Which Tongues Count? Pt.2

The Challenge of Misused Tongues: A Survey

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?

²³So 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? …. ²⁷If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. ²⁸If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
1 Corinthians 14:23, 27-28

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? Pt.1

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. ²Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. ³They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. ⁴All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. ⁵Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. ⁶When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. ⁷Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? ⁸Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? ⁹Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, ¹⁰Phrygia 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!” ¹²Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”
Acts 2:1-12 (NIV)

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:

⁴⁴While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. ⁴⁵The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. ⁴⁶For 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.”
Acts 10:44-47 (NIV)

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.

Navigating through Doctrinal Change: A Guide for the Perplexed, Pt. 4

Now we come to the final tip in this series. To recap, during times of doctrinal change and uncertainty our inner and social worlds may feel considerably destabilized. This uncertainty is due to the multifarious opinions on pretty much all theological matters online, in books, podcasts, webinars, and so forth. And even more personally, for me, this uncertainty is intensified because my denomination, the PAOC, is undergoing a “doctrinal refresh,” and rewriting its doctrinal articulation, its Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths (SOFET).

The full SOFET revision in scheduled come to the General Conference floor for some sort of decision in 2020. So, approaching this event, I thought it might be helpful to process not the specific content of PAOC doctrinal beliefs, but instead how we process our beliefs in general. Understanding this will provide a framework for decision-making when it comes to doctrinal decision-making. Let me also state here that the points in this blog series are not intended to be applied only to PAOC contexts. I’m really trying to outline a helpful way for Christians of all stripes to think about their beliefs.

To this point I’ve recommended two tips in my previous blogs in this series: 1) Don’t panic (dealing with the psychological impact of challenges to our beliefs), and 2) Be humble when it comes to what we think we can know, and be ok with some level of uncertainty.

Now we come to the final tip.

Tip 3: Accept that there are Levels of Theological Truth (not all “fundamental and essential truths” are necessarily fundamental or essential for Christian faith)

Off the bat this might look like I’m challenging the title of the PAOC’s SOFET, but that’s not really my goal here (I can live with the title). The challenge is that the SOFET contains doctrines that are neither fundamental nor essential to Christian faith. This doesn’t mean these are not important doctrines (especially if one intends to hold credentials with the PAOC); it simply means that one can be a faithful Christian without believing every single one of these doctrines. Some of the doctrines are more fundamental and essential than others.

The point is this: There are levels of theological truth, and we need to accept this to function well not only in times of doctrinal refreshes and disputes, but throughout life in general, if we hope to grow in maturity in Christian faith and to avoid psychologically injuring ourselves personally and corporately by living in a state of over-protective hyper-vigilance.

Lest this seem to be my opinion alone, I’m happy that this very point was made publicly by a member of the SOFET committee during a presentation at the PAOC General Conference earlier this year (May 2018). One goal of the SOFET refresh in part is to help better focus the content on what is really fundamental and essential, giving less emphasis to what might be less central. There was no dispute raised on the floor to this idea, and so I will take this silence as tacit consent to the general point I’m making here 😊.

To appreciate this, we need to better understand how we tend to hold beliefs mentally.

A Common Belief Model: The House of Cards

One of the most helpful illustrations regarding how we tend to hold beliefs comes from Gregory Boyd’s, The Benefit of the Doubt. He proposes two models for how we hold our beliefs psychologically: a house of cards and concentric circles.

The house of cards model refers to the pastime of building a “house” using playing cards by leaning one card up against another. By progressively adding cards, an impressive structure can be erected. Provided that all the cards remain in place, one can continue to add to the structure, making it ever more complex. But the very method of construction is also the inherent weakness of this house. Every card relies on all the others for its stability. Remove one card and the entire house collapses.

Boyd says that often Christians hold their beliefs in a similar way. This is often due to what I addressed in my second tip (part 3 of this blog series), that we may have learned to take all teaching we have received from pastors and Christian leaders as absolute truth. All of it. And when we do this, we begin to feel that each of these “truths” bears equal importance. No one likely asserts this explicitly, but it becomes a psychological reality. Each “truth” functions like a card in the overall doctrinal house of cards. Each conviction is so emotionally connected to the others that each comes to bear almost equal weight. We feel it deeply because we’ve learned to do so. And when all the beliefs are in place, we feel safe within the walls of our cozy card-house fortress.

This does imply, however, that each card in our fortress needs to be protected as if our life of faith depended on it. For if even one belief is doubted, or turns out to be untrue, the entire mental structure is jeopardized, and this can easily lead to a crisis of faith.

