The proper use and misuse of God’s gift of power is an important topic and matter for Christian ethics. Growing awareness of misuse and abuse of power and authority by leadership within church contexts has prompted the publication of several important books in the past few years (e.g., Langberg, McKnight, Mullen, Oakley and Humphreys), along with numerous articles and podcasts. In April of 2022, my own church fellowship, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, added “abuse of power and authority” to their list of ethical violations that could result disciplinary actions affecting one’s ministerial credentials.
Misuse of power is something that seems obviously wrong — especially from a Christian ethical point of view. Yet practical questions exist concerning how to properly identify such moral violations. What should or should not count as misuse or abuse of power? This is an important question, and my purpose in this post is to try and contribute some resources that will help move us towards clarity on the matter.
I’ve linked two documents: “The Use and Abuse of Power,” which is my attempt to provide a definition and criteria for identifying the misuse and abuse of power; and “Scriptures on Avoiding the Misuse of Power and Authority,” which is a compilation (by no means exhaustive) of biblical passages that I believe are relavant to the issue.
The documents are certainly not the last word on the topic. But I hope that they will be of help to those trying to sort it out.
Now back to our main topic — which tongues count? (See Pt.1 for what “tongues” means.)
My focus here is on the secondary function of tongues in Acts, but that one that is crucial socially for Pentecostals, not only doctrinally, but in practice. Pentecostals rely on this secondary function of tongues to serve at least two practical communal purposes. First, tongues tangibly identifies who has had the experience of Spirit baptism. Second, in some Pentecostal denominations (e.g., the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada [PAOC], the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and Labrador [PAONL], and the Assemblies of God, USA [AG]), the experience of speaking in tongues is required to be eligible for ministerial credentials.
Tongues has, then, taken on some extra-biblical (but not non-biblical) functions socially: 1) it functionally identifies not only who has had a particular experience with the Spirit, but also who is truly a participant in the Pentecostal church community (although this depends on how much a given local church emphasizes tongues), and 2) who may occupy a decision-making leadership role in some denominations.
In an online discussion with fellow PAOC/NL credential holders, I raised a question that a friend of mine (non-credential holder) about the misuse of tongues. (It’s actually his question that prompted this entire blog series.) He had come across an article in the Washington Post about former US President, Donald Trump’s Pentecostal and charismatic Christian supporters. In a conference call with Trump, some of these followers began praying in tongues on the call. My friend’s question was this: What is the source of those tongues? Is it the Holy Spirit (which would perhaps imply an endorsement of Trump), is it demonic imitation of tongues (which might imply that Trump’s followers were demonically-influenced), or something else?
This isn’t a question arising due to this story. It’s also one that we could raise simply from Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 12 – 14, especially 14:23, 27-28. There Paul asserts that it’s possible to use tongues inappropriately in a corporate worship context. Unless interpreted for the listeners, tongues should be used as a private communication between the believer and God. This implies that inappropriate tongues are not God’s will, and therefore not the direct intention or activity of the Spirit. If not, then, what is the source of the tongues?
23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? …. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
So, while the Trump scenario prompted the question, this is not a question new to the twenty-first century; first-century Christians could equally have asked: When there is sufficient reason to doubt that tongues speech is the direct intent and activity of the Spirit, what is the source of the tongues?
Sources of Tongues: Options
I took this question to my fellow credential holders to see what they would say. The options that came up during our online discussions included the following:
Maybe tongues is directly and supernaturally God-given at Spirit baptism, and the person retains the ability to speak in tongues at will (implying that the tongues may not always be directly influenced by the Spirit).
Maybe tongues not directly caused by the Spirit is of demonic origin, a nefarious vocal forgery.
Maybe the tongues is merely an intentional or unconscious mimicry of what a person has heard others doing. This would not preclude it being used by the Spirit.
Close to #3, maybe tongues speech is a human ability that can be learned, not necessarily by direct mimicry, but either by indirect imitation of the type of speech activity they are hearing, or prompted by the Spirit (such as having thoughts that seem to be unknown sounds or language, and attempting to speak these out), or prompted by demons (Pentecostals would assume this would be a non-Christian context). While the impetus for the tongues could have different sources, then, in this case the capacity resides in any human (assuming adequate brain functioning). Tongues speech is not a “supernatural” ability, but may be prompted by or used by the Spirit.
When there is sufficient reason to doubt that tongues speech is the direct intent and activity of the Spirit, what is the source of the tongues?
After some back-and-forth online conversation with my fellow credential holders, I created an anonymous just-for-fun survey on the topic. I wanted to discover what others were thinking about tongues, and especially what they thought about what counted as authentic (i.e., directly Spirit-directed) tongues. I asked three questions, and had forty-one ministerial credential holders respond. Not as many as I’d hoped, but enough for some diversity to emerge. The results are below (I hope these images will be clear enough).
The source behind misused or inauthentic tongues
Here the majority (55%) looked at tongues as an ability given supernaturally by the Spirit at some point (presumably at Spirit baptism). The speaker could then use the tongues gift at will, which might mean that the tongues spoken may or may not be in accordance with the Spirit’s will at any given moment. Neither would the Spirit, I’m assuming, need to be directly involved. This might mean that at times the tongues-speaker is aligned with the will of the Spirit and other times not, which would provide a good explanation for how tongues could be misused (such as in the case involving Trump’s charismatic followers, if one is not inclined to believe their tongues served as an endorsement of the former President). No one believed that the Spirit is always directly behind Christian tongues speech (which I think means that all appear to believe that tongues are possible, at least sometimes, without the Spirit’s direct enablement).
A few (5%) thought demonic power might be directly involved in the misuse of tongues, and another 13% ended up in the “other” category (and I wished I left space for explanation, but alas I did not). 27% leaned towards viewing tongues as a human capacity, which has fascinating implications when it comes to using tongues as evidence for the authenticity of a Spirit baptism experience. We’ll explore more of this below, but I’ll raise the question here for those taking this view: Would this mean that some people can more easily learn this skill than others? If this is the case, this could raise further questions concerning whether tongues can be “taught,” and perhaps even whether it is unfair to exclude some from certain communal functions (e.g., church or denominational participation) simply on the basis of it being more difficult for them to “learn” this practice.
Does glossolalia or xenolalia count?
In this question I just wanted to see if any credential holders would restrict what counted for authentic tongues to anything other than glossolalia. I had thought that the response would be almost universally glossolalia, but was somewhat surprised that 13% required the more narrower xenolalic tongues speech as being required in order to identify a true experience of Spirit baptism. This also raises some fascinating questions. If Pentecostals did require xenolalia only as indicating authentic Spirit baptism, how exactly would this be assessed? Would we record the tongues and then have a panel of different language speakers listen to the tongues to determine what human language(s), if any, was being spoken?
Practical challenges aside, one strength of the xenolalia-only stance is that it might exhibit greater consistency with the experience of tongues portrayed in Acts 2, which were understood by the foreigners. In other words, on the first day of Pentecost the disciples spoke xenolalia, so why not require it today?
What type of tongues counts?
In this last question I tried to explore to what extent, if any, PAOC/NL ministers would restrict which tongues counted as evidence for Spirit baptism. We’d already seen that 87% said glossolalia was sufficient (they didn’t demand xenolalia). But what type of glossolalia? Are some forms of glossolalia more authentic than others? From the results, apparently so. (Although it could also be that I didn’t ask this question very well, but this blog isn’t going to be peer reviewed. :-))
51% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that just any tongues could count as the Spirit baptism indicator. I initially assumed that of the five (13%) requiring xenolalia in the previous question would clearly be among the disagree and strongly disagree group for this question, and four of five were. But one respondent of these five fell among the 15% of respondents to this third question, who selected that they were undecided on the matter. 34% agreed or strongly agreed that any tongues should count as initial evidence of Spirit baptism. Qualifying this, of course, is that these are not really just any old tongues, but are tongues found at the very least in some sort of Christian context.
Diversity on an important matter
So, what we have here is some measure of diversity from the respondents concerning what tongues actually are (the focus of question 1), and how we can tell which tongues are authentic (the focus of questions 2 and 3). It appears, then, that there is not consensus on this matter (which tongues “count”?) at least among these Pentecostal credential holders, and this despite the reality that quite a bit is at stake socially and professionally in being able to identify whether, in fact, one has had an authentic Spirit baptism + tongues experience.
In Part 3, we’ll further explore why Pentecostals generally accept glossolalia as sufficient as the Spirit baptism indicator, but why that still doesn’t fully answer “which tongues count?”.
Which tongues count? This question is one I’ve been mulling over for some time now, and what prompted me to host a just-for-fun poll among ministerial credential holders within two Canadian Pentecostal denominations — the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and Labrador (PAONL). I wanted to find out what my ministerial colleagues believed concerning the source behind the practice of speaking in unknown languages, and how we evaluate whether any such speech is authentically the direct result of the Spirit’s activity. In a Pentecostal context the practice of tongues matters a great deal spiritually, theologically, socially, and vocationally; so this is not a trivial question. Again, for Pentecostals, which tongues “count” and how would we know?
Now, for those outside the Pentecostal camp, the above paragraph might seem almost unintelligible — like a foreign language needing interpretation. Admittedly this blog is about a very peculiar topic, pertaining to an in-house discussion of a revivalist sub-tradition within the much larger Christian tradition. So, some background is in order so that all might be able to understand and benefit. This background will take up the entirety of part one of this three-part blog post.
Tongues in the Bible
First, in the Christian Bible, in the New Testament, there are stories that mention early Christian believers speaking in unknown languages in direct response to the activity of the God, the Holy Spirit. To clarify, the tongues were unknown to the ones speaking, which indicated the supernatural source of the activity. The languages spoken were, however, intelligible to the crowds that initially overheard these early Christians. Here’s the story from the New Testament book of Acts, written by Luke (also the author of the gospel of Luke).
2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. 5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”
The book of Acts mentions Christians speaking in unknown tongues a couple of other times as well, in chapters 10 and 19. But it’s not the only New Testament book that mentions this spiritual activity. The Apostle Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, chapters 12 – 14, speaks several times about the Spirit enabling believers to speak or pray in unknown tongues. He writes that this is a beneficial spiritual activity (for the one praying), and also provides guidelines as to how speaking in tongues should and should not be used in a public worship service. Paul also mentions the possibility that these unknown tongues could be in human languages or the language of “angels” (1 Cor. 13:1). Lyman Kulathungam, in his book, God’s Quest, proposes a third option: tongues may also be a language unknown to humans or angels, but only known to God (1 Cor. 14:2).
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
1 Corinthians 13:1 (NIV)
I’m still processing whether there are three categories of tongues for Paul or whether he intends angelic languages to be the same as the tongues known only to God (meaning, not to other people). But regardless, the mention of angelic language or only-God-knows tongues does provide an option other than tongues being a real human language (whether a dead or living language). I’ll return to this issue immediately below, but for now we can at least see that speaking in a language unknown to the speaker is a concept and practice found in the Bible.
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
1 Corinthians 14:2 (NIV)
Digression: Different kinds of tongues?
The idea that there are possibly three types of tongues speech (human, angelic, and only-God-knows) can become a bit confusing. So, to help us more easily discuss this distinction (in case this matter comes up in conversation with friends or neighbours), two different terms are often used to distinguish between non-human and human tongues: glossolalia and xenolalia. These terms are rough transliterations from the Greek in which the New Testament was written, which is why they might seem strange, and may require (you guessed it) some interpretation.
Glossolalia comes from the Greek glossais “language/tongue”+ lalein “to speak.” It is the term that is used to refer to speech in any language unknown to the speaker (human, angelic, or only-God-knows).
Xenolalia comes from xeno “foreign” + lalein “to speak.” And refers more narrowly to speech in a language unknown to the speaker, but which is a real human language (usually living, but perhaps dead).
In sum, any unknown tongues speech (to the speaker) can be glossolalia, but a subset of glossolalia is xenolalia. Xenolalia is what appears to be happening in Acts 2 (discussed above), since the tongue-speaking disciples were understood by the crowd of foreigners. The idea that there is tongues speech other than xenolalia is due to Paul’s reference to “angelic” speech in 1 Cor. 13:1 and perhaps to 1 Cor. 14:2 (only-God-knows speech). This digression will make sense shortly.
Tongues and Pentecostals
To reiterate, we first identified that tongues are mentioned in the New Testament — this strange manifestation is part of the wider Christian story. Secondly, within wider Christianity, Pentecostal denominations and traditions emphasize the biblical story of Pentecost (Acts 2), when the Holy Spirit was outpoured to the church in a new and radical way. This giving of the Spirit transformed the lives of the early Christian disciples, and was signified by their being enabled to speak in unknown languages.
The event of Pentecost
Arguably even more important to Pentecostals than the event of Pentecost (the day in history) is the emphasis on the repeatability of the experience that the disciples had on that day: being “filled with the Spirit” to enable them to bear witness to Christ, and as a result, speaking in tongues (xenolalia).
As an aside, I personally believe that emphasis on the Pentecost event needs to take precedence over the repeatability of the experience in order to understand what the experience is for. Reversing this will not work, and has only served to untether the experience from its grounding event, meaning that the experience of being “filled with the Spirit” can take on emphases never intended, such as seeking tongues as opposed to seeking to be enabled for Christian mission. Why the Spirit was poured out on Pentecost is the purpose of the experience for Christians on that day and today. Further, any experience of the Spirit today in Christian life finds its basis in the event of the day of Pentecost. Without that day, there is no repeatable experience of Spirit baptism available. Event precedes repeatability historically and theologically.
…emphasis on the event [of Pentecost] needs to take precedence over the repeatability of the experience, in order to understand what the experience is for.
The experience of Pentecost
(Sidebar: The alliteration in the above two subtitles was entirely unintended. Please, Gen X-ers, don’t stop reading.) 🙂
While the event of Pentecost is theologically primary, what one will typically hear emphasized in a Pentecostal church is not the Pentecost event in history, but the experience with the Spirit that is available for Christians today. And this is an important emphasis. Christians should be open to and even expect an experience of being “filled with the Spirit.” Pentecostals define this as being a distinct experience from one’s conversion to Christ, which is available for those who are already followers of Christ. Being converted to Jesus brings one into God’s household, so to speak; but God then propels the believer out into the world to join in the divine mission to bear witness to Jesus. To be a witness requires the special enabling of the Holy Spirit, and so an enablement (empowerment) is granted to disciples, known as being “filled with the Spirit,” or getting “baptized in the Spirit,” or for convenience, “Spirit baptism.” First-century Christians needed this enablement, and so do Christians today. That, in brief, is the traditional primary Pentecostal emphasis.
But it’s not the only Pentecostal emphasis. Unique to Pentecostals is not that they were open to and sought this first-century-type Spirit baptism experience. Other pre-Pentecostals in the nineteenth century had taught this as well. Unique to historical Pentecostals is that they linked a particular tangible manifestation to the reception of the Spirit baptism experience as the indicator (or the “initial evidence” of “Bible sign”) that one had indeed had an authentic experience of Spirit baptism. The authenticating sign was, unsurprisingly, speaking in other tongues. If one spoke in tongues, one could truly know that one had indeed participated in the same experience as the first-century disciples. Support for tongues as being the tangible indicator was based in Acts 2, 10, and 19. And since no other sign-indicator is repeated in Acts as being tied to Spirit baptism, there does seem to be some textual support for holding tongues as being uniquely linked to Spirit baptism. But in what sense?
