Tests for the Tongues Movement

The charismatic movement, sometimes called neo-Pentecostalism, is now a worldwide phenomenon. It has gained many adherents in the old-line Protestant denominations. It has also made broad inroads into Roman Catholicism; last June nearly 12,000 Roman Catholics, including some interested in the movement but not yet part of it, gathered for a charismatic conference at Notre Dame University in Indiana.

Outside the mainline Protestant groups and the Roman Catholic Church the movement has found devotees among the Jesus people and the youth groups in Europe as well as in America. It has penetrated places and institutions that have been hesitant to endorse it. Tongues-speaking appeared on evangelical college and seminary campuses and in evangelistic groups that work on campuses and in high schools. Reliable reports say that Francis Schaeffer’s L’Abri Fellowship in Switzerland has lately experienced its touch. CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s news editor Edward Plowman has reported on its widespread existence in Europe in out of the way places as well as in cities (see the October 13 issue).

Is the charismatic movement genuine? How is it to be understood in the light of biblical revelation? How does it relate to traditional Pentecostalism? What is the significance of its rise in the Roman Catholic Church and how are Protestants to regard it in that church in the light of the Reformation and even Vatican I and II?

In the phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit” lies the heart of the matter. Traditional Pentecostalism, represented by solid evangelical groups like the Assemblies of God (which is a long-time member of the National Association of Evangelicals), says that subsequent to the experience of salvation, of being born again, there is this second experience of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. The outward evidence of this baptism is speaking in tongues. This baptism is related to sanctification, not to justification, and classic Pentecostalists say every believer should experience it.

Among the implications of this traditional Pentecostal view are these: First, not all saved people are baptized in the Holy Spirit; those who have not are true believers but are missing something they ought to have. Second, those who have not spoken in tongues have not been baptized in the Spirit and so are defective Christians. No doubt this is what causes the great emphasis on Spirit baptism. The emphasis has not sprung from spiritual pride or a feeling of superiority, though some have slipped into these sins. Third, the traditional Pentecostal view rules out the possibility that Christians in the Keswick movement, the holiness movement, and other deeper-life movements that do not practice speaking in tongues have been Spirit-baptized. But members of these groups believe in the infilling of the Holy Spirit, believe that every Christian should be so filled, and believe there are conditions the believer must meet in order to have this experience. Many of them have had an infilling experience and are convinced that they are in no way inferior in their daily walk to those whose baptism has been accompanied by tongues-speaking.

Traditional Pentecostalism has to say that some of the greatest saints through the ages, whatever spiritual experiences they may have had, and however exalted the quality of their lives and the greatness of their ministries, were not Spirit-baptized inasmuch as they did not speak in tongues. This would include Martin Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Knox, Mather, and Edwards, as well as evangelists like Wesley, Whitefield, Moody, Sunday, Chapman, Fuller, and Billy Graham.

The modern charismatic movement should be called neo-Pentecostal in that it functions outside the structures of traditional Pentecostalism, being found in most major and minor Protestant denominations, in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and outside all ecclesiastical fences as well. It is in agreement with traditional Pentecostalism on the subject of baptism in the Holy Spirit accompanied by tongues and in its emphasis on the gifts of interpretation of tongues and healing. But whether there is convergence on the basic Bible doctrines at the heart of the Christian faith is another matter that requires consideration.

We must first nail down the fact that tongues-speaking, in and out of structured Pentecostalism, can be a genuine spiritual experience, validated by Scripture, and manifested by multitudes of people whose Christian integrity and authentic life-style cannot be gainsaid. At the same time two other observations must be made. First, wherever the real exists, the counterfeit makes its appearance. There are phenomena that go by the name of the Pentecostal experience that are spurious, as the film Marjoe makes clear. Marjoe acknowledges that in his evangelistic campaigns he simulated tongues-speaking, and he gave a convincing demonstration in the film. But it was nothing more than a hypocritical performance. The question must be asked, How can one distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit?

