Therefore, What Is?

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. (1 Corinthians 14:26 NASB)

Wrapping up any argument is the hardest part.  Ending anything is truly difficult.  Sometimes it's just best to walk away, and let the ending be interpreted as it will; leave it to the 'reader' or 'listener'.  I think it's very important to realize that Paul spends three chapters on supporting his assertion made here at the end of the third chapter of his argument.  And a case could be made that his argument had more like four or five chapters.  But all of them focus right here.

It's possible that Paul could have simply 'cut to the chase' and started out with, 'everyone speak in turn'.  But there was a larger issue at hand.  It wasn't enough to address the behavior.  It wasn't enough to give direction for worship practice.  Paul saw a painful, discouraging lack of a foundational principle of Christ Jesus.  John made it the focus of his gospel, and Paul places it at the crux of his argument.  The church in Corinth had lost their love for each other.

'What is the outcome then', or literally, 'Therefore what is', after all that has been said about your loss of focus?  What is after all your faults being laid out before you?  Therefore what is to be said, to be thought, to be practiced?  Let all be done for edification.  Practice!  But practice for edification.  Build up the body of Christ Jesus, our Lord.  'Construct additions' for each person for their strengthening, for their support, for their benefit.  We all need it, and we are all to provide it.

It's not so much what we do, as much as what we do points to a deeper problem.  The problem is a failure or missing piece.  Most often a wrong piece has been put into the place of what belongs; something we prefer, we like, we brought with us from somewhere else.  We don't love like Jesus loved, we love like we like to love others; the way we see other love in the world.  Human-love rather than Divine-love does not accomplish divine purpose.

To be fair, we really can't love like Jesus; we're not capable.  That's why it's divine.  Jesus knew this, so within His call to love each other to the disciples (John 14), He also said the 'Comforter' would come.  He knew we needed help, and so the Helper came.  We can't love with divine love, but it's never really been about us.  It's about our pointing others to Jesus, so His Spirit helps us love like Jesus, so we point the right direction.

Therefore, what is?  Worship is a corporate expression of the love of our Master through us into each other.  We shed ourselves when we acknowledge His sovereignty, His holiness, His works among us, His power, and His salvation of His human creatures.  And then this is expressed as we build each other up, strengthen the weak, return strays, correct errors, and teach the ignorant (aka 'all of us'). 

One of the things the Lead Worshiper at our church does (whenever she can) is post a long roll of paper around the worship center walls.  Then during worship, the people can go and write what God places on their hearts.  This is an opportunity missed by most.  The truth is that it should be a crucial element to our worship.  We should file out of the worship center by walking past these walls.  We should stop and read, and look, and discover the words, the pictures, and the lessons our Master has prepared for us.  It's a lost opportunity.  She tries to lead us to participate, but people just don't get it. 

What is my Master leading me to do?  He's leading me to participate.  He's leading me to build up His people, to encourage, to teach, to engage with His love those around me so desperate for a touch from their Creator.  I can do this in Communion, in writing on the walls (I even love the word-play), in every opportunity afforded me to speak to our people.  But even when I have none, in greeting, in praying with and for them, with each coffee cup I pass I can bless.  I have opportunities I miss, as sad a loss as those who fail to realize what's on the walls, or should be on them, or what our Master wants them to put there.  It's time to succeed, and to accomplish the design and purpose of my Master.

Let's Worship Like It's AD 59?

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.  If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.  Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.  But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.  For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (1 Corinthians 14:26-33 NASB)

Worship in 2014 is typically only slightly removed from a liturgical format.  Modern contemporary worship points to their music styles, and preaching styles, but in reality, everyone still sits facing forward to pay attention to the 'leader' on the 'stage'.  This is not the 'format' in the early church, and for a variety of reasons, it's probably not practical to try and recapture that style and let it be representative.  But are there elements that perhaps we should?

