Does every Christian have a Spiritual Gift?

I remember a few years ago at a home group bible study, we were looking at the question of Spiritual gifts. It is usually assumed that every Christian has at least one "Spiritual gift" (however many different kinds of gifts you think there are), often bundled together with the concept of the "priesthood of all believers". A question I raised at the time, and one which is still not 100% resolved for me, is whether that assumption is really the biblical position? Does the Scripture really teach that everyone has some gift? The three key passages are 1 Corinthians 12-14,  Romans 12:3-8, and 1 Peter 4:10-11. With phrases like "distributing to each one individually as He wills" (1 Corinthians 12:11), "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us" (Romans 12:6), "As each one has received a gift" (1 Peter 4:10), it seems to imply that everyone ("each one") has one of these gifts. But strictly, this may not be necessary. Perhaps it may only mean "each one who has received a gift..." The point in each case is not so much whether each Christian has received some gift, but whether those who have gifts must have the same gift. Indeed, the point in each case is about the diversity of gifts, and that all should work together in unity.

The other question is about how we perceive such gifts. I suspect the default for some of us is as if a gift is like some kind super power (the recent preponderance of superhero movies probably doesn't help). Therefore it must somehow be spectacular or overtly exciting in some way, or at least our fascination is upon gifts that seem more like that. And yet, some of the gifts seem hardly so, thinking perhaps of the gifts of giving, or of showing mercy. More so if we think of the artisans in Moses day who were "filled.. with the Spirit of God", endowed with many skills of craftsmanship (see Exodus 31:1-11 and 35:30-34).

It also seems easier for those with gifts like teaching or preaching (or for that matter, healing or speaking in tongues), to know what they should do, but it seems that for many other Christians, those who don't seem to be gifted in such obvious ways, it can be more of a struggle to find their place in using their gift, whatever it may be.

In any case, there is still a lot to be said for each Christian having at least some gift of the Spirit. The jury is still out, and I'm still pondering :)

Should every Christian Speak in Tongues?

There are always those groups within Christianity who claim that every Christian should speak in tongues (GLOSSOLALIA is the transliteration from the Greek). It seems to have been a problem during the apostolic church, and history has a tendency to repeat itself, often (because humans continue to have the same nature, giving rise to the same problems...) The precedent of course are the instances in Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 19, and perhaps 1 Corinthians 14:5. However, there is always increased difficulty (although not complete invalidity) in proving your case from the implications of narrative accounts as in Acts (compare for example the question of precedent regarding multiple wives from Old Testament narrative accounts), as compared to more direct teaching of say the Epistles (although these are not without their complexities either, and context etc must always be taken into account). Without at this point touching on the question of "What is tongues" and when and how it should be exercised etc, we must surely say that the clearest teaching regarding the spiritual gift must come from 1 Corinthians 12 (assuming, as seems to make the most sense, that the teaching on tongues in 1 Corinthians is also relevant to the manifestations of the Spirit evidenced in Acts), where certainly not everyone is expected to have that gift...

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.   

[1 Corinthians 12:4-31; ESV]

Without doubt Paul is making a strong point that there is unity in one Spirit, through whom the spiritual gifts are given, but there is variety and not uniformity regarding who has what gift, as to "each one" the Spirit gives "individually as he wills". To "one" is given "various kinds of tongues", not to all. And the answer to the question "Do all speak with tongues" is clearly intended to be "no". And with tongues and interpretation at the end of the lists in verses 8-10 and 28-30, Paul is also intending that these are not the "higher gifts" that we should most "earnestly desire".

And so even when we come to 1 Corinthians 14:5, where Paul says "Now I want you all to speak in tongues", we must allow him at least to complete his sentence, "but even more to prophesy". Do tongues advocates equally, or rather more so (according to Paul), advocate that all should prophecy? Perhaps some do (and perhaps some others don't because it is easier for someone to appear to speak in tongues than to speak prophetically...). But I strongly doubt Paul is contradicting his emphatic point already established earlier, in chapter 12. I think it is more likely that he is simply saying in other words "I am happy for anyone to speak in tongues, and receive that gift, and don't want anyone to forbid or discourage a genuine gift of the Spirit". And further, "But if you want my opinion as to whether tongues or prophecy is better, go for prophecy" (and that may have been one of the issues from the Corinthians to which Paul was responding, 1 Corinthians 12:1, "Now concerning...", cf 1 Corinthians 7:1, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote"). Again, not that Paul really though all would become prophets (chapter 12), but if you are going to emphasise wanting something, at least aim high (and asking for more prophets is about as high as you can go, I don't think it is realistic for everyone to ask to become an apostle...).

May the Scriptures always be our guide.

Calvinism is making a comeback?