A second observation is that there are all kinds of evidence that glossolalia has never been limited to the Christian fraternity. It is found as a worldwide phenomenon among pagans, Hindu holy men, Mormons, and countless others, and some converts from the drug culture say tongues was part of their psychedelic experience.

Since it is not a uniquely Christian experience, there has to be some way the genuine can be distinguished from the counterfeit. This can be done by applying the tests of doctrine and of works to those who profess to have a gift of tongues.

William J. Samarin in his book Tongues of Men and Angels (see October 13 issue, page 26) says that while speaking in tongues is real, the tongues spoken are not languages as known among men. Indeed, he says that the sounds the glossolalic utters lack basic elements common to all spoken languages. Tongues are ecstatic utterances, not known languages. The accounts of how people are supposed to have been given the gift of speaking in a known language are extremely hard to validate; if there have been any since Pentecost they have been few in number. And, strangely, there is no known case in which a missionary received the permanent gift of speaking the language of a group he sought to reach. Missionaries have always had to learn to speak the required languages the hard way. (Nor has any seminary student or Bible scholar ever received the gift of being able to speak and read Hebrew and Greek.)

There are all kinds of testimonies about what tongues-speaking has produced in the Christian life, and this evidence should not be treated lightly. General Ralph E. Haines, Jr., an Episcopal layman who holds one of the highest command posts in the United States Army, gave his testimony at a public meeting in Denver, having been baptized in the Holy Spirit with the accompanying sign of tongues:

What has the baptism of the Holy Spirit done for me? I think it has made me a better man, a better husband, and more understanding of my fellow man. I am much more excited by prayer and Bible study—and I believe more perceptive in both. I am a far stronger witness for Jesus Christ. I have gained a greater joy in my Christian life. I think a Spirit-filled Christian radiates joy. Sometimes I’m so happy I think it’s sinful! Then I realize there is no joy in sin. There may be fleeting pleasure, but there is no enduring joy in sin. I’ve learned recently that a Christian even finds joy in sorrow, in trials and tribulations.

On the other hand, the late Donald Gee of the British Assemblies of God in his book Now That You’ve Been Baptized in the Spirit (reprinted by Gospel Publishing House, 1972) candidly faces some of the problems traditional Pentecostalists have had. He acknowledges that “there is something radically wrong with the experience that gives you gifts and doesn’t give you holiness.” “Some Baptisms are disappointing because some people have been urged to speak in what seemed to be tongues, and I doubt if they have really had the Baptism at all” (p. 28, my italics). He agrees that there are Christians who have never spoken in tongues and thus have never, in his opinion, had the baptism in the Spirit, yet whose lives manifest the fruits of righteousness and the fruit of the Spirit.

That is why people say, “Look at all those beautiful Christians with their holy lives. They have never had this Baptism.” Yes, they are beautiful and we thank God for their lives. What is the explanation? They have Christ in their hearts, they are walking and living with him. Thank God the character of Jesus Christ is revealed in our lives [p. 30].

There are, indisputably, Christians who have not spoken in tongues whose lives in every way match up to the lives of those who have spoken in tongues. And there are even non-tongues-speaking Christians whose lives appear far better than the lives of some who have spoken in tongues. Why then should tongues be thought to be the necessary sign of the Holy Spirit baptism, if all that baptism signified by tongues produces has been equaled and in some cases surpassed in the lives of Christians who have never spoken in tongues?

At this point a warning flag should be raised about experience that cannot be tested by objective criteria. In reviewing The Other Dimension: A Search For the Meaning of Religious Attitudes, a book by Roman Catholic Louis Dupré, Clark Pinnock said the author holds that “we must not commit ourselves to biblical teachings as they stand, but must drive toward the deeper existential meaning of its mythical symbols. ‘All communication from God bears the marks of ultimate incommunicability.’ ” One might also say something about the incommunicability of Dupré’s statement. But this is characteristic of the age in which we live. Thus a popular theologian can warn us that “people who demand a higher norm of truth than human experience are asking for an idol.”

