearing false witness before Fletcher was born.

Not Protestants. For years, Protestants have taught that salvation involves no rules for they claim we would be earning our salvation. They said, “Let your conscience be your guide” in religion. Situationists say the same thing about morality. Protestants have said, “it makes no difference what you believe (in religion) just so you’re sincere.” Situationists say the same about morality. For decades Protestants (especially Baptists) have tried to set aside obedience in baptism on the basis of difficult situations (Blackford-Dabdoub Debate, 1977, second night). The cases most often used are th soldier on the battlefield who needs to be baptized and the man on the way to the creek for baptism and is killed. Any teaching of God can be set aside in this manner. What about the man who is on his way to hear the gospel for the first time and is killed before he reaches the building? Is he saved without the gospel (Rom. 1:16)? Can all men be saved without the gospel? Those who seek to bypass our Lord’s will int eh religious realm are bedfellows to those who try to bypass His will in the moral realm! If it works for Baptists then it should work for Fletcher. He is simply applying Baptists arguments to morality. Close kin indeed! One thing for sure, Fletcher should not have to accept all the blame for the moral climate of our society. It is easy to see where his arguments came from. We do not mean to be hard on the Baptist people, but they do need to see the consequences of their reasoning. Protestant preachers have opened the floodgate and are not powerless to stop the flood.

Even if the soldier was an exception to baptism, it would not establish the rule for everyone else not in that situation. Those in America who have every opportunity to obey the gospel but spend every night in the comfort of their homes watching television, going to ball games or other forms of entertainment, would not qualify. Nor would it fit the denominationalists who are too prejudiced to study or attend debates on the subject. It certainly would not fit false teachers who spend their time trying to find loopholes around it. It is usually their fault that the soldier gets in such a predicament anyway. If he would not listen to those who tell him baptism is not essential (in spite of Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21, etc.) he would not wait til the lost control the circumstances. The Bible stresses the importance of doing it immediately (Acts 16:29-34). If our attitude is right toward God and His word, we will follow the rule instead of always trying to be the exception. If there are exceptions, God has not told us. We will let him handle it one judgment day and be satisfied with whatever He chooses to do.

Not Institutional Brethren. In controversies over church support of institutions and church-sponsored recreation some have used “the end justifies the means” argument. Verbal pictures of babies left on doorsteps, children eating out of garbage cans, and other emotional circumstances have been used to set aside God’s will for local churches. Sponsoring elders who oversee other flocks that are not “among you” (1 Pet. 5:2) on the basis that “these are struggling groups who need our oversight” are using sitiuationism. Brethren who argue for church-sponsored recreation and entertainment “because if we don’t, the denominations will get our young people” are using the same reasoning as Fletcher.

If Catholics, Protestants, and institutional brethren cannot consistently oppose the new morality, then who can? Christians who have the right attitude toward God and His word! When faced with a difficult situation, whether individually or on a congregational basis, (1) Be patient enough to wait for the way of escape. God is faithful and will not allow you to be tempted above your ability to resist (1 Cor. 10:13). (2) Pray regularly. The prayers of a righteous person are of great benefit (Jas. 5:16). (3) Study regularly. The Psalmist said a knowledge of the word will keep you from sin (Psa. 119:11). It did for Jesus (Mt. 4:1-11). (4) Remember that “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13), and “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31).

Conclusion

Situationism seeks to cloud the issue between right and wrong. However, by following the preventatives given above one can see clearly and know when he has pleased God.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 4, p. 105
February 16, 1984

By Lewis Willis

I have given considerable attention to relgious exercises that curse mankind. The unrestrained push to involve the church in the teaching and practice of error needs to be brought to man’s attention. Human religionist’s hypocrisy must be unmasked so that its power to decive is diminised. Consider the following:

The Other Face of Schuller

On January 2, 1983, I wrote an article that concerned, in part, the tax trouble of the Hour Of Power television program of Dr. Robert Schuller in Garden Grove, California. The California State Board of Equalization ruled that Schuller owed $400,000 in taxes because of his “Crystal Cathedral” was making “increasing use of church facilities for ostensibly commercial purposes . . .” (Guardian of Truth), 3-3-93, p. 153). Schuller was using his facility to present concerts by the Fifth Dimension, Roberta Peters, Tony Bennett, Mitch Miller, and others. Naturally, he charged admission. The state tax man said, “that’s a No No.” Back in January, Schuller protested the action of the state, but he said he intended to pay the tax. He could cry and little bit about being persecuted on one broadcast and raise millions, so $400,000 was nothing to be concerned about.