So, what Paul describes in chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians, after hammering them for two chapters on their over emphasis on tongues, is worship where each person can participate (setting aside verses 34-35 - see my previous entry). One may have a psalm, or a teaching, or revelation (prophesy, see verse 30), a tongue (interpreted, see verse 28).  All can participate, but Paul's point is to participate in turn, each giving way to the next.  In this way, the participation is characterized by love for each other and building up the church.

So what would that look like in a modern/contemporary setting?  I don't know that a format or arrangement like we have today is very conducive to such 'participation'.  First off, the layout where everyone faces forward separates the worshipers from those leading in worship.  To participate in this format, participants would need to come forward, and the focus shifts to them rather than on what they do to participate.  It can be done, but it lends itself to awkwardness as people move around the worship center.

The second hurdle is the concept of 'participation' by the congregation is not currently in vogue.  People attending church don't think of themselves as 'participants', so starting out it would be awkward simply because of the paradigm shift necessary.  I think most churches are comfortable with the anonymity of others leading/participating.  Initially, the narcissists and 'dramatic' personalities will see participation as the 'answer to their prayers' and a 'sign from God'; which it isn't.  That too will be awkward, but it will also present an opportunity for a congregation to grow past self-focus, and opportunities for lovingly dealing with such a focus.

Overcoming the format and paradigm are where I believe the largest problems lie.  It doesn't matter what changes are made, it will be awkward for a time, so a commitment toward a new paradigm would have to be made by leadership, and frankly, that may be the most difficult change.  I know I wouldn't feel comfortable making it.  There are the competing restraints of concern for leading the church astray, and losing the 'center stage' (that's just reality, anyone would have that concern but not everyone would confess it).  Both serve to hinder widening participation. 

But is it even right to change now?  What are the benefits?  While it may be true, wider expression of gifts in worship could have benefit; is any benefit worth the trouble Paul addresses in this church?  Notice that their wide expression didn't hinder unloving behavior nor blatant sin in the participants.  So, such expression didn't increase 'holiness'.  It seems to be more a question of worship style almost.  Except for one thing, a thing not included in the verses above but included in verses 24 and 25.  Prophesy (not preaching) provides the Holy Spirit an opportunity to address specific people about specific things within the congregation.  It's probably one of the most terrifying elements to such 'widening' within worship.  Since the Holy Spirit knows everything about us, anything He wishes can be disclosed to improve our relationship with Him.  It's one thing to 'confess', it's a whole other thing to be 'called out'.

There are other things or effects, which in my ignorance, I can't even imagine at this point.  What would a word of knowledge be like?  What would a 'random teaching' fit like in worship?  One of the interesting things is that there was no mention of 'healing' as a part of 'worship'.  Not that it wasn't a part of the Corinthian worship, but perhaps 'healing' was supposed to be a gift in a more personal, intimate setting.  Such a setting would be more about the healing by God than about the person 'gifted', but couldn't the same thing be said about tongues or prophesy?  I don't think Paul is here limiting which gifts might be expressed in worship, but rather trying to give direction on their orderly use.  It's a practical application of love in the expression of gifts.

So my personal application has more to do with widening my acceptance of the work of my Master's Spirit than anything else.  As I grow in that area, I'm sure I will need to revisit these chapters to make sure the expression of gifts is done 'in turn' and orderly.  But since in my role(s) in my church, I don't really make such changes in my congregation, perhaps my personal application will be more in my own personal expression in worship and my acceptance of the expression of others.  I suppose time will tell on this one.

Is That Really What He Meant?

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.  If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35 NASB)

After 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul goes to heroic lengths to remain balanced between genders, chapter 11 where he addresses women and prophesying or praying with their heads covered, and chapter 12 where he again strives for a balance; these verses are extremely problematic.  There's no getting around their wording, it's unequivocal.  There's no limits on application, the terms are general.  And therefore there is really no comprehension in light of the previous chapters.  It's as if these two verses are completely at odds with the rest of what Paul wrote.

