Adrian Warnock has quoted a section from Martin Lloyd Jones on the gift of tongues in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14. (Thanks for Peter Kirk for linking to earlier parts of this discussion.)
There are two comments I would like to make on this issue, both of which relate to the Biblical background material.
First, commenting on the view that Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians refer to two completely different gifts, he says (as quoted by Adrian Warnock):
But, again speaking for myself, I find it very difficult to accept that view because I find that the terms which are used in Acts and in 1 Corinthians are precisely the same and it seems to me to be unnecessary to postulate two different meanings, if one will account for it all. ‘But,’ someone may say, ‘we are told that on the Day of Pentecost everyone heard the apostles speaking in their own language.’ Of course. That seems to me to be a part of the miracle that took place. In other words, I suggest that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the people who were listening were enabled to hear in their own language though their own language was not being spoken.
I think there is a bit of a problem here in that the use of the same terms in different contexts need not have precisely the same meaning. Terms generally have a range of meanings, and we might better ask the question of just what range of meaning these terms can have. They are clearly used in different contexts. In Acts there is no mention of any problem with understanding. There are those who say they are drunk, and presumably do not understand the speech, but that is not an example of a problem with the gift in action, but rather with the response. In the Corinthian church we have the gift used in a worship service, not in a purely evangelistic setting. We clearly have some people exercising their tongues (double meaning intentional), while nobody is understanding, and thus nobody is being built up. We have individuals giving the interpretation, indicating that only some were able to understand, at least on a regular basis.
Dr. Lloyd-Jones has a good point, I think, when he points to a miracle of hearing, rather than one of speaking. But are these differences sufficient to show that this was a different gift? I question whether this is so. I would suggest that the gift of tongues should be given a broader range, as a gift of divine communication, perhaps an impartation of God’s control over language itself. This was applied in Acts through a miracle of hearing, because that fit the situation. It can be applied in prayer individually to a form of spiritual communication, and it can be applied in the worship service with interpretation. All of these instances would refer to the same gift, but in different circumstances.
I would note here that often in discussing spiritual gifts we take a restrictive sense, determining that only the precise application of a gift that we can find described in scripture is appropriate. I would rather apply an inclusive sense, determining the outer boundaries of the gift of tongues scripturally, and allowing the actual application of the gift to flow within those boundaries.
A second point I would like to note is this, again quoting Dr. Lloyd-Jones:
So if you meet people who say they speak in tongues, or if you have been at a meeting where this is claimed, and if there was disorder and confusion, then you are entitled to say, in terms of the scriptural teaching, that whatever else it may have been, it was not the gift of tongues as described in the church at Corinth.
Adrian Warnock commented earlier on his post on this part of the quote:
The Doctor is not easily pidgeon-holed and seems to want to, in one sense, go further than most charismatics would go by saying that tongues in Acts AND 1 Corinthians were not, in fact, foreign languages. He is eager to stress the need for decency and order, however, to the point where he believes that tongues not done in order cannot actually be tongues at all – which seems a bit strange since Paul seems to be addressing a situation where disordered tongue-speaking WAS in fact occurring.
I think I see here possibly the result of another difference in understanding the gifts of the Spirit. I don’t know Dr. Lloyd Jones’s work well enough to know how he approached this, but it’s worth calling attention to the difference anyhow.
Some interpreters who do belief that the gifts continue, don’t see the gifts as given to the person for that person to exercise, but rather see the gift as given for a specific occasion. One description I have heard is: “I have been given the gift of healing (or some other gift) at some times.” In this view, the gift of the Holy Spirit is given for a specific time and place, and thus if something that appeared to be a gift was exercised out of order, one could not attribute it to the Holy Spirit; that would be accusing the Holy Spirit of disorder.
I believe it is more in accord with scripture to view the gifts as given to the individual Christian (though distributed according to the will of God for the needs of the church), and that the individual must choose to exercise them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Due to our own imperfection, we could exercise our gifts improperly. That improper exercise could involve the gift of tongues just as easily as it could involve the gift of teaching. I don’t lose my ability to teach just because I’ve taught error. I’m given the responsibility to exercise my gift properly.
As an illustration, the first time I encountered a word from the Lord given in a tongue followed by an interpretation, the individual with the word spoke first, and then the pastor called for the interpretation. In the end, we had both the tongue and the interpretation together and thus order. But I happen to know that the interpreter didn’t really want to give that word; she was obedient and spoke, but she could have chosen to be silent. Would the Holy Spirit have been retroactively less present in the original word because the interpreter refused to present the hard message she would rather not have presented?
I acknowledge that I don’t have a slam dunk on this, but I do think that it is much more in accord with scripture, especially with the stories of God’s servants, to see gifts as given with the one who receives them having the opportunity and responsibility to use those gifts appropriately.