However, the Akron Beacon Journal (5-9-83), reports that Schuller has changed his mind, he “vowed to fight the decision . . . and warned it was ‘contrary to the future of churches in America.'” He said, “I will never allow the pulpit, the cross, the altar, the choir left to be taxed . . .” So the apostle of love and positive thinking has shown his true colors. He is ready to fight. He has been ripping off the businesses that produce concerts, and the taxpayers from whom he has fraudulently received tax exemption. He now intends to fight and he intends to make the Cross of Christ – instead of his money-making schemes, the focal point of the battle. Come on Schuller, a third grader can see through your deception.

Catholics Are Still Perverting The Gospel

In Galatians 1:6-9, Paul warned against corrupting the gospel of Christ. Revelation 22:18-19 is a prohibition against adding to or diminishing from the divine revelation. That is what the Scriptures teach. However, Catholicism does not respect the Scriptures. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops has been drafting a new “Pastoral Letter” which will become a part of the Dogma of Roman Catholicism. It is not a document about saving souls, perfecting the worship or world evangelism. This new Dogma demands a “freeze” on the production of nuclear weapons. It ranks right up there with “repent and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). That seems a good place to add “and freeze the testing, production and deployment of any nuclear weapon systems.” I just feel confident that God is terribly pleased with the work of these 285 well-intentioned Catholic Bishops. The Akron Beacon Journal (11-21-82) quoted Alabama Senator Jeremiah Denton as saying “they don’t understand military and international affairs and they ought to keep their noses out of it until they do.” But there is no restraining arrogant men who think themselves as wise as God. Therefore, the Roman Catholic church has joined the nuclear freeze movement and made their position a part of their doctrine!

Enter Dr. Jerry Falwell

In his broadcast (4-17-83), Falwell discussed the nuclear freeze movement in rather uncomplimentary terms. Jerry told his audience his belief in a strong America and that someone needs to champion the cause of fundamental patriotism in this country. He strongly opposes those who give in to the Soviet Union and demand a freeze on nuclear weapons. I guess his is opposed to the Roman Catholic church and, guess what, he has decided that he will the spokesman for those who oppose the freeze. He proposed to his audience that they join with him in waging battle against those who are against a strong America. He asked them to join with him in opposing the aims of the Soviet Union. After several minutes he finally got to his point. Naturally it’s gong to cost money to wage the battle against unAmericanism, but its worth the cost. He said all he needs is “a few million dollars” form his audience and he’ll do the job for all of us! This guy ought to change the name of his television program from the Old Time Gospel Hour, to the Watch Me Get Into Your Checkbook Hour.

With over $70 million a year coming into his religious empire, Falwell can refer to “a few million dollars” like ordinary folks might refer to a “few pinto beans.” If Falwell and the Catholics would ever study the word of God, they would not try to involve religion in such things.

Faith Healer Hypocrisy

For years the “leading lights” of the faith healing movement have called multitudes of people to them that they might be healed of all manner of diseases. Victim of cancer, diabetes, cataracts, deafness, etc., are only one “laying on of hands” away from their miracle cure. Jim Bakker and the PTL Club have been urging people to come and receive their miracle, making their contribution, and give their testimony of healing to a waiting world. My, I wish I could remember his side-kick’s name. It is Henry something or other – he is the guy who does the “Ed MacMahon introduction” as he introduces Bakker saying, “Here’s Jimm-m-m Bakker!” Anyway, I was watching a special report on the Cable News Network the other day about a new treatment called “cheleation therapy.” It is a treatment to clean out arteries and treat blood related diseases. There is a clinic down South that administers the treatment. You go there for a month and for $10,000 they’ll make you good as new. You’ll never imagine my shock when they introduced Bakker’s sidekick, Henry, as one of the folks who laid down his $10,000 to get his arteries washed out. Man, why didn’t he just have Jim lay hands on him and heal him. Surely he’s a believer! I was just thinking – most of us know why he went to the doctor instead of Bakker! The truth is rather obvious with these fellows “when the chips are down.” Hypocrisy is . . . .