But there's more: they really don't fit in the discussion at hand.  They don't refer to tongues or prophesy, and while the rest of the chapter seems to be about intelligibility, these are about who speaks, without reference to what is said.  Left out, the chapter reads just fine or even better. Their only link to this chapter is that the setting seems to be worship.

While it would just be easier for everyone to leave them out, they occur in all manuscripts we have, just not in the same place.  Some put these two verses at the end, preserving the contiguous reading of Paul's argument, but only up to that point.  The majority of texts put them right where we find them.  I don't think you'll find a modern translation pulling them out, or even noting that they don't belong.  Since they appear in all manuscripts, there wouldn't be any point in noting that.

The commentator I use for 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee, believes that they were a margin note that made it into the early manuscripts around the first century, and thereafter into all the other text families.  It makes sense from a point of view, but I believe that my Master, having inspired the texts, protected them through transmission as well.  This seems an odd thing to permit.

So, here's my take on it:  The reason it would have been an addition is because of culture, and things Paul wrote to Timothy later on.  In those instances there were specific problems that women were causing within congregations.  So, my application of this passage is that everyone should keep their communication during worship from disrupting what the Holy Spirit is doing.  In other words, rather than having a discussion about what was said right there, chatting about it while worship is going on, wait until afterwards.

But I also believe that this verse needs to be held in tension with the other things Paul wrote in this letter.  Therefore, women can prophesy and pray within worship.  Women do have status within the congregation as participants.  But as tongues would be a disruptive practice unless interpreted, so anyone simply asking questions about some item taught or prophesied which is not 'weighing' the prophesy or saying 'amen' to the prayer is also disruptive and not 'building up' of the church.

Other than that, I find these verses as unintelligible in 1 Corinthians as tongues in worship.  They seem at odds with Paul's clear teaching in other parts of the letter, so a 'cultural' application to Corinth doesn't fit.  They're not specifically about tongues or prophesy, so an application to those specific practices doesn't fit either.  They don't mention unintelligible speech, but any sort of talking; and leave out any reference to 'building up of the church' which would also be expected as support for why.

So, the literary context being what it is, I apply it as I have: generally to anyone, and about adhoc disruptive side discussions in worship distracting from the work of God in worship.  That's way wide of where it is specific and very narrow where it is general.  So, technically speaking, it's a bad interpretation.  Considering the implications of it being taken narrow where it's narrow, and wide where it's wide, I'll take the bad interpretation that figures Paul had a reason for this where it is.  The other options are to remove it, as Dr. Fee suggests, or to take it as the rule over against the other things Paul wrote.  It's not possible to take the other parts of this letter with reference to women, and these verses as they read, and make them compatible.  You either do what I did, or jettison the other references of Paul in this letter, you can't keep both.  Practically speaking, I'd much rather just leave these verses out.  But here, my Master simply isn't cooperating with my view of simplicity.  I suppose when dealing with One who forms stars with simply their voice, simplicity is relative...

Wait, Which Is For Who?

Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.  In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.  So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.  Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?  But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. (1 Corinthians 14:20-25 NASB)

Okay, here is the first really hard passage in this chapter.  While the previous stuff may be hard to hear, this is the first one really hard to understand.  The two questions are, 1) "How are tongues a sign from God to unbelievers, not believers?" and 2) "How is prophesy a sign from God to believers, not to unbelievers?"  Good luck with these, because it appears to be written backwards to support such answers.

My first thought is that this is a corruption, that it appears much more sensible in some manuscripts.  Wrong.  All the manuscript evidence of this passage has verse 22 stated exactly the same way.  Seriously.  There are variants all around it in other verses with minor differences.  But verse 22 appears in the same words in each ancient text we have with this passage in it, even referred to it.  We have lectionaries from the early church and apostolic fathers, and when they reference this verse, it is worded exactly this way.  I learn two things from that: 1) That's how God inspired it to be written; and 2) That's how He wants me to understand it because He protected its transmission this way for 2,000 years and more.  So, it is what it is.  I have to find another way to understand it, no easy way out.