For example, we might happen to discover, despite what our pastor perhaps strongly preached, that the evidence for a pre-tribulation rapture in Scripture is not so blatantly obvious as we supposed in contrast to other timing-of-the-rapture theories (or even more unsettling, that there might be far less scriptural evidence for a two-stage return of Jesus than assumed in dispensationalist systems!). Now, please know that this paragraph is not intended to open the door for a debate on eschatology and Left Behind novels—that’s not the point. The example above is only intended here for hypothetical illustration. The point is that if one becomes less sure about something they were told was very true, and they find out it isn’t necessarily as true (or maybe outright false), and if that doctrine was promoted as being of great importance (such that to not believe it would make your commitment to Jesus or at least the church community suspect), then this does open to door to wondering what else you were taught that doesn’t have quite the scriptural backing you thought. And this, I believe, is the place many faithful Christians are in today.

In the house of cards model, once one conviction is weakened the entire structure is threatened. When one doctrine is removed, the edifice collapses.

How the House of Cards Model Affects Us

How does this affect those holding this model, practically? I will stereotype here for convenience, but this I think the following is fairly accurate.

Personally, holding this model has the advantage of providing a feeling of assurance and confidence; at least most of the time. And this feeling feels so good. However, it also comes with potential anxiety over losing this feeling by being exposed to new information or ideas that do not fit within the card house, and so one needs to be vigilant to spot any maverick theology that might threaten the safety of the card fort. Theology in this view is often assumed to be a fixed discipline; theology is something figured out by theologians about 500 years ago or so (in Protestant traditions and their offspring). Currently, all we need to do is package theology in new ways to ensure cultural relevance. The content doesn’t (should not!) change, and so all that’s required is be reminded from time to time of what we believe (i.e., what has been resolved once and for all), and then market this content better (or not). But any revisions to theology are considered threatening in this model because they are considered a movement away from a static deposit of truth. So, personally opening oneself to, say, new scientific discoveries, or alternative Christian viewpoints on any number of matters is by default a move away from truth and toward a potential collapse of faith. Openness to knowledge from outside the doctrinal system is often considered too risky, and so one avoids listening to other than what one has been taught.

Socially, this model does connect people in strong ways, provided they all agree on pretty much everything. But this requires a hyper-vigilance among those in the particular church community. One must not only constantly evaluate oneself, but also others to determine whether they are in or out of, or poses a danger to, the house of cards. Public expression of doubts, questions, or alternative ideas is discouraged on threat social exclusion (or at least not being quite “trusted,” which removes leadership opportunities). Theologically, this model can encourage debates concerning non-essential theological matters, since there are (almost) no non-essential theological matters! Such communities are ripe breeding grounds for judgmentalism and theological witch-hunting.

Although there are positives—feeling certain and being strongly connected to like-minded others—the house of cards model is not sufficiently flexible for mature Christian faith. The world is more complex than this model allows, and it fails to acknowledge that humans can continue to grow in knowledge of God and the universe. Another model is needed.

A Better Belief Model: Boyd’s Concentric Circles

As an alternative to the house of cards, Boyd recommends a concentric circles model of beliefs. In a concentric circle, certain beliefs are more central or core than others. Outside the core are beliefs that are of secondary or tertiary importance. This does not mean that beliefs outside the core are not significant; it only means recognizing that not all beliefs are as vital as others. In this model beliefs are still connected to one another, but we ought to hold more tightly to those in the core, and less tightly to those further from the centre.

Is this idea itself biblical? I think so. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:1-3a sates,

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. ²By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. ³For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance… (NIV)

The Apostle Paul goes on to describe “the gospel,” which serves as the ground of faith upon which Christians stand. Paul believed that some beliefs are foundational to the Christian faith, and this implies that others are not. Foundational beliefs are, then, those we can consider within the core of the concentric circle model. Not all beliefs can fit into the core, since not all serve as the ground of Christian faith.

Again, this doesn’t mean that other beliefs are not important, but not all are essential or primary in this way. It does mean, however, that we need to consciously commit ourselves to the idea that some convictions are second- or third-level convictions (or beyond). While valuable, non-core beliefs deserve to be held less tightly than others, and we need to be more cautious about allowing these to serve as criteria for Christian fellowship. A partial exception to this might be when it comes to denominational or church membership, but when it comes to accepting someone as a fellow Christian, the core beliefs are what ought to provide the criteria, and not those outside the core.

How the Concentric Circles Model Affects Us

Practically, what’s the benefit of the concentric circles model?

Personally, it helps us be less anxious when we feel less than certain about one of our beliefs, especially the non-core ones. We can incorporate questions and doubts into the overall process of maturing in our life of faith. We’ll be able to experience correction and modification of our beliefs, and ideally be open to pursuing truth wherever it might be found in God’s creation.