‘Til next time . . .

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 4, pp. 103-104
February 16, 1984

By Daniel H. King

It is not our intention to be purely negative in our presentation of this material. Our love for those caught up in the fervor of the system will not allow it. Many whom we have known have been honest people, delightful to have as neighbors, warm and congenial to others, filled with ardor and zeal, and willing to share themselves and their faith with their friends. Again, though, this is not the only genuine test of whether the system itself is right or wrong. Do not the Mormons in many instances demonstrate the identical characteristics? And yet most charismatics will agree that Mormon doctrines are, all but a few, of the Devil. Piety and zeal, along with other Christian virtues, are part of the common store of principles with which very few in any religious (or even non-religious) movement would argue. These things are important, even essential to salvation, but they are not the only tests of genuine discipleship. Possession of truth must be the ultimate test.

And, while I want not to be taken as purely critical, I must nevertheless voice my criticism of this ideology, just as I do of Mormonism. The Holy Spirit (about which charismatics So often speak) is, after all, the Spirit of Truth (Jn. 16:13). in any essential point there is a well-defined difference between the work of the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error. For those Christians in the apostle John’s lifetime it was the question whether or not Jesus came in the flesh (1 Jn. 4:1-3). In practically every generation the issue will be a different one, and may even consist of many such issues. But the solution will ever be the same: “Whoever knows God listens to us (i.e., the apostles) and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1 Jn. 4:6).

So, the only safe course to follow in every situation is the course the Bible steers us through. God has given us both the Bible and the brains to understand it. If anyone tells you not to listen to what the Bible says, don’t you listen to him. Or, if they tell you not to make use of the intelligence God has granted you, then beware of this approach also. Remember that it was God who said, “Come, let us reason together, said the Lord” (Isa. 1: 18). Notwithstanding all of the strident appeals to the Bible made by charismatics, the simple truth is that neither the Bible nor reason are the real platforms which support this system. Let me explain what I mean.

Emotions and inner feelings were never meant to supplant a reasoned approach to the Word of God. In my own dealings with those involved with the modem charismatic movement, I have often thought that the most fatal flaw plaguing the system and those entrapped by it is the tendency to exalt emotion above reason. Jesus repeated the ancient “first commandment,” including the demand that a man love the Lord God with all his mind as well as his heart (Matt. 22:37; quoting Deut. 6:5). The religion of the Bible is both a heart and head religion. Many of the leaders of the current movement ensnare well-meaning but ignorant people in a web of ecstatic emotionalism and hold them secure through the spiritual illiteracy that they encourage in their preaching. They keep them on a religious “high” and discourage them from coming down long enough to examine with some amount of intelligence how they got up there and whether or not that is where they really belong in the first place.

Another but kindred problem is the tendency to exalt subjective experiences, whether real or imagined, to a place above Holy Scripture. The Bible plainly says that it is to be the source of unrivaled authority in our fives: “All scripture is inspired of God, and is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Yet, on several occasions in discussions with charismatics, I have had them to say that their experiences are superior to exhaustive Bible study in the ascertaining of what is true or false on different questions pertaining to what are, by their very nature, biblical issues. How could that possibly be? Either the Bible is the final court of appeals in religion or emotions are! Again, either the Bible is the last and final court of appeal in religious affairs or personal experiences are! Since both emotions and experiences are highly subjective and often totally wrong, I will take the Bible to make me “perfect, throughly furnished unto every good work. ” I will elect to leave off emotionalism and subjective experiences from the deciding of questions that touch the eternal destiny of my soul. And, I would humbly encourage others to do likewise. Every false system that comes along can supply a rich variety of personal testimonials to its “miracles,” Christian Scientists and Mormons included. An objective standard is unquestionably the safer measure of right and wrong. The man who follows the Bible alone cannot fail of the mark of divine truth. But that man who allows his attention to be diverted from Scripture to these alternatives to its authority (emotions, experiences) places himself in a dangerous position.

Another basic problem with this approach is that it is escapist in its relation to daily living. What do I mean by this allegation? I have reference to the tendency that charismatics have of giving over all of life to God’s determination and direct guidance. They go to outlandish extremes, beyond the biblical doctrine of divine providence, to the point that God determines every little incident and directs every trivial happening. When they are sales people, it is God who brings them customers. If they are doctors, then God sends them patients. If they are looking for a parking place, God delivers one. If they are looking for their scissors, then it is God who directs their attention toward the proper spot where they may be found.

Anyone who reads the Bible is aware that God knows of all happenings, and that He cares for all His creatures, great and small (Matt. 10:29). He also knows that God answers the prayers of His faithful children (1 Jn. 5:14-15). God is not dead nor is He presently inactive. But to say this is to say what the Bible says. To proceed to demand of God that He control every facet of one’s life and direct every frivolity is not only unscriptural but is just plain absurd! Man has had bestowed upon him by his Creator the freedom of choice between good and evil, the right to choose to do right or to do wrong. In similar fashion, He has put the world and its inhabitants under the dominion of many natural laws, laws of force and energy, gravity, etc. God has at times utilized those laws to man’s benefit, and at others He has permitted Satan to test man by using them to his hurt. If one has not been given a direct revelation from the Almighty to the effect. that a given thing was His doing, then a man must be very cautious about ascribing to Him the accomplishment of every trivial thing. In the case of a thing as important as the deliverance of the Jews by the hand of Esther the queen, Mordecai, in the absence of direct -communication from God, was cautious in the way in which we are suggesting that we need today to be: “Who knoweth whether thou art not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14). Are we better off than Mordecai in a similar or even less important situation? Would we not be wiser to say “Who knows,” than to risk ascribing to God what may not be His work?

How is this way of looking at life essentially “escapist” as I have earlier described it? First, it tends to be an escape from crises — from burdens, disillusionments, shocks and disappointments. It also delivers one from decision-making. Further, and more importantly, it is an escape from personal responsibility and liability, since God directs whatever actions that take place. Moreover, in a very real sense it is an escape from inferiority. Many of the first enthusiasts of this system were taken by it because it gave them a feeling of superiority, whereas they had been born into poverty and an inferior social standing. Today it is still a feeling of spiritual superiority that is relished even by those who are socially prominent.

Members of charismatic churches claim to be led by “inner voices” or “inner urgings” which they identify as the leading of the Spirit of God. In Bible times, men were upon occasion directed by communications from heaven. But one will search in vain through the Bible for evidence of these inner voices and inner urgings. I do not wish to be taken as unkind, but a careful look at such voices and urgings will find them to be no more than one’s own desires interpreted as God’s will. Such phenomena are not judged by the standard of true miracles in the Bible, that is, they are not tested for accuracy in foretelling the future (Deut. 18:21-22), but are naively accepted at face value.

For example, in one case a lady stated that when she lost her scissors she would turn around in circles until the Lord told her to stop. She would then proceed in that direction until she located them. “Have you ever gone in that direction and not found them,” asked her friend. “Yes,” she replied. Then she added quickly, “That just means that the Lord didn’t want me to sew that day! ” If this sort of thing were reported by a palm-reader or gypsy princess, we would label her a fraud and laugh her out of town. But seeing it is put forth in the name of Christianity, we are to take it seriously! Such naivety boggles the imagination!