Tongues as experience-receipt or more?
Is tongues primarily a tangible external indicator that one has truly, authentically, had the experience of Spirit baptism? Or is tongues a sign of something of more theological depth? Put another way, is tongues merely a receipt to prove that one has had a certain type of experience with the Spirit? Or, do the tongues exhibited on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 serve to signify why the Spirit was being outpoured to the church?
Tongues as an experience-receipt seems like a rather reductionist application of the Acts 2 story to me. This is not to say that tongues cannot function as an indicator of Spirit baptism. In fact, it does serve this secondary purpose in Acts 10, where a Roman Centurion, Cornelius, and his household were identified as having been filled with the Spirit because they unexpectedly broke out in tongues in the middle of Peter’s sermon in that household. Here’s the account:
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
So, tongues can function as evidence in this way. But even more so, and primarily, tongues is a sign of why the Spirit was outpoured to the church. Tongues is used as the sign (and nothing else quite fits the bill) to indicate what God was doing with the church and how the church was to see itself, now that the Spirit had been given in this new and radical way. Tongues, then, is a theological sign, pointing to what God is up to in the church and believers.
That tongues is a sign means that God did not choose tongues as the sign of Spirit baptism arbitrarily (“Hey angels! Know what would be cool to have followers of Christ do when the Spirit is outpoured? Tongues! Haven’t tried that one before! Watch this!”). Rather, tongues points to (explains) the purpose of the gift — Spirit enablement for witness. To expand, tongues signified that the church was 1) being supernaturally enabled, 2) to bear witness (speech), 3) to all peoples (languages and ethnicities). No other manifestation is able to signify this quite as well.
So, the proper order for understanding tongues is that it is first a sign of what God was up to and why the Spirit was outpoured to the church. it is secondarily an indicator that one has shared in this Spirit baptism experience. Pentecostals have sometimes over-emphasized the secondary function of tongues, which has often tended to reduce tongues to a speech-receipt serving to identify those have had this experience (and conversely, those who have not). This is an overly individualistic way of looking at the Pentecost story, which neglects the implications of this story for the church community and in understanding God’s wider plans for his people and creation.
Just as underemphasizing the event of Pentecost untethers the Spirit baptism experience from its purpose, so too neglecting the communal implications and the order of priority to understanding the function of tongues in Acts flattens its theological meaning and purpose. Tongues is not simply the “initial evidence” of a particular experience with the Spirit; it is first of all the sign of what the Spirit intends for the church, and what every believer may participate in.
Functions of tongues
Some might also want to raise the point here that tongues is also a wonderful gift to help us when we pray and worship. And this is true. Acts suggests that tongues speech are words focused on exalting God (Acts 2:11; 10:46).
“…we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”
Acts 2:11
“For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.”
Acts 10:46
But we shouldn’t push this too far. The priority in Luke’s story is on the Spirit enabling witnesses for Jesus. And even when tongues is linked to praise or expounding on God’s wonderful works, these tongues function to help expand the witness of Jesus. The third mention of tongues, in Acts 19:6 notably includes mention of the believers prophesying, a sign that they were serving as spokespersons for God. Luke’s focus is always clear — the Spirit is helping God’s people bear witness for Jesus.
“When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.”
Acts 19:6
So, Luke’s emphasis in Acts is on the Spirit enabling believers for witness, and tongues serves to signify that ability being provided along with its scope (witnesses to the nations). What is not mentioned in Acts is tongues being used as a personal devotional prayer language, which is a separate application of tongues introduced by Paul in 1 Cor. 14.
I’m leaving discussion on tongues for devotional communication to the side here because it is not an emphasis of Luke’s and will take us well beyond the focus of the blog. I will only say this: in my view there are two functions of tongues in Acts and two in 1 Corinthians. As stated, in Acts tongues serve 1) to signify the purpose of the Spirit’s outpouring to the church, and 2) as an indicator of participating in that experience. In 1 Cor. 12 – 14, tongues function as 1) a private prayer language, or 2) as part of a public message to the worshiping community, provided the tongues are then interpreted into an intelligible language for the hearers (see 1 Cor 14:6-17). Acts and 1 Corinthians are dealing with separate applications, although both are presumably talking about the same activity of tongues.
Back to the point…
And this brings us back to the purpose of this blog. Tongues are obviously an important New Testament practice, meaningful for signifying the Christian vocation, identifying the Spirit baptism experience, and as a means of communication with God. But the very lack of intelligibility of tongues raises some questions: for Pentecostals, which tongues count as authentic (for all of the aforementioned) and how would we know? That will be the where we’ll pick up in part 2 of this series as we look at what some PAOC/NL credential holders believe about the matter.
There’s more to reality than we can see, and this truth is important to understanding the gospel and Christian spirituality than might be supposed. That’s the premise of Michael Heiser’s, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, in which he explores biblical glimpses into a spiritual reality that exists alongside and integrated with the physical.
The scriptural supposition of the existence of an invisible realm inhabited by spiritual beings is one that Heiser admits took him by surprise. It was his encounter with Psalm 82 that first caused him to rethink some of his own theological beliefs. The Psalm seemed to strongly suggest that God rules his creation with the help of a spiritual divine council—“gods”—although in that text it appears that God is not always pleased with members of this council.
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?….” I say, “You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince.”
Psalm 82:2-3, 6-7 (NRSV)
Seeing the Bible with fresh eyes
This unfamiliar yet inescapable depiction led Heiser to dedicate himself to investigating what the biblical writers assumed about the nature of reality—both the seen and unseen—and the way God governs it. What he concludes is that coming to the Bible with the assumptions of a modernistic, Enlightenment worldview is simply not helpful for comprehending the full scope of created reality to which it points. The evidence concerning what the biblical writers believed is undeniable for Heiser. The biblical witness univocally affirms that there exists an unseen “supernatural” realm, inhabited by spiritual creatures who, like humans, exist for the purpose of imaging their Creator, and who participate in the way decisions of cosmic (and lesser) scope are rendered.
Whether contemporary Christians accept the reality of these biblical witnesses is a separate question; and Heiser acknowledges this acceptance might be difficult for some. As a Pentecostal, however, I didn’t find his presentation a challenge to my tradition’s beliefs. Pentecostals are quite comfortable with the idea that spiritual beings, both benevolent and malevolent, not only exist, but affect the world in ways large and small.
A cautious Pentecostal
I admit, though, that in practice I’ve been cautious (maybe even skeptical) about embracing stories of the involvement of spiritual entities in the physical realm. I don’t tend to be drawn to the Christian pop-supernatural media and literature that’s readily available. I also am reflexively repulsed by (what I consider to be) ostentatious displays of “spirituality” by some charismatic leaders in North America, and believe such to create needless barriers to the message of the gospel.
What I personally need to be careful about, however, is to distinguish questionable practices, too easily embraced by some Pentecostals and charismatics concerning spiritual reality, from the actual existence of this unseen reality, overwhelmingly affirmed by the biblical writers. Concerning the latter, Heiser’s book has been the most comprehensive and compelling discussions of this topic I’ve come across.
Rather than try to summarize Heiser’s work, here I’ll just highlight two claims I believe he convincingly argues, which have helped supplement my understanding of salvation history and approach to Christian spirituality. In doing so I hope this will intrigue others to pick up this book.
The Elohim: the council of the “gods”
Hebrew Scripture at times refers to “elohim,” which English translations may render as “gods” (such as in Psalm 82, NRSV). Heiser argues that the elohim are in fact spiritual beings that serve as members of God’s divine council. Humans were created in God’s image to be part of this council (alongside the elohim, who also image God), but are currently functioning at less-than-intended capacity in this role due to rebellion (Genesis 3).