So, taken together (verses 20 through 25), sit as part of Paul's argument to the church in Corinth that gifts need to be for building up of the church through intelligibility.  Tongues isn't intelligible, so it doesn't build up the church.  Prophesy is intelligible, so it does build up the church and therefore belongs in worship.  But here Paul includes those outside the church in his argument.  This is now a bit outside the scope of 'building up the church' believers (i.e. people) by including unbelievers from outside the church.  It's now about building up the church as a 'collection of people'.

Paul supports his point that tongues is a sign for unbelievers with the illustration of everyone in worship speaking in tongues and unbelievers (and ungifted - not sure about that one) think they are insane.  So, how is considering the congregation speaking in tongues insane a sign from God?  And what is 'on the sign' for the unbelievers?


I've used Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians in the New International Commentary on the New Testament for help. Here I think I disagree with him, but only slightly.  What he says fits best is for tongues to be a sign to unbelievers that they are under God's judgment (in other words, 'not saved').  I hesitate here because I wonder if God would use a 'sign' that says, "You Lose", rather than, "Danger: You will lose if you continue".  It's very possible that Dr. Fee intended something like that, but since the example of Paul wasn't a 'suggestion' but a warning of what not to do, it's sort of hard to land on specifics here.

What I suspect is that tongues is a sign, not for believers (that they are spiritual - which, like Dr. Fee says, is what the Corinthians believed, and with which I agree), but for unbelievers that they are not a part of the congregation.  In other words, if tongues is used in personal prayer or some other non-worship venue, then witnessing it an unbeliever would still be faced with the inexplicable apart from God.  It might be a sign that someone has something they don't.  I think Paul's continued point though is that they wouldn't necessarily want it either.  In which case, perhaps Dr. Fee is more right in that it's a sign of judgement. 

Paul's point, regardless of what might be 'on the sign' for the unbeliever, is that tongues won't bring them to God, won't help them be saved, which is of primary importance.  Prophesy on the other hand does, yet it's not a sign for the unbeliever...which is unexpected.

Paul supports his point that prophesy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers with the illustration of everyone in worship prophesying, and unbelievers being convicted and falling on their faces acknowledging that God is among them.  So, how is this a sign for the believers when it sounds like it so strongly affected the unbelievers?  And, again, what's 'on the sign' for the believers?

Here I agree with Dr. Fee.  He says that the response of the unbelievers is a sign from God to the believers that affirms God is among them; in other words that they are spiritual, which is what they were after through tongues.  Of course, Paul qualifies such a conclusion with all of chapter 13, so it's not a 'sign' that they've 'arrived' or something.  Love does that.

These explanations are as difficult to understand and accept as the passage is difficult to understand.  What I think is clear though is that Paul is interested in the effect of the worship on unbelievers.  To that end, he points out that tongues doesn't help them, but prophesy does.  Therefore prophesy belongs in worship where unintelligible speech does not.  So uninterpreted tongues is fine on our own, but not in worship; including corporate prayer, especially because of 'visitors' to worship.  What needs to be in focus is building up of the church, the people. Exercising of intelligible gifts in worship does that. 

But what about me?  Where is my application?  I don't and never have spoken in tongues.  I've witnessed the 'whole church speaking in tongues' and while I didn't think they were insane, I did tell them they were 'unbiblical' (which they were).  I don't think I prophesy as a 'gift' as such.  So, where is my application?  It needs to be in Paul's point and challenge to build up the church in worship.  That worship isn't about me, it's about everyone of us there, including the unbeliever. 

So, my practice needs to be about all of us before the throne of God proclaiming His greatness, acknowledging Him as our King, and declaring His glory and presence among us.  Perhaps as we are overwhelmed by Him, unbelievers will be overwhelmed as well.  But has to be a 'we' involved, not only a me.  Here I need to be about others, not me. 