One should also mention tongues in this connection, “Tongues,” or more accurately, ecstatic nonsense syllables, seem to be a major thrust of the present movement. The tongues of the first century church were miraculous visitations of heaven. They were genuine miracles with all the marks of divine presence and miraculous intervention. They, along with other such supernatural incidents, served to establish that God was active in the church and that the apostles and prophets of the first generation were not merely fabricating the revelations which they delivered to the men and women of their generation. They were confirmation or proof, if you will, of God’s ultimate authorship of the things they required of their converts.

But several other things are true of them (even then) which are not widely appreciated by charismatics: (1) They were considered inferior to prophecy, by Paul’s own estimate of them (1 Cor. 14: 1); whereas, with modem charismatics prophecy is almost an unknown commodity (given their realization that the Bible is a completed revelation of spiritual truth, fixed for all time) and tongues are exalted above all other gifts. (2) They were inferior to the “more excellent way” of 1 Corinthians 13, a way of faith, hope and love (1 Cor. 12:3 1; 13:13). Paul said that tongues would cease along with the rest of the gifts temporarily bestowed upon the church during its infancy (1 Cor. 13:8-10). This is a fact completely ignored by those of this permission. (3) Paul described them as “imperfect” or “partial” as opposed to the “perfect” which was to come (and did come with the completion of written Scripture and the end of the Apostolic Age (1 Cor. 13:10). (4) Paul also inferred that they were childish, remnants left over from the earliest stage of the church’s development (1 Cor. 13:11). Even in his own time they had almost outlived their usefulness and were ready to be laid aside. Paul was even then preparing them for their replacement by more permanent resources, much as an adolescent lays aside childhood toys for more serious and mature concerns. (5) Likely the most devastating oversight of charismatics is in the essential nature of biblical tongues. Bible tongues were completely different from the tongues spoken by modern advocates of tongue-speaking. How so? Modern tongues are clearly nonsense syllables, often practiced by those who utter them as they wash their dishes or vacuum their living room. They are then reproduced in states of ecstacy in the gatherings of charismatics. The fact that these utterances form no sensible language has been oft established through the analysis of interested by objective researchers. If the reader does not believe these findings, then (if he has a sincere desire for the truth) let him search out and produce some evidence from qualified linguists that these utterances represent real languages rather than empty babblings.

It will do no good to attempt to make a case for “angelic tongues” (as some argue from 1 Cor. 13:1) and to identify these untranslatable vocalizations as such. Paul nowhere states that men spoke with tongues of this sort. He only suggests in the passage that “even if” he were to do so it would be of no value to him without love. And, if it were possible to argue that there could be angelic tongues, it would remain to be proven that the utterances of charismatics are these tongues. However, this is no small order, in light of the insurmountable evidence that these vocalizations are not languages at all but are rather mere nonsense syllables.

All of the evidence points to the fact that the tongues of the first century church were real human languages and nothing more or less! The very best illustration of this derives from Acts 2. This chapter not only illustrates the nature of biblical tongues but also gives explanation of their purpose in the first church. The occasion of this demonstration of God’s power was the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus. Jews were gathered to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast “from every nation under heaven” (v. 5). When the apostolic twelve were empowered by the Holy Spirit to address the assembled crowds, they were given the ability to make men understand them who could not have done so otherwise. Jesus had promised this earlier as He prepared them for their work, i.e., that they would “speak with new tongues” (Mk. 16:17), not that they would invent languages previously unknown but communicate in languages new to them, languages they had not previously studied or understood. When they began to speak, the multitudes immediately became aware of the nature and proportions of this miracle: “the multitude . . . were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying, Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we, every man in our language wherein we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites . . .” (vv. 6-9). They further marveled, “We hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God” (v. 11). The purpose of the gift here was to bring the crowd to faith in Christ by giving evidence of His enabling power: He it was who gave the apostles the ability to speak in languages they had never before known. It was but a step from realizing this truth to appreciating that He was also possessed of the power to save and to redeem. The languages under consideration here are manifestly human ones, living languages spoken by those gathered for the feast. One looks in vain here for speech which resembles the modern tongue-speaker’s jumble of nonsense syllables.