God is also an elohim, but not merely one among others in the council. Rather, he is the supreme Elohim, Creator of all that is seen and unseen. God employs a divine council in his decision-making because, argues Heiser, he delights in including others in the planning and outworking of creation and history. Some elohim have remained faithful to God, while others have not. Disloyal elohim operate malevolently in creation, whereas elohim allegiant to God serve in any number of roles, including as messengers (angels).
Being aware of this “council” theme has caused me to reconsider the ways I have perhaps too easily ignored or quickly dismissed prayerful references, within my tradition, to spiritual forces at work in the world. I’m still not persuaded to embrace spiritual prayer practices that can at times seem more like incantations than relational entreaties (and too closely resembling how Jesus explicitly tells us not to pray in Matt 6:7). But I do find Heiser’s arguments persuasive for the existence and involvement of spiritual beings, both good and bad.
What might this mean for my own spiritual life and practices, in particular the way I pray and discern? Heiser has made me realize I need to give more thought and attention to this.
Elohim invasion and salvation history
Perhaps more fascinating is Heiser’s claim that the strange and oft-overlooked story of Genesis 6:1-4 is actually central to understanding salvation history.
When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.
Genesis 6:1-4 (NRSV)
According to Heiser, this terse tale recounts malevolent elohim (“sons of God”) illegitimately involving themselves in the physical generation of some sort of hybrid human offspring. The descendants of these offspring apparently serve as a more explicit and serious invasion of evil into the physical world than even the human fall in Genesis 3 (where a insurgent elohim is identified as the tempter). Much of the Old Testament recounts how this invasion is countered, and this theme is carried into the New Testament in and through the life of Jesus and his message of the kingdom of God, and finds its conclusion in the new creation. In other words, salvation history is largely, perhaps primarily, about overcoming an illegitimate spiritual invasion.
This portrait of God’s salvation intentions and activity is notably wider than simple provision of forgiveness for human rebellion. God’s aim is to overcome the spiritual invasion and corruption of the world by rebellious elohim, and the gospel, then, is an announcement that Jesus has come to re-establish God’s legitimate rule in the physical realm. The proper response, of course, is to give one’s loyalty to this one who is the supreme Elohim.
Again, this increases the scope of salvation history, and has implications for Christian spirituality and evangelism. Christians are those explicitly involved in a spiritual war, having pledged their allegiance to Jesus over against forces and powers that threaten God’s good intentions for this world through Jesus. They should expect their allegiance to be challenged spiritually. Further, the call to give allegiance to Jesus involves more than simply a prayer for forgiveness (although it includes this). The call to follow Jesus is a call to choose sides in a spiritual battle.
Recommended reading (and listening)
The above discussion simply identifies two points that have caused me to reflect on the implications for my own spiritual life and teaching in my theology courses. But there is much, much more that could be discussed concerning Heiser’s book. For example, he gives significant attention to exploring the scriptural origins of Trinitarian theology, including the appearance of God in physical form in the Old Testament a number of times. So, this is a book that will be of interest to Christian leaders and theologians alike. And if you are still wondering whether to give the time to reading The Unseen Realm, for the curious I recommend at least listening to Preston Sprinkle’s podcast interview with Heiser.
Chuck DeGroat’s, Narcissism in the Church, is a much needed book for the church, especially during a growing awareness among Christians of the damage that can be done by abuse of power and authority. Narcissists in church leadership often are perpetrators of this type of abuse, and are far too often enabled by the people and systems around them.
DeGroat skillfully defines what narcissism is and is not, using current accepted definitions within psychology (e.g., DSM5), although he also uses his years of expertise as a psychologist to introduce new insights for understanding this personality disorder. For those who are fans of the Enneagram, DeGroat even dedicates a chapter to demonstrating how narcissism can exist in people in any one of the nine E-types. Perhaps most intriguing is his proposal that narcissistic tendencies have high representation among church planters and mega-church leaders. This is an important point that likely needs to be taken seriously by denominational leadership when assessing potential ministry candidates.
Dr. Chuck DeGroat
DeGroat’s work provides significant support for those hurt by the narcissist, perhaps primarily by helping them realize that they are not imagining their emotional injuries. The narcissist and the enabling system (and those enabling the system) are culpable.
At the same time, while DeGroat is trying to raise awareness of the church narcissism problem, he also is more optimistic than many that narcissists can be reformed (although this is a slow and painful process). In part this is based on his proposal that narcissists are deeply hurting people, who are unable to face their real selves. This dis-integration is what lies beneath their destructive behaviour.
I would have liked DeGroat to have provided more data to support this position. While I’m not opposed to this explanation, primarily because I respect his expertise, I tend to be a bit skeptical with approaches that claim a motivation for a psychological issue that appears opposite to the manifestation. Jean Twenge’s, The Narcissism Epidemic, for example, argues that narcissists are motivated not by poor self esteem, but by a deep infatuation with themselves. DeGroat does not quite identify poor self esteem as what gives rise to narcissism and his arguments are more nuanced. But he does lean towards there being a shamed and frightened child beneath the narcissist’s exterior. It would have been appropriate for him to provide more support for his position, even though this book is intended for a more general, non-academic audience.
Overall this is an important book for pastors and church (and denominational) leaders to read, not merely for information, but in order to implement better systems by which to help identify and introduce protections against the damage narcissism can bring.
Does this type of sinful activity happen today within local church communities and denominations? Do people, even leaders, ever try to use force, status (position of privilege), or money to leverage the broader church community for self-serving ends, to gain more privilege(s)?
We would hope not, but if we’re honest, unfortunately, I think we need to admit this still happens. In such cases force isn’t as frequently utilized, since it’s less socially acceptable; but status and money don’t always raise as many red flags for us, allowing this duplicity and testing of God to still occur in ways analogous to the actions of A&S.
What might this look like today? I think we see parallels of A&S today whenever people use their status, heritage, or position to intentionally ensure that their voice is the privileged one in the room. It happens even in more crass forms similar to A&S, when an apparent benefactor promises a generous donation only if, or threatens to withhold a promised contribution unless, the benefactor receives what they desire.
When venomous leveraging is allowed to operate within the church, the community becomes poisoned, and its cohesion begins to break down, including its ability to bear true witness to the new righteous and truthful kingdom of Jesus. In short, unchecked manipulation within the community threatens gospel proclamation. That’s why Peter says that such “benefactors” may very well find themselves being used by Satan.
While people echoing A&S’s manipulative behaviour today don’t usually drop down dead, Satan still tries to influence the church in this way, and God still despises this type of action. We don’t need to wait for an act of God; Acts 5 provides the church with the object lesson.
How should the church respond?
What should we do if we suspect this type of behaviour is operating in our midst? Here we need to move slowly and carefully, since situations are often complex and not always easy to judge. Each case needs to be carefully examined on its own merit to avoid making errors of association with other cases that seem (but may not be) quite the same. We certainly need the Spirit’s help to discern any given circumstance.
The need for discernment
Perhaps the offending individual, for example, isn’t quite as callous as A&S, and their motives seem mixed — on the one hand they seem to be using manipulative methods to get their way, but on the other they seem to care about broader aspects of the church and its mission. The offender may even be confused and believe their manipulative actions are needed to acquire what they deem worthy spiritual goals for the community. They may not fully appreciate that God cares equally, if not more, about our methods than he does results.
Other times the circumstances are less complex, and it’s more obvious that moral violation through manipulation is happening (even if no one wants to identify it as such). In both cases the response of the church needs to be careful, yet firm. Members of the church need to be help accountable for this type of action, and all the more so if clergy engage in this behaviour, since the stakes are so much higher.
