Evangelical Christians are divided against themselves. At a time when the world is hungering to hear “good news” in the midst of the secular wasteland, an acrimonious debate about the legitimacy of tongues in the Christian life divides our ranks and saps our energies. This article is an attempt to clear the air and raise the level of rhetoric on both sides. If the evangelical community followed the guidelines proposed, greater harmony would descend and the mission of the Church would advance.
On a corporate level, it is pleasing to see signs of a growing cooperation between Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals. The involvement of Pentecostals in the National Association of Evangelicals and the leadership of Dr. Thomas Zimmerman, president of the Assemblies of God, in the international Key ’73 evangelistic program are two examples of this. However, on the grass-roots level there is little cooperation and a great deal of suspicion.
Two important points must be clarified at the outset. First, the debate over whether tongues in the apostolic age and today were real languages or ecstatic utterances—which many consider crucial to the question of the validity of glossolalia today—is not really vital to the connection between the two. Actually, there is no uniformity of opinion. Frederick D. Bruner (A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Eerdmans, 1970) says that the charismatic movement as a whole affirms both characteristics, “even though the ecstasy may at times appear somewhat peculiar to observers and the language usually unknown to hearers.” The biblical evidence is also somewhat ambiguous. One must agree with the contention that at Ephesus Luke does not delineate the nature of the gift, nor does Paul at Corinth. Arguments may rage, but no conclusion may be drawn, for Scripture itself is silent. Today it is claimed that both types are manifest (see Morton T. Kelsey, Tongue Speaking: An Experience in Spiritual Experience [Doubleday, 1964], pp. 152–60, for an example of tongues as real languages). This would be possible biblically, for while Pentecost featured known languages, First Corinthians 13:1 and 14:2 point to ecstatic speech. The important point is that the nature of the gift cannot be the criterion for veracity. This must be determined from other considerations, especially the manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22, 23) in the life of the tongue-speaker.
The other preliminary point is the supposed distinction between tongues as an initial sign of Spirit-baptism and as the gift of the Spirit. Many Pentecostals teach a definite difference, holding that according to Acts all Christians must experience the former as the necessary step to a higher Christian walk, but that the latter is given by the Spirit as a gift to the individual believer (see Article 7 of the “Statement of Faith” of the Assemblies of God). It is the thesis of this study that Scripture upholds no such distinction. The first section will show that tongues as a gift for this age is valid biblically, while the second section will make the point that glossolalia as the normative, initial evidence of Spirit-baptism cannot be upheld scripturally.
For The Non-Glossolalist
1. Tongues are a legitimate gift of the Spirit to the Church today.
Those who contest the validity of the tongues movement generally do so along the lines suggested in Benjamin Warfield’s Miracles: Yesterday and Today. He argued that miracles, including the gift of tongues, were signs designed to authenticate the apostles, and gradually ceased with the passing of that age. In addition, it is held that glossolalia, where it does appear in church history, arises in heterodox circles like the Montanists; therefore, it is concluded that the gift ceased after the canon was concluded and never truly appeared again (see Anthony Hoekema, What About Tongue Speaking?, Eerdmans, 1966, p. 111 f.). Exegetical evidence is taken from the book of Acts, and from First Corinthians 13:8–12, where it is asserted that Paul prophesied the imminent cessation of this gift.
These arguments are far from convincing. Not only does Paul acknowledge that tongues is a genuine spiritual gift; he also states that he himself practiced it (1 Cor. 14:2, 18). His remarks against it have entirely to do with its abuse in the assembly. When employed in public, tongues must be accompanied with an interpretation, otherwise it is profitless for the Church (v. 27).
Moreover, the New Testament nowhere teaches that the gifts were given solely to authenticate the apostles or that they were to cease after the apostolic age. Geoffrey W. Bromiley writes,
Scripture does not explicitly restrict these gifts to the apostles or their day, and hence we have no ground on which to limit the sovereign disposing of the Spirit.… Though we may not command or claim the charismata, or any specific charisma, the Spirit’s donation may still be looked for as and when he himself decides [The Fundamentals of the Faith, ed. by Carl F. H. Henry, Zondervan, 169, p. 159].
Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, mentions “many brethren in the Church … who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages.” John Calvin in his commentary on First Corinthians not only regarded glossolalia as a legitimate gift of the Spirit but wrote against those who “declaim against them with furious zeal,” saying: “Paul, nevertheless, commands the use of tongues. So far is he from wishing them abolished or thrown away.” In his journal for November 25, 1795, John Wesley noted the occurrence of tongues and expressed the opinion that the danger was less an overemphasis than a suppression or denial of spiritual gifts.
Finally, Paul does not teach the cessation of tongues in particular at the close of the apostolic age. First Corinthians 13 is a bridge passage between his remarks on the distribution of gifts (chapter 12) and their regulation (chapter 14). In it the Apostle indicates that love is the context in which all the gifts must be exercised. The only cessation to which he refers is that which occurs at the coming of Christ (v. 10).
Our approach to tongues must be open-minded, inductive exegesis of the biblical text. Outright repudiation is unscriptural.
2. The glossolalist should be welcomed into Christian fellowship and accepted into all cooperative endeavors.
Divisions over the tongues question are due as much to the harsh condemnation meted out by non-glossolalists as to anything else. Tongues is not a matter of fundamental truth and thus cannot be determinative of fellowship. Contrary to popular opinion, most glossolalists do not weave their entire theology or personal religion around this gift. An even superficial acquaintance with the movement will make clear the centrality of Christ. Honesty requires us to admit that very often there is an exuberance and joy in charismatic circles for which all believers deeply yearn. Instead of condemning and ostracizing, let us put glossolalists to the test: welcome them into worship, fellowship and service. That is the only Christian way.
There is a caricature that must be smashed. Many Christians look down on the glossolalist as a neurotic, insecure person who can express himself only in unseemly emotional ways. But some psychological tests have indicated that the opposite may be true. Glossolalists do not suffer from a higher incidence of abnormal personality than other people, and in many cases the gift as a religious experience seems to contribute to mental health (see L. M. Vav Eetveldt Vivier, Glossolalia, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1960, and E. Mansell Pattison, “Behavioral Scientific Research on the Nature of Glossolalia,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, XX [1968], 73–86). Hyper-emotionalism is no necessary ingredient of tongues.
There is a tendency also to practice social discrimination with glossolalists. They are thought to belong only to the lower strata of society, economically and intellectually. The prominence of leaders such as Dennis Bennett, Episcopal rector from Seattle, and the appearance of the gift on prestigious campuses throughout the United States reveal this as a baseless charge.
Speaking practically, of course, there are distinctives that make difficult a united worship of Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals. Differing styles of church meeting have developed along denominational lines, just as have differences over the sacraments. However, this need have no bearing on interdenominational fellowship and cooperation; there is a very real basis for unity in all major issues. Moreover, churches need not split when tongues breaks out within them. Paul left room within the worship service for such manifestations (1 Cor. 14:26, 39), so long as certain guidelines were followed—edification (14:5, 26), interpretation (14:5, 13, 28), self-control (14:27), order (14:40), and the absence of proselytizing (12:18–31). This last is the foundation stone of combined worship and continued unity. Anyone who insists on propagating his distinctive practice—be it tongues, a certain mode of baptism, or foot-washing—removes himself from those who do not practice such. The proper view of glossolalia will recognize it as an individual gift depending on the sovereign choice of the Spirit, not a corporate experience every Christian must undergo.
On the positive side, it is impossible to ignore the place of tongues in several highly significant evangelistic movements of our day. The young “Jesus people,” a large body of newly converted Christians, belong, for the most part, to the charismatic movement. It is difficult, after reading David Wilkerson’s The Cross and the Switchblade, to doubt that tongues has played a role in the rehabilitation of many drug addicts.
At the end of Paul’s discussion of the problem, he commands that tongues not be forbidden (1 Cor. 14:39). Granted, it is not the best gift with which tc edify the Church. Nevertheless, it has validity and should be gratefully received by all Christians as coming from God.
For The Glossolalist
1. Tongues is not the normative sign of Spirit-baptism.
Here we must consider the first aspect of the Pentecostal distinction, that the universal, initial sign of Spirit-baptism, itself subsequent to salvation, is tongues. As such it differs from the gift of the experience, given only to some. In all fairness, however, it must be said that many Pentecostals insist that the experience should continue to be enjoyed after the initial reception. Bruner (p. 144) writes, “This reasoning is not difficult to follow, for given the necessity of the evidence of tongues in the Spirit-baptism, not to continue speaking in tongues after having begun seems to be not only unspiritual but unnatural, indicating, it is sometimes argued, a lack of faith (Mark 16:17) and of obedience (1 Cor. 14:5).”
The Book of Acts is held to demonstrate the normative value of tongues. Six special passages are used to defend its necessity—Acts 2 (Pentecost), 4:31 (the second Pentecost), 8 (Samaria), 9 (conversion of Saul), 10–11 (convers on of Cornelius), and 19 (the “Ephesian Pentecost”). Pentecostals argue that in every case in Acts, tongues is present as the conspicuous evidence of the power of the Spirit’s coming upon the individual. Also, they teach that this is meant for every age of the Church.
This argument is weak methodologically and exegetically. Didactic portions of Scripture must have precedence over historical passages in establishing doctrine. We ought to move here from the teaching of First Corinthians to the narrative of Acts rather than the reverse. When one follows this proper methodology, one notes that there is no manifestation of tongues that is normative. Each member of the body of Christ, according to Paul, enjoys a manifestation of the Spirit for the common good (1 Cor. 12:7, 11). There is not one gift that all Christians share (v. 19 f.). Glossolalia is simply not normative. The infallible sign of spiritual fullness is moral and religious (see Gal. 5:22–6:2; Eph. 5:18–20; Col. 3:16). It is germane to point out that the Corinthian Christians, with their overemphasis, tended to be carnal and unspiritual (1 Cor. 3:1–4).
More important to the issue, the Book of Acts does not establish a normative experience for the believer today. Without doubt Acts describes the appearance of glossolalia on at least three important occasions (2:4–13; 10:46; 19:6). It is only fair to point out, however, that in, the other instances alluded to by Pentecostals, Scripture does not mention tongues and does not require such a manifestation. Moreover, each of the three cases mentioned above was a special circumstance that marked a turning point in the spread of the Gospel. The appearance of glossolalia in each instance meant God’s authentication of that progression of the Gospel.
Three further points may be gleaned from the evidence of Acts. For one thing, there is a significant absence of the “seeking” of tongues, a central Pentecostal distinctive. There is no record that any person sought the gift, according to the primary passages—Acts 2; 8; 10, and 19. Also, there is no evidence of a Spirit-baptism subsequent to salvation. The phenomenon in many instances accompanies salvation, as in the case of Cornelius and Paul. Moreover, there may be repeated fillings (e.g., Acts 4:31) that are not equated with charismatic gifts. Finally, it is striking how often the outpouring of the Spirit is referred to where glossolalia is not mentioned (see, for example, Acts 2:41; 4:4; 6:7; 8:36; 9:42).
We may conclude that the historical narrative of Acts does not establish the normative role of tongues. Indeed, Acts seems to stress bold witness as a sign of spiritual depth (4:31). This explains the success in the lives of men like Wesley, Moody, Torrey, Graham—each of whom has known the fullness of the Spirit and yet has not been reported to have spoken in other tongues. Men such as these are living proof that this exegesis is correct—there is no Spirit-baptism subsequent to salvation that is initially evidenced by tongues.
2. The glossolalist should not take a superior attitude toward those who have not experienced tongues, nor should he coerce others to do so.
It must be stated that Pentecostals themselves are among the harshest critics of such a “spiritual aristocracy” attitude among adherents. One can easily understand how the person who accepts tongues as the only initial evidence of Spirit-baptism and as a natural subsequent experience could come to look on the person who hasn’t experienced it as spiritually stunted.
However, it is the thesis of this study that glossolalia is not to be sought nor propagated. Of course, one must expect Pentecostals, given their doctrinal stand, to propagate their views; they could hardly do otherwise. The purpose here is to seek the biblical standard against which these views must be examined.
The Book of Acts shows, as we have already seen, that tongues was never sought in the apostolic age. First Corinthians 12–14 places the historical description there on a doctrinal plane. A brief perusal of this passage will establish Paul’s view of tongues. In chapter 12 he discusses the distribution of the gifts of the Spirit, focusing on tongues. In 12:4–11 he teaches that this, like all other gifts, is given according to the sovereign choice of the Spirit rather than the individual desire of man. Verses 12–27 add that each person has a separate function, and that the various gifts distributed to different men unite in a combined whole; the gifts are separately given but corporately united, each with its part in the Body of Christ. The conclusion is seen in verses 28–31, which definitely show that no gift is meant to be universally distributed. In verse 30, which should be translated “All do not speak in tongues, do they?,” the principle is enunciated that this gift is meant only particularly and not universally.
Chapter 13, usually separated from its context, is meant to establish the principle that must guide the exercise of these gifts: self-giving love. In verses 1–3 tongues is placed among other gifts and is not seen as universal any more than the others. The last part of the chapter, beginning with verse 8, then continues this theme, pointing to tongues as one among many gifts, all of which cease at the Parousia, when they will be absorbed by Love.
Finally, chapter 14 applies this practically. While an exegesis of this comprehensive passage is not possible here, a few significant points may be made. First, glossolalia must not be practiced publicly apart from interpretation, and its goal must always be edification (vv. 1–13). Furthermore, it is better for private use than for public demonstration (vv. 14–19), because in public it is a negative sign that will only further the unbeliever in his state (vv. 20–25). Finally, the very strict regulations governing its public manifestation are relevant to this study—the restriction of the number who may speak, the necessity of an interpreter and of rational judgment regarding the proceedings, the prohibition against speaking (a point whose applicability to our time is controversial), women, and the overriding importance of order in the service (vv. 26–40).
These chapters presuppose the limited distribution and use of this particular gift. There is no room for active seeking, only for passive waiting for the particular gift the sovereign Spirit bestows on each one. This is intended for both the initial baptism, which is not sought but is automatically received at conversion, and for the gift, which is different for each individual. In view of such considerations, it is common sense to insist that the value of this gift be soberly measured and its practice carefully controlled. “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (14:32).
Conclusion
Non-glossolalists run the risk of quenching the Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19–21). So long as the biblical safeguards are observed, there is no reason why glossolalia should alarm us or hinder the work of God. Glossolalists for their part often place too great an emphasis on the gift and engage in unscriptural proselytizing. It is clear that the spirit of First Corinthians 13 is to condition and control this discussion between brethren. A. B. Simpson was right when he wrote:
We believe the Scripture teaching to be that the gift of tongues is one of the gifts of the Spirit, and that it may be present in the normal Christian assembly as a sovereign bestowal of the Holy Spirit upon such as he wills. We do not believe that there is any Scriptural evidence for the teaching that speaking in tongues is the sign of having been filled with the Spirit, nor do we believe that it is the plan of God that all Christians should possess the gift of tongues. This gift is one of many gifts and is given to some for the benefit of all. The attitude toward the gift of tongues held by pastor and people should be, “Seek not, forbid not” [quoted in the Alliance Witness, May 1, 1963, p. 19].
Clark H. Pinnock is professor of theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He has the Ph.D. from the University of Manchester. Grant R. Osborne is a student and instructor in Greek at Trinity, from which he received the M.A. degree in 1971.