Some have alluded to the fact that the word “unknown” is used of the tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 as proof such mysterious languages were spoken in the early church. It is even asserted that the speaker himself did not know what he was saying. But what Paul says of the speaker contradicts this: “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself” (1 Cor. 14:4). Actually, the word “unknown” is printed in italics where it appears in the King James Version (modern translations do not use the word). This signifies that the word was supplied by the translators and does not occur in the original Greek. It was supplied for obvious reasons, however, and they are not such as are supposed by glossolalists. These languages were tongues not generally spoken by members of the church at the time. They were just as unknown to them as Russian, Chinese, or Japanese would be to most of us. Yet this does not mean that these languages are “unknown” in the sense that they are not known by anyone. In truth they are spoken by millions, each of them. But they are unknown to us because we cannot speak them. Were someone to arise in the church today and speak in one of these languages he would only edify himself. The rest of those assembled would not understand his speech and so could not benefit from this teaching. This was true also at Corinth. As one investigator wrote: “The attempt to make a difference between the tongues of Corinthians and those of Acts is wholly artificial” (E.J.G. Titerington, “The Gift of Tongues,” Faith and Thought, Vol. 90 (1958), p. 65). Further, “Paul as well as Luke (author of Acts) viewed tongues as bona fide foreign languages” (“Ecstatic Utterance’ (N.E.B.),” Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 17 (1966), pp. 299-307).

There is no proof whatever that early Christians uttered nonsense syllables, swooned, or acted under the influence of feverish emotionalism – modes which, int eh first place, are uncharacteristic and unbecoming of the dignity and high purpose of Christian worship. In fact, the ecstatic and hysterical activity regularly encountered in gatherings of charistmatic people does not have its origin in Christianity at all. It instead derives from paganism, as a little careful study and honest research will show. Consider the following:

In the case of the ancient Greek “Oracle at Delphi,” documents from the time mention that Apollo replied to questions during “ecstatic and enthusiastic” behavior by the medium. In the cult of ancient Dionysus, the people behaved “irrationally,” with “outbreaks of dancing, collective hysteria,” and it was further noted that “Dionysus leads people on to behave madly.” (Could not this same thing be said with equal truth of the Holy Spirit of God, if modem charismatics are motivated by the Lord to act in the ways they do?) Ecstatic utterances are mentioned also in early Egyptian writings. There were oracles at Dodona, Epirus, and elsewhere, and Plato, Plutarch and even Virgil recorded such phenomena as part of their activity in revealing “the will of the god.” The names of the gods have changed but the claims of the devotees remain essentially the same. Between the ancient pagan cults and the modern advocates of glossolalia there exist these formal similarities: (1) Both claim God takes over the vocal cords; (2) Both obtain this state in the context of religious devotion with the identical result: excited frenzy, behavior that is irrational, and speech that is incomprehensible; (3) Both claim to be possessed by God; and, (4) both have total faith that the experience itself is proof of divine activity in their lives and that the utterance thus produced is a communication from Heaven. We believe it is impossible to ignore these resemblances. If they do not come from paganism directly, it certainly suggests that identical influences and human yearnings and beliefs arises in a “Christian” setting or not. Also, they clearly call into question the real origin of modern charismatic activities!

In this context it is necessary to consider a kindred matter. This is the modern occurrence of activities noticeably similar to charismatic behavior among non-Christian spiritualists. Helene Smith (ca. 1900) is a case in point. The language that she claimed to speak was “Martian language.” In reality it differed little (if any) from what we hear from charismatics. Later Miss Smith claimed to speak UltraMartian, Uranian, and then Lunaire (Moon-language). A similar instance is the case of Albert LeBaron. Connected also with spiritualists, LeBaron said he involuntarily spoke an unknown language that he was unable to identify after extensive research. Other nonreligious instances of glossalalia have been reported.