Socially, this model makes it easier to make room for others with different opinions. They will no longer be viewed as spiritually inferior or as a threat to the faith fortress. Instead, there will be an appreciation of diversity within Christ’s body in both beliefs and practices. And this should overall contribute to a healthier, stronger missional environment, since we will be less concerned with defending the fort, and more concerned with outreach.

The Spider’s Web: Supplementing the Concentric Circles

Now, it’s one thing to rationally adopt the concentric circles beliefs model, but quite another to live it.

John Stackhouse supplements our discussion here by likening the way we hold our beliefs to a spider’s web (I think it was here that I heard him mention this). Any touch on one strand of the spider’s web reverberates through all the others, signalling the spider that it may be lunchtime or that an enemy is near. For us (non-spiders), when a question, doubt, or unfamiliar idea begins to tug at a strand even at the peripherals of our belief web, it vibrates to the core of our psychological and spiritual being. Even if we have rationally determined that a particular doctrinal belief we hold is non-core (say, whether biological evolution is involved in God’s creation process or not), when a challenge to that belief is presented, it may very well feel like our core beliefs are being compromised.

The spider’s web analogy should encourage patience with ourselves and others as we move from a house of cards model to a concentric circle model. We may rationally decide the latter model is the better option, but it will take our brains a while to catch up emotionally. It will be a slow learning process, so be ok with that. I think God is patient with us in the process too.

What’s in the Core?

All of this, of course, raises the question of what exactly should fit into the core of our Christian beliefs. And this is probably another area where Christians will disagree! But I don’t think we are left without wisdom in this regard.

Boyd proposes that any belief that is not directly necessary for linking one into relationship with Jesus should be considered peripheral to the core. This is good and helpful, but I’d like to propose another way of identifying what’s core. For me, what belongs to the core of Christian beliefs are those without which there would be no faith to talk about.

What would those beliefs be? I think that those outlined in 1 Cor. 15 are a good start (you can find this chapter here). There Paul states that the gospel, on which believers take their stand, is the story of God’s work in and through Jesus, through whom all things will be made right. This includes, then, the following beliefs:

The triune God exists and is working salvifically in the world he created
The Bible occupies a privileged role through which God reveals his salvation plan through Jesus
Jesus is the incarnate God-man who lived, was crucified and resurrected
Jesus ascended and poured out the Spirit at Pentecost shaping church life
Jesus will return and reconcile all things to the Father forever

A similar content is found in the Apostles’ Creed. That’s what’s core to the Christian faith, since without it, there is no Christian faith to talk about. This is not a story primarily about me or us, but the story of Father, Son, and Spirit, who wants to include us in the divine story.

What would fall outside the core? A whole lot. In my view this would include matters such as how God created the universe and humans and when, whether Jesus returns in two stages or one, whether God meticulously governs the universe or allows a measure of libertarian freedom to humans and other spiritual agents, whether tithing is necessary or just a helpful spiritual practice, and so forth. Such would not be core to Christian faith, but again this does not mean that these are not important—I tend to think some of these issues are very significant for how we live out Christian life. So some of the above would be closer to the core for me, but not in the core. This also doesn’t mean that opinions on these issues are all of equal value. Some may have more biblical and theological support, and so be truer than others. It’s just that they are not core to Christian faith.

Finally, it also needs to be acknowledged that whether a non-core doctrine is still retained as a denominational credential or church membership requirement is a different matter. Denominations need to be practically allowed space to define who will be allowed in their leadership or membership, and so even secondary and tertiary beliefs may be identified as “essential,” not for being a Christian, but for holding association within a formal institution. My only caution in this regard is that denominations should probably add as few non-core doctrines as possible to their membership essentials (just like the church did in Acts 15). This will help the denomination avoid ghettoizing itself, and open it to the potential creativity and ideas of those who may have different views, backgrounds, and experiences than those traditionally embedded in the formal organization. As a Pentecostal, I happen to think that Acts 2 and 15 encourages holding less tightly to non-core matters of doctrine and community ethics for the sake of mission, and including all sorts of others so we can better bear witness to Jesus. But that’s all I’ll say about that here.

My hope for this four-part series has been that it would provide a way of navigating through doctrinal uncertainty and change. If it has helped you or if you have further questions or thoughts, please let me know by commenting below (or by sending an email). Thanks for reading!

Reflection

Have you been holding your beliefs in more of a house of cards or concentric circles model? How has this psychologically affected the way you’ve lived out your faith?
What theological truths would you place in the core, and which ones would you place outside of the core? Why? What non-core beliefs are closer to the centre for you, and why? How do you determine what belongs in the core?

Peter Neumann is available to speak at your church or other gathering about this and other theological and topics, including: emerging adults and faith, salvation, the Holy Spirit and Pentecostalism, and other questions about the Christian faith. Peter can be contacted at peter.neumann@mcs.edu.