Speaking in tongues as private devotional prayer language?

I think what I’m about to write here is going to be very controversial. I’m not surprise if after reading this many of my friends and acquaintances in the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches would label me as Pentecostal backslider or Evangelicalized Charismatic. Well, it is never my intention in writing this post to cause contention or to challenge the Pentecostal beliefs and theology. What I’m writing about here is the result of careful reading and rereading and study of the New Testament.

It is the official belief/doctrine of the Assemblies of God (as far as I know, in the US and in Malaysia) that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (BHS) is subsequent to one’s conversion and it is necessary for empowering Christian as witness for Jesus (cf. Act 1:8). According to AG Statement of Fundamental Truths, the BHS is normatively accompanied by speaking in tongues as the initial evidence that someone is baptized in the Spirit or filled with the Spirit for the first time. AG has articulate, defended and reinstate this doctrine over the years and this is what mainly differentiated Classical Pentecostals from the rest of the Evangelical Christians in the matter of doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Pneumatology).

I have no problem with this doctrine. It has been shown by Rev Lim Yew Chuen, a Malaysian AG scholar that this is a normative pattern in the occurrences of the BHS in the book of Acts. Logically speaking, since the Spirit of God is invisible, there need to be an accompanying sign/evidence for us to know if a person is baptized in the Spirit.

Now what I am having problem with is the teaching on the practice of speaking in tongues as one’s private, devotional prayer language, commonly called praying in the Spirit by Pentecostals. For a start, if we read the narrative in Acts carefully, there is no subsequent record of the believers speaking in tongues AFTER they had been baptized in the Spirit. In Acts 4:8, when Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit once again, he became so bold and courageous to proclaim Jesus to the Jewish rulers/elders. Acts 4:31 recorded that when the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit once again, they spoke the word of God boldly as a result but no speaking in tongues was mentioned. The same thing with Stephen the Martyr. Full of the Holy Spirit, he saw the glory of God and Jesus. No speaking in tongues is mentioned either.

Many Pentecostals said that Paul is the one who taught about tongues as devotional prayer language, taking their cue from 1 Cor 14:4, 15 and 18. Here is where my problem lies. Those particular passages have to be understood in its immediate context which started in 1 Cor 12. Paul here is clearly addressing the exercise of spiritual gifts particularly the gifts of tongues and prophecy. Throughout chapter 12 to 14, he is talking about the GIFTS of the Holy Spirit exercised in the church. Early on he specifically mentioned that not everyone has every /all the gifts. That’s why he said we are different parts of the one body. Our different gift(s) from one another is/are meant for mutual edification. I have no idea how Pentecostals can make the sudden shift from the gift of tongues to the private, devotional tongues in 14:2, 4 and 18. The context and the flow of the argument simply would not warrant such jump. However, many would point out that 1 Cor 14:18 proved that Paul is talking about private tongues. Is he? Now if we do not bring into the text any prior concept of private, devotional tongues, would we naturally understand this verse this way? Apparently not. If we follow the context, he is still speaking about the spiritual gift of tongues and prophecy as evident from his subsequent argument from 14:9-33.

But then if not in public meeting then when did Paul have been speaking in tongues more than any of the Corinthians? Is it logical to conclude that it must be in private? Perhaps. But if we pay careful attention to his argument, this interpretation I think is more natural: Paul is exercising the GIFT of tongues more than anyone else because he also has the gift of interpretation of tongues. That’s why he can say like that. After all, he just said in 14:15-16 that he will pray/sing in tongues and also in understanding so that others can say “amen.” The flow of the text and its context will tell us that this is still the exercising of the spiritual gifts, not any “personal tongues” for self-edification. However, in 14:19, he prefer to speak in intelligible words since this way is more direct and immediately understood rather than in tongues that needed to interpret as a second step. Perhaps some people will point out to verse 28 as justification for speaking in “personal” tongues in church since the speaker can speak to themselves and to God (for self-edification). Still, however we may understand this verse, the context is still clear that Paul is still talking about the gifts of tongue (that not everyone has) rather than personal tongues.

Someone may object at this point. If the gift of tongues, being one of the many spiritual gifts given by the Spirit as he determines (not to every single one, as per 1 Cor 12:29-30) to edify others, how then can Paul say that those exercising this gift edify themselves? Isn’t it meant to edify others? Well, the answer is of course it is meant to edify others. That why tongues needs interpretation. But even if there is no interpretation, it will still edify the speaker for the fact that God uses that person to bring manifestation of the Spirit (cf. 12:7). A person uses by God to bless others will surely himself be edified spiritually, is it not? That is precisely why Paul told the Corinthians to prefer the gift of prophecy rather than the gift of tongues because prophecy will directly addressing (thus edifying) others but tongues has the possibilities of not being interpreted thus not accomplishing its purpose to edify others except the speaker personally. He basically doesn’t want them to misuse this gift for personal benefit because it is meant to benefit the body.

Now how about the instructions to “pray in the Spirit” elsewhere in the NT? Doesn’t that pointing us to personal devotional tongues? Well, let’s look at those passages. They are found in Eph 6:18 and Jude 1:20. The term “praying in” the Spirit, in Greek have few range of meaning namely “by means of,” “with the help of,” “in the sphere of” or “in connection to.” In all the above meanings, they refer to how we pray rather than the words we are saying. In their respective context, praying in the Spirit is likely to mean praying according to the Spirit’s leading or praying in dependence of the Spirit. Nothing in those two verses suggesting that they meant praying in tongues (as of personal devotional tongues). Even in Rom 8:26, the context will not point us to praying in tongues but rather it is the Spirit that prays for us, not ourselves because the groaning CANNOT be uttered. Praying in the Spirit is not praying in tongues just like walking in the Spirit is not walking in tongues (Gal 5:25, NKJV).