In primitive societies, the phenomenon has occurred frequently among medicine men and shamans in such widely scattered places as Micronesia, North Borneo, among the Eskimos of Alaska and Greenland, Indonesia, Polynesia, China, Africa, etc. Documentation is easy to come by (see for example: L. Carlyle May, “A Survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Christian Religions,” American Anthropologist, Vol. 68 (May, 1956), pp. 75-96). Emile Lombard says the languages take four forms, whether they occur among professed Christians or professed pagans: (1) Incomprehensible sounds: mumbling, gurgling, groaning, etc.; (2) Pseudo-languages: fabricated sounds simulating a sentence using parts of real words; (3) Verbal fabrication: use of an invented language; and, (4) Foreign tongues previously learned or spoken which are revived by the subconscious mind and spoken anew. Again, the only explanation for this resemblance between modem “Christian” and non-Christian glossolalia is that they derive from the same source. Sad to say, that source is not God!

Some charismatics realize that the Bible describes real human languages in those texts which speak of tonguespeaking in the early church. They therefore make the claim that they speak in some exotic language. One writer reports it this way: “A person speaks in tongues at a group gathering. Among the group is someone having a knowledge of some exotic language. He astounds thegroup (or maybe they expected it all along) by telling them that the glossolalist spoke this particular strange, foreign language ‘fluently.”‘ But professional linguists have consistently found glossolalia devoid of any linguistic substance. And, although speaking in a real language “is claimed by Christian charismatists to be part of the tongue-speaking experience, they would be unable to provide a case that would stand up to scientific investigation” (William J. Samarin, “The Linguisticality of Glossolalia, ” Hartford Quarterly, Vol. 8 (1968), pp. 52-55). Let the reader who is in earnest about the divine origin of modern tongue-speaking accept this last statement as a challenge. If evidence of the sort requested by Dr. Samarin is available, then let it be presented and examined under the careful eye of the scientist. If it is not, then, for heaven’s sake (and I mean that quite literally) give up this contention.

For the sake of brevity, we will simply list some of the other objections we have to “tongues” and their handling in this movement today: (1) They teach tongues are for all, but the Bible by rhetorical questions denies this (1 Cor. 12:29, 30); (2) They claim to be Pentecostal, but do not speak languages that others recognize as did the Pentecostians (Acts 2:14, 6-11); (3) They look on tongues as a personal sign that one has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Paul said they were rather intended as a sign to unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:22), and this was their use in Acts 2 and 10; (4) They teach that one must desire to speak in tongues and pray for it in order to receive it. This was not the case in any Bible example (Acts 2, 10, 19:1-7); (5) They do not regulate tongue-speakers to three or that they speak one at a time in an assembly. Inspiration did when this gift was present (1 Cor. 14:27); (6) They speak in tongues even when there is no interpreter. Paul said not to do this (1 Cor. 14:28); (7) Consequently, they have confusion and disorder in their worship activities. This is contrary to Paul’s command (1 Cor. 14:33, 40); (8) They do not restrict women in speaking in tongues or in any way. At times they even have women preachers. This is contrary to Paul’s injunction that women be silent in the church’s assemblies (1 Cor. 14:34, 35).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 4, pp. 101-102, 118-119
February 16, 1984

By Raymond Harris

Recently the Midtown church of Christ received, through the mail, a copy of The Lipscomb News. This is a tabloid size newspaper published bi-monthly by David Lipscomb college of Nashville, Tennessee.

On the back of the paper is a half page article entitled “First Elders’ Conference Meets Goals.” The article reports the details of the “Conference” held October 8, 1983 on the Lipscomb campus. The details of this brazen affair are quite shocking.

The New Testament reveals that churches of Christ were composed of elders, deacons, evangelist and members (Phil. 1:1; Eph. 4:11). Further we learn that each church was to have a plurality of Elders, whose authority and oversight was limited to one congregation (Acts 14:23; 20:7; 1 Pet. 5:14).

Hence, New Testament congregations were all independent, self-governing and equal. The New Testament authorizes no organization larger or smaller than the local congregation. Local churches were to be self-perpetuating. And, they were governed and their work limited by the teaching of Jesus and His inspired Apostles.

The New Testament clearly sets forth the qualifications and work of elders. The men first qualify themselves and then when they are appointed they are all equal in authority and responsibility. The New Testament no where authorizes one elder or eldership to have pre-eminence or authority over another. Elders have authority and responsibility only in the congregation where they have been selected and appointed.

