Tongues and worship: is Corinth a good guide?

by clayboy on July 10, 2009 · 11 comments

in Liturgy

I increasingly wonder how much First Corinthians pulls our understanding of worship in the early church out of shape.

Take the example of tongues. In the Acts of the Apostles this occurs in the context of initiation: on Pentecost, with the conversion of Cornelius’ household, and with the conversion of those who had only received the baptism of John. It is effectively presented as the Spirit settling disputed matters by sealing the conversions with the same sign.

Outside this usage (and discounting for obvious reasons the longer ending of Mark) every other reference to glossolalia comes in First Corinthians, a church which is, with its strong Graeco-Roman membership somewhat atypical. That does not, of itself make tongues, or any of the other aspects of worship described there atypical. It does, however, raise the question.

Does our greater knowledge of worship in the Corinthian church, compared to other NT churches, distort our perception of the wider reality?

Bookmark and Share

{ 11 comments }

Bill July 10, 2009 at 21:22

Why doesn’t Peter get more blame for the mess in Corinth? There’s no suggestion that Corinth ever spoke in tongues before his visit, and if so Paul seems ever more gracious in dealing with the controversy. In my estimation, it’s not the strong Graeco-Roman membership that made Corinth so tongue happy. More likely, it was the strong Christian-Jewish population that looked up to Peter, some of whom had probably been present at Pentecost.

Stephen C. Carlson July 11, 2009 at 00:53

It seems reasonable to me to put more weight on 1 Corinthians than on Acts for the practice of glossolalia. First Corinthians is a primary source about contemporary practices of which Paul has first-hand knowledge. Acts is a secondary source about a past congregation, filtered through who knows how many tradents.

clayboy July 11, 2009 at 09:23

Indeed, though that wasn’t my point. My point is that there is no mention of the practice elsewhere in Paul, and therefore the assumption based on First Corinthians that it is normal Christian worship may be worth questioning (along with other assumptions about worship). The relevance of Acts is as the only other NT mention of the practice with a possibly different understanding of it.

Stephen C. Carlson July 11, 2009 at 17:30

I do think that it is worth questioning the evidence of 1 Corinthians. In fact, I think that all our evidence is worth questioning, but at the end of the day we have to rely on the best evidence we have.

clayboy July 11, 2009 at 17:35

Absolutely. This is an area I hope to do some further questioning in. (BTW I’m afraid further comments will need leaving below. For legibility I’ve limited comment nesting to four levels)

Bryan L July 11, 2009 at 18:19

“My point is that there is no mention of the practice elsewhere in Paul, and therefore the assumption based on First Corinthians that it is normal Christian worship may be worth questioning (along with other assumptions about worship).”

Wouldn’t we have to say the same about the Lord’s Supper then?

Bryan L

clayboy July 11, 2009 at 19:13

We would. However, there is a wider range of evidence in other sources to help us with the development of the Eucharist.

Bryan L July 12, 2009 at 01:52

There may be more evidence in the NT for the practice of tongues than the Eucharist. Besides 1 Corinthians the language of praying in the spirit which seems to be referring to tongues in 1 Corinthians also shows up Ephesians 6:18 and Jude 20. Romans 8:26 can also be interpreted to be speaking of praying in tongues. So the evidence for the actual practice of speaking or praying in tongues may be more than just a single problem church. As far as the early church after the NT that’s another issue. I wonder why we would question whether Corinth was a unique church in regards to the practice of speaking or praying in tongues. Paul seems to indicate that it was a normal practice in his life and I have to wonder, if it was, would he would have only shared that with one of his churches.

Bryan L

clayboy July 12, 2009 at 20:24

Note that I did say I was using tongues as an example. Corinth seems to me to have had a unique set of problems in many areas, and we should hesitate before assuming anything there was normal Christian practice.

Bryan L July 12, 2009 at 21:00

You’re right you did say that. I was just trying to point out that 1 Corinthians might not be the only place tongues shows up in Paul or the NT so it might not be a good example.

What other worship practices in Corinth did you have in mind?

Bryan L

clayboy July 12, 2009 at 21:20

Well, there’s hats!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: