On Monday, the Rev Dr Stephen Jennings, president of the Jamaica Baptist Union spoke to some Baptist ministers on 'Understanding the biblical gift(s) of tongues' at the Bethel Baptist Church. Dr Jennings argued that in the Scriptures, there is not one kind of gift of the tongues, but two. He claimed that the gift of tongues in Acts two meant 'speaking in other languages that other persons can and are meant to understand, for the purpose of helping them to know about the wonders of God' while in 1 Corinthians 14 it meant 'speaking to God in a language known only to God for the purpose of helping or building up one's self in the Lord.'

In today's practice, there is little evidence of the Acts two phenomenon. Rather, what is experienced and witnessed is more of the Corinthian type in which persons speak in unknown tongues. The Bible has given guidelines for speaking in unknown tongues, 'If anyone speaks in a tongue, two - or at the most three - should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God' 1 Cor. 14: 27-28.

Unfortunately, I have never witnessed any interpretation of a sentence spoken in tongues whether on television or at a church. And in fact, these preachers and members ignore the Biblical injunction and often more than three speak in tongues simultaneously and these are supposed to be Holy Spirit-filled, Bible-believing Christians.

The Corinthian passage exhorts that the proclamation of the gospel ought to be given primacy for the purpose of evangelisation, encouragement and edification (v3). And when there is speaking in tongues in a congregation, then there ought to be an interpretation of that message for the purpose of evangelisation (5, 6, 24). This emphasis of speaking in tongues over proclamation of the gospel and speaking in tongues without interpretation is a contributing factor to the decline of church membership in the 20th century. We have neglected evangelism for excitement and ecstatic utterances.

Political tongues

This over-emphasis on speaking in an unknown tongue is affecting sermon preaching. Therefore, it is not surprising that some preachers herald the gospel in a dialect that some in the audience cannot understand and frown on the use of the mother tongue.

Not only leaders in the church like to speak in an unknown tongue that the congregation does not understand but leaders in government are speaking in an unknown tongue that the majority does not understand.

For example, Audley Shaw, minister of finance, seems to be speaking in tongues concerning his absence from the IMF talks. He stated, 'Dr Davies is well aware that the minister is not involved at such a preliminary stage.' (The Gleaner July 13). Shaw's statement seems contradictory because a minister is involved in this preliminary stage in the form of Don Wehby. Is Shaw implying he is 'man a yard' in the ministry of finance and Wehby is a de facto minister of state, a junior minister and not 'the minister'?

Another example where plain speaking is needed is related to the alleged bribery case. Ernest Smith, attorney-at-law, states that his client and fellow JLP MP, Joseph Hibbert, minister of state, is innocent. He states that any money Hibbert received was for airline tickets, per diem, etc.

What he needs to do is to state the amount of money received so that the public can judge whether it was a reasonable recovery of expenses. And did he visit other bidders under the same terms and conditions? We also need to hear from Hibbert himself, first in Parliament and then to the general public.

It seems that both the Church and the State love to speak in tongues rather than speaking plainly for all to understand and to facilitate growth.

Devon Dick is pastor of the Boulevard Baptist Church and author of rebellion to Riot: The Church in nation building. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.