The first apostasy (in the second century A.D.) in the church involved a violation of God’s pattern in regard to local church organization and the authority and work of Elders. Soon after the death of the Apostles, uninspired men began exalting one Elder above the others, reserving for that elder alone the title “bishop.” From this evolved the, practice of associating several congregations together into districts called a “Diocese. ” Then the bishops from several districts would assemble from time to time to discuss mutual current problems. By the third century A.D., these meetings included bishops from scores of districts and human rules and doctrinal statements were formulated. These joint pronouncements soon were known as church creeds and the foundation for Catholicism was in place.

Please note the striking parallel between the beginning of apostacy as described above and the unscriptural conference held on the Lipscomb campus! The news account describes the gathering together of forty-eight elders from “middle Tennessee and Southern Kentucky.” This gathering is described as “The First Elders Conference.” And to make matters worse the conference was called by a college (a secular institution) that has no business meddling into the affairs of the church. The paper states that the college administration seeks to build “stronger and stronger ties with the brotherhood.” Hence, they are planning for the “Elder Conference” to be an “annual” event with workshops and training sessions to be held as often as opportunities present themselves.

The arrogance of the college is seen in their statement that “the Elders Conference is an outgrowth of a desire at Lipscomb to help identify the needs of elders and develop means of meeting those needs.” Frankly the .”needs” of elders are none of Lipscomb’s business; and if elders have needs or problems, elders can solve their own problems by a study of God’s word. Are Professors of Religious Education at Lipscomb wiser and better informed that the inspired writers of the New Testament? Their arrogant highmindedness is further seen as they state their “goal” was to “try some group training things we had designed ourselves. . . .” We can see that in truth Lipscomb College would like to dominate the thinking of elders far and wide as they encourage the elders who attended the conference to “take the training exercises back to their areas of residence and share them with other elders.”

The news release informs us that a group of twelve elders had a pre-conference meeting to deal with things they most needed. From that meeting three earth shattering conclusions were reached.

1. Elders need to be shepherds rather than administrators.

2. Elders need to plan the work better and delegate authority to others to carry out the plans.

3. The key role of a shepherd is that of admonishing, encouraging or exhorting.

As I understand the New Testament, elders are overseers, superintendents or -rulers. To delegate such authority to others is to abdicate God given responsibility.

One elder present said the conference “reminded the elders of their responsibilities and gave them some new ideas.” Personally I would hate to be in a church where elders have forgotten their responsibility in being, servants of God and perpetuating the cause of Christ. I get the impression that this was a gathering of false elders who are not qualified for the office; men who do not have an understanding of the work of an elder.

Throughout the article statements are made that indicate a shameful disregard for God’s word. Both the representatives of the school and the “Elders” speak of “Our goal,” “things we had designed for ourselves,” “we’re planning,” “what we want to do,” “we decided,” “I think,” “we believe.” Finally, the most incriminating statement of all is: “All of the ability and knowledge of how to help one another grow is within the hundreds of elders in this area . . . .” Just think about that! The ability and knowledge to make them better elders is within themselvesl They will meet, meditate, ponder and share their thoughts and from this meager storehouse of human wisdom; and with the guidance of the Lipscomb faculty, they will pull themselves up by their own boot straps.

Who can believe that these Ecclesiastical Conferences with the inbreeding and cross-breeding of thoughts of misguided, unqualified elders will lead to a grand perpetuation of the cause of Christ. One verse from Paul not only exposes the sinfulness of these conferences, but, also points elders to the answers of all possible problems. Consider Colossians 3:17: “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of (by the authority of, R.E.H.) the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the father by him.”

Faithful elders of God’s people do not need Lipscomb College or Ecclesiastical Conferences to guide them in the grand work of overseeing a flock of God’s people. Rather, they need to humbly and sincerely search God’s word for understanding and guidance to successfully accomplish the purposes of the Almighty.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 4, pp. 100, 104, 119
February 16, 1984