Understanding why we don’t respond
But why does manipulation and abuse of privilege of this sort often go unchecked in the church? One reason might be that we just don’t feel that manipulation of the community of Christ to be all that bad — at least not as bad as other sins. I use the word “feel” here intentionally, meaning that actions comparable to A&S don’t bother our conscience as much as other violations. But I would caution us here that this is due largely to how we’ve been socialized to feel about such matters, and may have little to do with how God feels about them.
Compared, say, to what my own Pentecostal tradition (with its holiness roots) identifies as worth calling out as significant sins — sexual immorality, financial fraud, inebriation from drugs or alcohol, and so forth — the sin of A&S should be right up there at the top of the list. In fact, if God’s reaction is anything to go by, the sin of A&S is worse than drunkenness or getting high, and arguably more significant than many other of the sins that would bring church members and certainly clergy under discipline within my own denomination.
Sometimes the hesitancy to expose and identify this type of sin is due to the idea that this type of behaviour manifests less explicitly than some other sins. It’s just easier to keep manipulation secret or ambiguous than it is a drunken brawl. But what makes identifying this type of sin a challenge, also what makes doing so very necessary. Sin that holds such drastic potential to damage the witness of the community, while at the same time being able to fly under the radar is very dangerous indeed. And just because identifying a particular type of sin may require extra effort or discernment is not a reason to throw up our hands and act as if it didn’t exist. Aside from this, I’m also not as convinced that A&S-type actions are as ambiguous as we might think they are, which leads to the next point.
Another reason that manipulation and abuse of privilege goes unchecked in the church has to do with the way communities operate to preserve their own existence. This includes pressure that encourages loyalty to the community as a moral duty, even when other known moral boundaries are being violated. In those circumstances, loyalty can supersede, say, fairness or justice (on this see Jonathan Haidt’s, The Righteous Mind, and to identify what matters to you most morally, try this test).
Perhaps, for example, the offending individual already has considerable status and influence in our church. Perhaps he or she has an enchanting and charismatic personality, or comes from a respected family heritage. These features serve to build abundant social capital, which is why such individuals can afford to “spend” (so to speak) some of that capital when using manipulative behaviour, and be fairly confident the community will (should!) tolerate the selfish ambition.
But perhaps the community simply needs the benefactor’s money, and so a blind eye is turned when it cost some communal integrity to receive the money. Or perhaps the cost of calling out manipulative behaviour is just too high. Calling things out can mean loss of significant social capital, especially for a lone whistle-blower (maybe even damaging a career). But perhaps we just don’t want to rock the boat, cause dissension, or be accused of gossip and slander.
Dissension, gossip, and slander are certainly something to avoid, since they too are devilish. But Peter’s response to A&S committed none of those sins. Peter spoke the truth, the truth revealed by the Spirit of truth. His Spirit-led response exposed the true motives of A&S, while at the same time exhibiting what the church community should and should not be.
Peter’s courageous response did not keep the immediate peace. He believed this type of sin required a response that just might rock the boat. But his actions did protect the longer-term peace, integrity, and witness of the church. It kept the devil out of the church, at least for the time being. Luke’s account of this story highlights the importance of calling out this type of sin.
A courageous community
What happened to A&S also, according to Luke, made others think twice about joining the church. Do I really want to live in a community where I can’t use my status, money, and privilege to move my way up and get what I want? I can use those methods pretty much any other social grouping; why would I want to give up that type of power?
The early church, it seems, was not the community for everyone. Well, it was for everyone, but it didn’t operate according to everyone’s preference. But for those with a heart changed by Jesus, it was a community of truth, peace, and joy.
Acts 5:1-11 calls the church to vigilance. A community that exists to represent Jesus’ kingdom values needs to be mindful of the devil’s schemes, including the temptation to use manipulative means to acquire social capital for selfish ends. That community is called to have the courage to refuse to allow that type of behaviour to operate unchecked in Jesus’ church. This was important for the first generation of Christians; it’s important for us today.
I offer the following as some key summary take-away points for understanding Acts 5:1-11, along with some suggestions for recognizing the behaviour of A&S in our own lives and contexts. What we ought to do about such behaviour is something I’m still prayerfully considering. (But I think I’m in good company in exploring the ramifications of this passage, with many Christian leaders currently speaking out about all manner of corruption, and abuse of power and privilege these days [e.g., racism, etc.]).
Why so violent?
To start, this passage is not an easy one for a couple of reasons. First, people instantly dropped down dead for their actions and it freaked everyone out (and it gives us chills today). This seemingly over-the-top response by the Holy Spirit to sin seems difficult to square with Jesus’ loving message and actions. But I’m going to leave aside the troublesome issue of divine violence in this post so that I can zero in on the nature of A&S’s sin. Whatever the sin was, I think it’s pretty obvious that God views it far more seriously than our consciences might make us feel about it (and frankly God’s conscience matters more than ours).
What did they do?
The second difficulty is this. A&S’s sin is perhaps not immediately clear to us on first reading. It was likely far more evident for the first century hearers of the story, but for some reason not for us. We do know that whatever they did was pretty bad. But what the heck was it? And how do we not repeat it? And what do we do about those who do seem intent on repeating it today?
Deciphering the story
Let me summarize some points that have helped me decipher this story, and hopefully identify some reasons why I think it’s important for the church to pay attention to it today (especially for us Pentecostals, since it’s only three chapters after Acts 2!).
1) The problem in the story was not about money, but how money was being (mis)used.
This story involved, but isn’t really about, money. So, it is not a story to be used to “encourage” people to give away all their money, or even a lot of money, to the church. Peter makes it clear to A&S, giving to the church was voluntary. The problem was what they tried to do with their money. A&S were using their money to portray themselves as generous and whole-hearted devotees to the community, but they were were being duplicitous, lying to the church and God.
Why try to portray yourself as something you’re not, and spend a lot of money in the process? A&S believed their money could be used to purchase something more valuable. What exactly was it?
2) Ananias and Sapphira were not acting in ignorance.
Before answering the above question, we need to note that both A&S consciously conspired to misrepresent themselves, and lied when confronted about it. So, this is more serious, it seems to me, than someone misrepresenting themselves out of fear (e.g., Peter’s fear-motivated denial of Jesus). This was premeditated deception with a clear agenda in mind.
This does not mean, however, that A&S fully understood the ramifications of their deceit. At risk of getting ahead of ourselves, they were acting in a manner that might have been considered acceptable in a culture where status and its privilege was something considered worth acquiring. Nevertheless, they were not ignorant, and they knew they were doing wrong, evidenced by the fact that they tried to conceal their actions using deception.
It’s noteworthy here that many times (but not always) when actions are kept from public light it is an indication that those involved know that what’s being hidden is unethical (= immoral); otherwise, why keep it hidden?
3) Ananias and Sapphira schemed to illegitimately acquire disproportionate “social capital”
Here we come to the heart of A&S’s motivation. The couple had previously witnessed Barnabas being honoured for his generosity and they wanted some of that notoriety (Acts 4:32-37). As a number of commentators note, A&S were likely seeking to gain acclaim within the young church (“What generous folks these are!”). But brief acclamation alone is likely insufficient motivation for this type of duplicity. Mikayla’s label of “social capital” helps expand what comes with the acclaim A&S sought. For them the deceitfully leveraging of resources would gain them abundant community status and privilege(s), along with increased influence (ability to get their way) within the community.
This type of social capital isn’t free, of course. But A&S had ample money at their disposal, and in most communities money usually comes with a measure of influence. All they had to do, they thought, was use some of their money to buy some social capital. But how much? Spending all of it seemed too high a price. Acclaim and privilege is one thing, but they couldn’t gamble it all. They needed some future currency for a rainy day. So, they figured that about half their money would be about right. A steep price to be sure, but acquiring privilege doesn’t come cheap.
Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit…”
Acts 5:3
Peter rightly identifies this attempt to manipulate and exploit the community of Jesus as satanic. The devil was trying to get a foothold in the door of the church (Acts 5:3).
4) Community manipulation is considered “testing” (presuming upon) God
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord?….”
Acts 5:9
A&S perhaps believed that God probably wouldn’t notice or care, or that he’d overlook their duplicity and manipulation. After all, they were bringing much needed money to a community in its infancy. It may even be the case that they thought their actions would be of ultimate benefit to the church (while simultaneously being personally beneficial). In that case the deception and money-leveraging was somehow pragmatically justified (if something brings about an immediate good end, we can probably overlook some indiscretions in the method). And after all, isn’t that just how things operate in the world everywhere anyway? If I find myself with resources that others don’t, such as abundant monetary or social capital, doesn’t this permit me the privilege of leveraging (manipulating) my capital to get more privilege(s)?
This was, as Peter says, putting God to the test (Acts 5:9). Was he truly a God of justice and holiness, treating everyone without regard for social status or wealth? Or would he look sideways as this type of community deception and manipulation tried to slither its way into the church?
As it turns out, A&S discovered that God really is no respecter of persons.
5) God upheld justice, while also protecting the fledgling church from power-politics.
Because the fledgling church was at high risk of being permanently damaged at such a fragile stage in its development, God intervened in a radical way. God’s reaction was not simply tied to his aversion to injustice and lying. The deaths of A&S served not only as their judgement, but also as an act to protect the community and the gospel they carried (as well as a timeless object lesson). What was at risk here was nothing less than a potential sabotage of the newly formed church (Acts 5:11 is the first time Luke uses the word “church” [ecclesia] to describe this community).
A&S had shown they were not truly co-servants of the community, but instead were intent on using the community to serve their own interests and so demonstrating themselves disloyal (thanks to Stephen Barkley for helping me see this better). This is difficult for those of us in hyper-individualistic cultures to see at first. But God’s big goal is not simply the conversion of individuals, but the formation of a community of witnesses, though whom the message of Jesus as true king would be proclaimed and exhibited. This community would proclaim not only with words, but would bear witness by living out a distinct set of values.
The values of the community of Jesus would be contrary to what was commonly accepted in a pagan culture, in which people strove to “lord over” others. Sometimes this goal could be achieved by leveraging physical force, status, or money. Jesus had spoken against this very value system in Luke’s first volume, 22:24-27.
24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
Luke 22:24-27
To have permitted A&S to attain status as communal “benefactors,” while turning a blind eye to their deceitful and essentially pagan method for attaining social capital, would threaten to malform the impressionable young church from within. The very DNA, so to speak, of the church was in danger of being mutated into something monstrous. At risk was what it meant for the church to bear witness to Jesus, since they proclaimed a king that was unlike the kings of the world. Also at risk was community cohesion, since duplicity undermines trust. We cannot trust when we suspect that people are not as they seem.
So, this for me helps explain the radical reaction of the Spirit. He was protecting the church, and protecting the message of the gospel. But what does this mean for the church today? We’ll pick up this question in part 3.
It took only a few minutes after hearing the story for her to label what was quite likely the underlying motivation of the characters involved. The story was from Acts 5:1-11, of Ananias and Sapphira, a husband and wife who were members of the first century church. The story’s interpreter was my 20-year-old daughter, Mikayla. I was the story-teller.
But why would a father make his daughter listen to a paraphrased retelling of this odd story in the first place? Some context is needed.
What clergy do on Facebook
I belong to a Facebook group for credentialed clergy belonging to the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and Newfoundland/Labrador. I’d posted several questions in this group concerning the story of Ananias and Sapphira (A&S for short). I won’t rehearse all the details of this story (you can read it here). But in short, A&S attempted to deceive the early church about how much money they had in fact donated to the church. The deception was revealed to the apostle Peter (presumably by the Holy Spirit), and they both ended up dropping dead in what seems to be a direct act of God. Yikes!
My questions for my clergy friends were these. What was it that A&S actually did wrong that resulted is such an extreme conclusion? What was their sin? Merely lying? Death seems an overly harsh consequence in that case (didn’t Peter, after all, lie about knowing Jesus in the not to distant past?). But if not lying, then what?
It seems pretty important to figure this out, since whatever they were doing, God was unusually upset with it. Figuring this out might help us avoid doing whatever it was A&S were doing. And tied to this, what would this sin of A&S look like today anyway? Is this one of those ancient “sins” that no longer applies today, or does it still happen and matter today? And if it does happen, why don’t people keep getting struck down for it? Finally, how should the church respond if we’re aware of this type of sin taking place in our midst?
The story is not an easy one to interpret, which made discussion among this clergy group engaging and fruitful. We all (I think) learned some things, and it helped me sharpen my interpretation of the passage.
Late night chat with Gen Z
Later, during a late night chat with my daughter, I got the fun idea of presenting her with the same questions I’d posed to the clergy. What would a member of Gen Z think about the A&S episode?
I paraphrased the episode, and then asked (maybe interrogated) her about what might have motivated the characters. On the surface we know that money and deception are involved. But what did A&S think they were going to gain from using money and deception?
After only a few minutes of banter and processing, Mikayla labeled the motivation as likely being tied to acquiring “social capital.” Mikayla is entering her third year of university, majoring in psychology, and minoring in anthropology and philosophy. Apparently her exposure to the social sciences were coming in handy for interpreting Scripture! (And I was pleased to see that our tuition dollars were being well spent!)
Social capital and manipulation
I’m not a social scientist and am open to correction here. But as far as I understand it, social capital is the term used among social scientists to describe how belonging to a society or group mutually benefits all involved, provided that you play by the rules. So, if I treat others well by, say, being trustworthy, industrious, generally supportive, etc., then, all things being equal, I will also benefit in various ways. Others will grow to trust me, share or trade with me, and help me when needed. In other words, by acting in a particular way (trustworthy, diligent, etc.) I gain social currency, which I can then redeem depending on the level of trust I’ve engendered in a given community.
So what does this have to do with A&S? Well, first, desiring the mutual benefits that come with communal belonging isn’t the problem. Jesus encourages his followers to be honest, generous people, who, as a result, will likely become the type of neighbour that someone would usually like to have around. But Jesus also said there are good and bad ways to engender others’ trust and loyalty. A very bad way to do this is by manipulation, either by force (physical or social), or by misrepresenting ourselves in a way that essentially leaves others with no rational choice but to feel and act as if they owe us something, mainly significant respect or honour, and the privilege that comes with it (see Matt. 5:33-37 and 6:1-18).
All that to say, when Mikayla said that A&S were trying to gain social capital, she meant this in the sense of trying to manipulate a situation in order to gain excessive or disproportionate power and influence within the early church community. A&S attempted to use money and deception to leverage influence and privilege(s), and that’s a very serious problem.
But to make sure I’m not rushing to impose a current social science interpretation anachronistically onto an ancient text, we need to unpack the story a little more. This will help reveal why I believe Mikayla’s hunch was correct, and why understanding this is imperative for the church today. We’ll explore this in part 2.
Last week I posted about the tenuous distinction between tithes and offerings based in the OT book of Malachi (based on David Croteau’s book). And I asked readers to respond to a couple of poll questions concerning the topic. The results are provided below, and they raise some questions for me. But first a recap.
Recap
In brief, Malachi 3 mentions that Israelites had been robbing God by their withholding of tithes and offerings. Contemporary Christians often identify tithes (10% if one’s income) as being the required amount one should give to one’s local church. Offerings, however, are often identified as a distinct voluntary gift that one can give, over and above the tithe. The tithe is obligatory, the offering is a freewill gift.