It's a challenge because being intrusive in worship can be distracting, so where do I draw the appropriate lines?  I don't want to distract from God in worship, but I want to include others in my worship.  Therein is my application.  As I learn to do that, I will learn to apply this passage to my own life.

Intelligible Edification

One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.  Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying. (1 Corinthians 14:4-5 NASB)

One of the things missing in the modern debate over gifts of the Holy Spirit and their use in worship is...balance.  It seems that somehow the camps became mostly divided into those who believe that all gifts are for today, and those who believe they are not.  While I concede they both have their reasons, I believe they both also have some dire problems with how they handle Scripture.

First off, for some reason, the group which holds to modern expression of all spiritual gifts seems to focus on tongues as the primary gift.  It's as if tongues the 'gateway' gift you have to have before you would be able to have any of the others.  If you don't speak in tongues, they believe you haven't received the 'second blessing'.  Frankly I can't stand such talk.  I have no patience with this view in the least.  It finds any sliver of Scripture without context to support a view diametrically opposed to Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

Second, the group believing the gifts have ceased seem to use 1 Corinthians 12-14, but get radically different meaning from it that what any rational person reading it would derive.  It's truly odd.  Honestly, I haven't studied their rationale, and I admit I need to so I can better understand their particular irrationality.  My guess is that their entire view is a reaction against the ridiculousness in worship behavior from so many modern practitioners of gifts.

So while I hold to neither group, I consider myself a non-ceasationist; I believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit haven't ceased today.  Although I believe the enemy, Satan, has hijacked their expression in may modern churches.  From what I have seen, the expression of so-called gifts looks nothing like the intent of Paul in 1 Corinthians, and in fact is the polar opposite of what he taught.

Enough about me and modern stupidity, what about Paul.  In order to reach chapter 14, Paul has laid down the basic element of a unified church with a diversity of gifts by the design of God; and then has gone to great lengths to describe the supremacy of love over against all spiritual gifts.  Now he looks at the purpose and practice of gifts within the context of worship.  And on that note, he's not looking at all gifts, but only a few, verbal/audible gifts.

He point in the first half of the chapter is on intelligibility and the purpose of edifying the church.  The word edifying is drawn from building construction terms.  It is essentially a word meaning to build a house or other building.  So Paul's point is that expressions of gifts should have as their purpose the 'building' of the congregation.  His question to the church in Corinth is how can people in the congregation can be 'built upon' if they can't understand what is being said?

In the second half of the chapter Paul focuses on practice.  His description looks like nothing I've ever experienced.  But I sure want to...I think.  It's so radically different, I'm pretty sure I'd be very uncomfortable.  The description of practice is fraught with difficulties, and one particular controversial piece that truly does not seem to fit (that will be another entry all on its own).

I think that for my particular application of the overall view of chapter 14, the point has to be that my experience in worship should also be for the 'building' of the church/congregation.  I think that in our modern American culture, it's easy to make worship about me, and my experience.  I know it's easy to point out others and how they don't seem to 'get into it' or something.  But I don't believe I can use that for an excuse to be about my own experience.  If I'm not going to let them keep me from experiencing God in worship just because they're not 'into it', then the result is a bunch of independent people experiencing worship and no 'unity' is achieved or experienced. 

So what would 'unity in worship' look like?  Well, I don't know.  The whole layout is more supportive of independence than unity.  It's not easy to see each other, there's little or no acceptable or comfortable participation, and we arrange the entire room to focus on a stage, and therefore, the people on it.  We have an 'audience' experience, and participation from the audience seems disruptive.  This is why Paul's description in chapter 14:27-33 is so foreign to me.  All I've ever known is the arrangement I've just described.  So, my challenge is to somehow achieve or foster an experience of unity in worship within a context favoring independence.  I will need to think about this...