That Which Is in Part

I have had some discussions with people about speaking in tongues. The conventional wisdom in Christian circles seems to be that tongues were done away with; the usual reference given is 1 Corinthians 13:10. That reference has really never made sense to me. I can sort of see it, but not really. In verse eight it talks about prophesies failing, tongues ceasing, and knowledge passing away. In verse nine, it tells us that we know in part, and we prophecy in part. Verse ten says that when "that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." Now, I know this is being nit-picky, but I have to point out that it doesn't say that tongues are in part. It does lump tongues with knowledge and prophesy in verse eight, and tells us that the other two are in part in verse nine, so, by implication, tongues are in part. I'm not sure what that would mean, exactly (I understand the idea that prophesy is in part, because God doesn't show us everything that is going to happen; I understand that knowledge is in part, because there is an awful lot that we don't know--is tongues in part because most of the time we speak the language that we grew up with?) . Now John 21:25 would seem to indicate that the gospels themselves are in part; should they be done away with as well?

Really, though, that's not the point. The point is, what did Paul mean by "that which is perfect?" These people seem to think that he was referring to the completed Bible. Let me again refer you to John 21:25. I don't really want to say that the Bible isn't perfect, but where is the text that covers Jesus' life from 12 to 30? There is an eighteen year gap there, and, to be honest, it doesn't tell us a lot about His early years either. It seems fairly obvious to me that Paul was talking about Christ's return--when He carries us, His children, home. Then we will know and understand all the things that we don't get now. Now, we see through a glass darkly (because we are spiritual beings, but robed in flesh, and we experience things in a carnal way), but then face to face (because when I see Jesus' face, He and I will both be wholly spiritual, with no flesh between us to distort the experience). Let me also point out that in 1 Corinthians 13:12, Paul goes on to say that, "...then shall I know, even as also I am known." That doesn't sound like what was in part was being destroyed, as much as being completed (that works, doesn't it? If that which is in part is completed, then it is no longer 'in part,' so that which is in part has been done away).

Personally, I find it hard to believe that tongues have been done away with: It seems to me that all the gifts that God gave to the early church He gave to the church. The church is still around, so the gifts are still around. Some of them are much rarer now than they were (that may simply signify a lack of faith on our part), I have to admit that the vast majority of the time that I have heard 'speaking in tongues,' it just sounded like jibber-jabber to me. Were they faking it, or was I just not properly attuned to hear it for what it was? I can't be sure. I do believe that there is a lot of fakery out there. I suspect that there are probably a whole lot more people pretending to speak in tongues than actually speaking in tongues. Does that mean that tongues are done away with? I don't think so.

One story that I want to pass on, just because it's kind of related: Some years ago, some friends and I went to visit a Baptist Church in Milwaukee. One of the pastors there had a doctorate in theology, and was a very educated man. At one point during the service, he began leading in prayer, and, partway into the prayer, he stopped speaking English. Now, I am not nearly as well educated as he was, but I recognized a few words as ancient Hebrew (or possibly modern Hebrew--I'm not sure I could tell the difference). After the service, one of my friends started laughing at the pastor, "I thought Baptists didn't believe in speaking in tongues!" I tried to explain that he wasn't speaking in tongues, but he wasn't listening. Of course, there are about 400 different flavors of Baptist in this country, so I don't think it's fair to say that Baptists don't believe in speaking in tongues. Some of them do, don't they?

Babel

In the book of Genesis, there is a story about the tower of Babel, and where God confounded man's language, to make it harder for us to work together against His purpose. Some people question the veracity of the account, but certainly language is often a barrier to communication. This is not only true of people that don't speak the same language, it is often true of people that speak the same language, but in different ways.

It's been said that the United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language. We say that we speak English, but there are many differences between the English spoken in the Untied States and the English spoken by the English people. Some of things that have evolved since the US gained its independence, some are things that simply were not standardized until after the split, still other things were adopted by one country or the other as a result of immigration. Automobile terminology provides several examples: What we in the US call the trunk (of the car), the Brits call the boot; what we call gas, they call petrol; our bonnet is their hood; etc. We still use the same units of measure, although the EU has tried to get the UK to adapt metric units.

It's also true that specialists in a particular field have a tendency to develop their own jargon. This is not always an attempt to be exclusionary, but it does work out that way sometimes. Jargon can make people within a certain specialty communicate more effectively with each other, but make it harder to communicate with 'outsiders' who are not familiar with the jargon. One individual I know has told me many times that PhD really stands for "Please Have Dictionary." If you've ever taken a college course taught by a PhD, you probably know exactly what he means. It isn't that they are trying to obfuscate the learning environment, however, the tendency to eschew technical terminology amongst individuals being indoctrinated into the profession isn't always what it should be. Sometimes the terms used within a profession become so ingrained that the professional doesn't stop to think that he or she needs to simplify the terminology when speaking to trainees, customers, or anyone else that wouldn't be familiar with the jargon.

Another thing that I have run across on occasion is that journalists are experts in researching things and expressing those things in such a way that the average person can understand. Journalists spend a lot of years in college learning the skills necessary to accomplish this. Unfortunately, they learn about writing, but they don't learn very much about the subject matter that they are supposed to be writing about. Frequently newspaper or magazine articles appear that have been considerably 'dumbed-down,' either as a result of the reporter's limited knowledge of the subject matter, or the reporter's belief that the average person knows even less than the reporter. Occasionally this happens simply because the publication isn't willing to let the article take up enough space in order for it to contain a thorough explanation of the subject. I get irritated sometimes when something happens, but when I read the local coverage of the event, I find myself still unsure of what actually happened. Doing a little research, I find another account of the same event, only to find that it's pretty much word-for-word the same account. Why? because both articles came off of the AP newswire, and the AP reporter didn't get the details that I was looking for. In those instances, I really wish that I could talk to somebody who has first hand knowledge.

One of the things that disturbed me the most is that a lot of people read books about what the Bible says, but don't ever actually read the Bible itself--not even to check the passages referred to in the book. Even if the author is legitimately trying to make scripture easier to understand, at best, you are limiting yourself to his understanding. I don't mean to suggest that such books are bad, or that reading those books won't help (sometimes they will, but sometimes they won't), but I will say that if you read the scripture for yourself, you may gain a greater understanding.