The problem is that Malachi knew of no such distinction. Both tithes and offerings, while technically distinct types of giving, were both obligatory. So, does this mean that the church today should require both tithes and offerings of its adherents? (And in that case, what amount or percentage is an acceptable offering?) Or should the church stop teaching that “tithes” = obligatory and “offerings” = voluntary, and just admit that Malachi isn’t teaching what we might have thought he was teaching regarding offerings, and just stick with requiring tithes and stop mentioning distinct “offerings.” Or should we keep requiring tithes and asking for gifts over and above tithes, but admit that calling such “offerings” is just a matter of convenience without direct biblical support. (After all, we can find encouragement to give generously elsewhere in the NT, although not with neat percentages attached). (See my last post for more details.)
How Do We Use Scripture?
My interest in all this actually has little to do with giving or tithes or offerings. I’m mainly curious about the way we support our theological beliefs and practices, and how Scripture serves in that process. Specifically, I’d like to get a clearer picture of the method used to apply Scripture and our consistency in doing so. After all, if Scripture is God’s word, it means that to claim “the Bible says” is equal to “God says,” and that can be not only a debate stopper, but also a powerful motivator for moving people toward particular beliefs and behaviours that I (or a group of people) deem fitting.
In short, we should be very aware how we use Scripture to ensure that we are not using it in ways that God himself might not stand behind. If we knowingly decide to use Scripture to bolster our claims, when in fact we suspect that the Bible might not quite be behind those claims, then we are, for all practical purposes, using God (rather than submitting to God) to support what we believe and want to be the case, and desire others to follow. This is, of course, a subtle way of playing God and misusing authority over others, and Jesus had some sharp words to say about that in his Sermon on the Mount.
I need to also say, this does not mean that if we mistakenly misapply Scripture that we are using God in this same way. We are not. And God is much more patient with misunderstanding and misapplication than he is with intentionally misusing his words to back our agendas, even when those agendas might be very well-intentioned.
All that to say, the matter of tithes and offerings just happens to be one good way of teasing out how we use Scripture. I have some other plans to continue to explore this using other topics, but let’s not wait any longer and get right to the results of the poll.
Poll Results
Sixty people began to respond to the poll — 57 from Canada, and three from other non-North American nations. But alas, only 35 actually completed the poll. Perhaps it was fear of their opinion on tithing being publicly discovered, which is not surprising in this day of rampant conspiracy theories. 🙂 But that fear was unfounded; the 2-question poll was anonymous.
Here is a graph of the poll results, and below that some commentary on the two questions.
Question 1: The distinction that “tithes” are obligatory and “offerings” voluntary is supported by Malachi.
My question was very specific here. I was asking about Malachi only, and not the entirety of the Bible. Here the majority (almost 63%) find themselves in agreement with David Croteau’s interpretation of Malachi 3. I.e., Malachi is not teaching two types of giving, one voluntary and one obligatory. 20% are unsure about this, and about 17% appear to believe that Malachi does indeed teach a required/freewill distinction in giving (or they were unclear on the specificity of the question).
It’s the second question where things get more interesting.
Question 2: Even if the distinction that “tithes” are obligatory and “offerings” voluntary is NOT supported by Malachi, churches should still teach this for other reasons.
To be very clear, here’s what I was trying to ask.
Supposing Malachi DOES NOT teach the obligatory/voluntary distinction between tithes and offerings. In that case should churches still teach that there are in fact two categories of giving — one obligatory (we’ll call this “tithes”) and one voluntary (we’ll call this “offerings”).
Here the responses are not as unified, and it may be due to the question being misunderstood or due to other beliefs about how to use the Bible.
43% indicated that they did not agree with teaching the two categories of giving (at least not to use Malachi while doing so). And if they interpreted this question as I hoped, this also means they do not feel comfortable using the Bible to teach two categories of giving period. This does not mean (I assume) for these respondents that churches should not teach on freewill giving, but that the Bible doesn’t seem to provide sufficient reasons for breaking giving into the required/freewill distinction.
On the other hand, just over 34% believe that while Malachi does not teach the required/freewill distinction, the church should still teach this distinction for other reasons. I’m assuming here, again, that the respondents understood what we being asked. Here it would have been helpful to know what those other reasons might be, but this was just a teaser poll. About 22% were not quite sure what to think on the matter, and perhaps are still processing things. Fair enough.
Continuing to teach giving as compulsory and voluntary
Let me suggest a couple of possible reasons people might believe it is justified to continue to teach the compulsory/freewill giving category distinction, along with some thoughts on each.
Respondents might believe we should continue to teach this distinction because of tradition and pragmatism. I.e., our church/denomination has said this distinction exists for some time now, and it has been a fairly helpful method of collecting resources for worthy ends, and people are used to it being taught in this way, so we should accept that it is a teaching and practice to be followed now.
I’m actually not opposed to tradition (carefully understood), and am not even against churches and denominations adopting teaching and practices not explicitly identified in Scripture, provided that Scripture continues to get to frame the way these are taught and practiced. Pragmatism also can be helpful, again, if mitigated by scriptural framing. But if tradition and pragmatism are to be given some measure of authority here, then I think it would be right to admit this to the congregation, and to admit that the Bible (and so God) doesn’t actually teach this explicitly. That way everyone knows that they are adapting to a lesser authority than Scripture itself, and yet it might still be a pretty good idea. After all, clear and simple directives are much easier to follow than ones that are more subjective and ambiguous.
The second reason for continuing to teach that there are two categories of giving (required/freewill) is perhaps the belief that there are other Bible texts that could be used to support this distinction.
Along with Croteau, we might want to ask, which ones? But thinking hypothetically, we could imagine appealing to the OT for tithing and the NT for freewill giving, and leave Malachi out of it with regard to offerings. In this case, the labeling of the distinct types of giving as “tithes” and “offerings” would still seem to be a matter of tradition and convenience. So, most transparently, I think it might be best to ditch the label “offerings” to refer to freewill giving, and simply call it something else like “freewill giving” so as to not confuse people when they read Malachi (since we want to take steps to not misuse the text).
That’s about it for this one. Thanks to all who participated in the poll. Comments are welcome!
If you’ve spent any time in a typical evangelical or Pentecostal church, you’ve likely heard that Christians are called to give a “tithe” of their income to the church, but one may also give over and above, voluntarily, an “offering.” The tithe is expected; the offering is a freewill gesture. But is this involuntary/voluntary distinction between the tithe and offering supportable biblically, or is it more a distinction resulting from tradition or pragmatism (i.e., it’s a convenient and helpful practice)?
Dr. David A. Croteau
(If you read to the end you can give your feedback in a brief poll, so read on!)
I’ve just finished reading, You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe?: A Deconstruction of Tithing and a Reconstruction of Post-Tithe Giving, by David A. Croteau (a book in the McMaster Divinity College’s Theological Studies series). For one raised in a tradition that assumed tithing to be an established biblical principle, applicable from the time before Moses to the current day, I’ve found this carefully researched study to be both challenging and refreshing. Related to the above question, Croteau is helping me rethink the tithe/offering distinction.
Tithing Then
For context, many Christian today understand tithing as the practice of giving one tenth of one’s income to one’s local church. This practice is usually grounded in certain Old Testament Bible passages that mention God’s people, both before and during the implementation of the Mosaic law, as giving a tithe of their resources indirectly to God. I say indirectly because actually the resources were given to people whom God had designated to be recipients of the tithe.
For example, the Levites were a tribe of ancient Israelites who were called to dedicate themselves to religious service. But this meant that unlike other tribes they had not inherited any land (aside from four dozen cities) on which to grow their own food. Non-Levite tribes were to tithe of their resources (specifically, the produce of the land, with other forms of income not being mentioned) so that the Levites might have food, and be able to dedicate themselves explicitly to sacred ministry. It was God’s way of ensuring that the Levites shared an inheritance along with the other tribes.
Aside from tithing 10% to the Levites, ancient Israelites were required to participate in other regular tithes, which, according to Croteau, totaled about 20% of their resources (others report a bit less or a lot more, but 20% seems a reasonable number here). So where did the idea of only a 10% tithe come from?
The 10% cap is often tied to pre-Moses Israelite history. Here Abraham serves as the prime example, having given 10% of his spoils of war to the enigmatic priest, Melchizedek. Croteau does note that Abraham’s tithe is only ever mentioned as a one-time event and not a regular practice, but leaving that aside, the point here is that the 10% number used here has become a firmly established biblical directive for Christian giving today. But how exactly did that happen, and how did the sharing of agricultural resources expand to include other gross income?
Tithing Now
The popular application for tithing today, as far as I understand it, reasons by analogy more or less along the following lines.
Just as ancient Israelites tithed to a group overseeing sacred work (Levites), so too must Christians today tithe to support sacred and Christian missional work.
Nowadays, since pastors and/or church staff function in ways roughly analogous to Levites, tithes should go to the church to support the pastors/staff and the general work of the church.
Further, since we don’t function primarily as an agricultural society, we don’t give the fruit of the land, but a percentage of our earned income (and I will skirt the gross vs. net debate here).
The tithe, again, is considered a requirement for all Christians, often regardless of one’s financial situation. To not tithe is often deemed as stealing from God, based on a very literal application of an OT text, Malachi 3:8 (which we will return to shortly). So, in this logic, tithing is important and negligence of this duty is no small matter.
Interlude: Giving Is Good
Let me interrupt briefly and say at this point that I’m all in favour of supporting pastors, teachers, and church ministries with ample giving. Generous giving is needed to help the church (and parachurch ministries) do what they’re called to do. Very often those called to such ministries are personally sacrificing much to be faithful to their God-given callings, and the corporate church needs to share in supporting the ministries they believe should be operating, including caring financially for those who have given up other opportunities to serve in this capacity. The New Testament (NT) clearly calls Christians to do this. So, this post should not in any way be viewed as questioning the necessity of sacrificial giving of all Christians to support the local church and other charitable ministries.
In fact, while Croteau does propose that we ditch all tithing language for Christians today and recognize that we live in a post-tithe era, he nevertheless argues that generous and sacrificial giving is a crucial practice for followers of Jesus. In the place of tithing he argues that the NT provides very good directives that, if accepted, should lead to greater generosity among Christians. He anticipates that following NT giving principles, rather than tithing, would lead many believers to start giving more than an obligatory 10%.
My purpose here, however, is not to explore those NT directives, and so I recommend that you read his book and see what you think.
And now back to the point.
What’s the Deal with “Offerings”?
As noted, a favourite go-to passage in support of present-day tithing is Malachi 3:8-10:
“Will a mere mortal rob God? Yet you rob me. “But you ask, ‘How are we robbing you?’ “In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse—your whole nation—because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it.
Croteau thinks that Malachi 3 is simply been misused when directly applied to Christian programmatic giving today. But again you’ll need to read his book to explore the reasons why. Here I just want to focus our attention on the two key words at the end of v. 8 — “tithes” and “offerings.”
We’ve already surveyed how the concept of tithe is often applied today. But what about “offerings”? After all, both tithes and offerings appear in this very same passage, and so if one is deemed applicable for today, to be consistent, so too should the other. And indeed what I’ve heard pretty much my entire life is that both of these terms can be applied to Christians giving today, but with an important distinction. One type of giving is assumed obligatory and the other not.
To recap, tithing (10% of one’s income) is obligatory for the Christian. That is the minimum expected. But one doesn’t have to stop at 10%, and may also give more, although one is not required to do so. Anything given over and above the tithe, then, is given voluntarily (freely), and is labelled an “offering.” In short, how this is generally conveyed in many churches today is that the tithe is expected of every Christian believer, but offerings are a freewill gift that Christians may give over and above the tithe minimum. Some churches may even teach that tithes are for general church operations, but offerings are over and above, and may be applied to such things as giving to missionaries, building programs, special outreach events, etc.
In any case, these two types of giving — obligatory and freewill — find their biblical basis and defined distinction in Malachi 3.
Or do they?
No Freewill Offerings?
Croteau gives us reason to be less certain of this involuntary/voluntary giving distinction (and oh how we hate uncertainty!). He notes that the offerings in Malachi 3:8 would have been understood in that context not to be freewill gifts over and above the tithe, but instead as a different category of obligatory giving. Offerings, he explains, were particular donations designated to support the priests in their temple duties, in the form of sacrificial foods (e.g., meats and bread cakes). This category of donation is exemplified in what are known as peace offerings, wave offerings, and so forth (Ex. 29; Lev. 7). But contrary to being optional, says Croteau, “Like tithes, these were compulsory contributions required by the Mosaic law for the temple staff.”
…the offerings in Malachi 3:8 would have been understood in that context not to be freewill gifts over and above the tithe, but instead as a different category of obligatory giving.
So, “offerings” were not freewill in contrast to obligatory tithes. Rather, both tithes and offerings were required of Israelites. There was not, at least in the Malachi passage, any idea of a distinction between involuntary and voluntary giving. Again, it was all obligatory.
And aside from Croteau’s historical-cultural observation, it seems to me that this makes better logical sense of the passage as well. One can hardly be accused of robbing God by witholding freewill offerings that one was never obligated to give in the first place, right?
So, the common idea that tithes and offerings are categorically different based on distinct motivations (involuntary/voluntary) cannot be supported by Malachi 3:8. We might look elsewhere in Scripture to support giving over and above what was expected in ancient Israel, but not to Malachi.
Well, so what if both these and offerings are obligatory in Malachi? Glad you asked.
Options for Offerings
If tithes are required today, based on Malachi (and other texts), then why not offerings too? But then we must ask, what exactly would be analogous to an offering today? Remember, an offering is not simply a freewill gift. It is obligatory as much as the tithe. So, if the tithe is 10%, then what ought we to require with regard to the offering?
We have several options. Here are three main directions I think we could take.
1) We could continue to assert that “offering” means a freewill gift, over and above what’s required in tithes. But if Croteau is correct (and if the logic of the passage is to remain coherent), we would have little textual support in Malachi for doing so. We could stop using Malachi for this distinction, however, and maybe that would solve the problem. Although that might also mean coming up with another term other than “offerings” for this type of freewill gift, since Malachi is the one who provides the term.
2) We could, alternatively, stick with Malachi and introduce an “offering” requirement in churches on top of the tithe. This would entail deciding on a fixed amount or percentage that seemed reasonable for the obligatory offerings. So, every believer would be expected to give a 10% tithe and X% in offerings. But that idea might not gain traction quickly, and I’d prefer not to be the one to introduce it!
3) Another option is to simply say that, in contrast to the tithe, the offering in Malachi is no longer obligatory — it was a required sacrifice then, but this requirement no longer applies today. But there’s a consistency problem here. On what grounds would we say obligatory offerings do not continue, when we use the same Malachi passage to largely ground the continuation of tithing?
Which of the above three options do you think would be the most supportable and helpful? How would you overcome the difficulties in selecting that option? Or, what other options might be a way of solving the case of Malachi’s missing “freewill” offering?
A Poll!
There are two ways to respond here. One is to leave a comment. The other is to respond to the quick poll below so we can find out what you’re thinking about this topic. Please take a few seconds to respond to the poll. Thanks!
Peter D. Neumann 