In another one of the Yahoo groups I participate in, someone pointed out this article in Christianity Today:

Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is making a comeback and shaking up the church

It is an interesting read about the resurgence of Calvinistic/Reformed teaching amongst the American Evangelical scene, particularly the young Evangelicals. For good and ill, I think this last quote captures some of the distinctive post-modern essence of contemporary perspectives of Calvinism today:

It's because the young Calvinists value theological systems far less than God and his Word. Whatever the cultural factors, many Calvinist converts respond to hallmark passages like Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. "I really don't like to raise any banner of Calvinism or Reformed theology," said Eric Lonergan, a 23-year-old University of Minnesota graduate. "Those are just terms. I just like to look at the Word and let it speak for itself."

Actually, this quote reminds me of something I read in a John Frame book, called Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the One Body of Christ (full version, with some updates, available online from this page). Here is some of what he says:

My wife once regularly attended a neighborhood Bible study, with women from Roman Catholic, Charismatic, Arminian, Dispensational, and Episcopal backgrounds as well as some fellow Presbyterians. However, it never became a doctrinal battleground, she says, because the study always focused on the text of Scripture. The women sought to avoid technical theological jargon and tried simply to do justice to what the Bible taught.

Certainly they studied some passages that were heavy with doctrinal content. Romans 9 was one. When the group read Romans 9, Calvinist and Arminian together marvelled at God's control of history including the his control of the human heart. When they got to chapter 10, all with one accord were challenged with the responsibility of human beings to preach the gospel. No one insisted on the dogmatic terminology of "free will" on the one hand, or of "unconditional election" on the other. Romans 9 and 10 spoke for themselves, as it were, and bound these Christian women together in praise and fellowship. All sincerely and warmly received the scriptural message.

Perhaps someone will say that they missed something! A Calvinist might reply that unless we bring in the theological concept of unconditional election, we cannot possibly understand Romans 9, and that therefore the ladies in question were rejoicing in ignorance. An Arminian might say the same thing about "free will." But if God did not inspire Paul to write the words "unconditional election," why should we insist that those precise words-- or the words "free will"-- are necessary to express his meaning?

I have no doubt that the women understood Romans 9 and 10. Would the theological terms have helped them get a better understanding? Perhaps in some Bible studies, but not in this one. In this particular case, introduction of technicalities would have produced unnecessary quarreling-- certainly not the response the Apostle Paul (and God, the ultimate author) intended the text to evoke. And the use of such terms might have exaggerated the extent to which Paul himself had a technical theological purpose in writing these chapters. I have no doubt that an avoidance of technicalities in this particular context gave the women a better understanding of the passages than they would have had otherwise.
Paul wrote these chapters at a time when the Calvinist/Arminian, even the Augustinian/Pelagian, debates were still future. He was not trying to persuade Arminians to become Calvinists, or the other way around. It is not wrong for us today to use these passages to help resolve the controversy. It is wrong to suggest that that is their only legitimate use, or even their chief use, or that the texts can be understood only in the context of that debate. Rather, there are other contexts too; other uses-- such as the ones Paul actually had in mind.

Certainly divine sovereignty and human responsibility are major themes of these passages. But one may appreciate both these themes without concentrating on the historical controversies over them. The ladies in the Bible study praised God's sovereignty, and they accepted the scriptural challenge to their own responsibility. And they did it without argument, without debate, simply listening to the word of God. For them, for an hour or so, the church was one.

Are there not times even in our local church life when it might be best simply to let the text speak (more or less! for we are still "explaining" it to one another) for itself? Do we always have to point out, in expounding Romans 9 and 10, how our party is right and the other party wrong? Does not that very emphasis keep us from appreciating certain nuances and emphases in the passage? Does not that practice exaggerate the importance of the historical controversy?

My wife (like me a good Calvinist) says that it is not hard to convince people of Calvinistic teachings when you avoid using Calvinistic jargon. I agree. Beyond this, there is a slogan among the Reformed that "anyone who prays for another's conversion is a Calvinist." I'm not sure where that came from; it has been attributed to Warfield, Van Til, Vos.. I agree with that too. If you pray for the soul of another, then you believe that person's decision is in the hand of God, not merely a product of the person's "free agency." But many pray like Calvinists, while proclaiming Arminian theology. That doesn't seem consistent to me, but I welcome their prayers, and I'll be happy to have them pray with me for the conversion of sinners. So perhaps my wife's point can be taken a further step: for there are people around who are Calvinists in one degree or another (evidenced by their words and actions), who would not use the Calvinistic jargon, who would, perhaps, even repudiate it.

It seems to me that what we call Calvinism is simply a spelling out of the heart-instincts of all believers in Christ. I can easily persuade myself that the whole church will be Calvinist eventually, if we allow people to read Scripture as it stands, without feeling that we have to rub their noses in historic controversy. There is a certain "smarty pants" theological attitude in wanting to show people of the other party that our team was right all along. We sometimes feel that we need to do that in order to make our case maximally cogent; but in fact that attitude detracts from the cogency of our case. We give people the impression that in order to acknowledge the biblical principle they must also acknowledge us, our denomination, our historical traditions. But no. Biblical principle deserves their allegiance. Our "team" does not necessarily deserve it.