Since charismatics agree that not all tongues-speaking is genuine, that there are non-tongues-speaking Christians whose lives are of the highest spiritual order, and that some who speak in tongues do not in fact show in their lives what the baptism in the Spirit is supposed to produce, we cannot let tongues be the test to determine whether one has been converted. We must get behind tongues to the Scripture and when we get to Scripture we get doctrine. And with doctrine we must now concern ourselves.

Writing about the meeting of 12,000 Roman Catholic charismatics at Notre Dame last June, Willmar Thorkelson of the Minneapolis Star quoted Vinson Synan, author of a very competent history entitled The Pentecostal Holiness Movement, as saying that he rejoiced “at the growth of Catholic Pentecostalism” and that “the Spirit of God told me it was real.” But suppose someone else says it is counterfeit. Whose word shall we then take? The Old Testament abounds with evidences both of true and false prophets. Jeremiah was a true prophet, Hananiah a false one.

The test of a true prophet is whether what he prophesied comes to pass. Hananiah failed this test. The test of the tongues-speaker is not that he has spoken in tongues, for even pagans do this, but how he receives and accepts the propositional revelation of God in Holy Scripture. It is a matter of what he believes, not simply of an experience he has had.

Traditional Pentecostals hold that the baptism of the Spirit produces a change of life-style. Their beliefs have always caused them to eschew alcohol and tobacco. They are genuinely puzzled by Catholic charismatics whose Spirit baptism has not kept them from smoking cigarettes and drinking cocktails. They firmly believe that the body of the Christian is the temple of the Holy Spirit and is not to be defiled. At a time when the surgeon-general of the United States warns that tobacco is hazardous and when cigarette-induced lung cancer is at an all time high, they do not think it amiss to ask: How can a person baptized in the Spirit so defile his body? They feel the same way about alcohol, especially in light of the alcohol addiction of millions of Americans. It is, of course, easier to focus on items like these than it is to deal with such sins as greed, selfishness, racism, gossip, and lack of love; but traditional Pentecostalism teaches that Spirit baptism makes these things inconsistent with the Christian life too.

Surely any true baptism in the Holy Spirit will bring men to Scripture. But Protestants are convinced that parts of Catholic doctrine are unbiblical.

Kevin Ranaghan, a Catholic charismatic lay leader, said the charismatic movement is creating “a whole new breed of evangelists and teachers” who are “permeating the church’s structure in a new way.” He called for the movement to remain inside the Catholic Church and wants “a weeding out” of those elements “not truly of God and not helping to build the church as a whole.” He warned against the example of “eighteenth- and nineteenth-century pious Protestant groups which began to believe that the parent church was false and they had to ‘come out’ of it.… We must be one with the Catholic Church so He will be able to renew the Catholic Church, which has been His body since the day of Pentecost.” To identify the Catholic Church as the Lord’s body since Pentecost would draw strong protests from men like Luther, Calvin, Knox, and their descendants.

At the same meeting, Auxiliary Bishop Joseph C. McKinny of Grand Rapids appealed to the charismatics to “remain faithful to the leadership of the papacy.” It was consonant with faithfulness to the papacy that at this meeting non-Catholics were told they would not be able to receive communion when the sacrifice of the Mass was held.

The plight of Catholic charismatics who have been regenerated and who have spoken in tongues is a painful one. Whatever the charismatic movement has to offer Roman Catholics has its origins in historic Pentecostalism, and historic Pentecostalism is at serious odds with the Roman Catholic Church in ways that cannot be glossed over. Catholic Pentecostals at last will have to bow to their church’s teaching, or stay in a church some of whose teaching they cannot accept, or get out.

Hans Küng, not a charismatic but a perceptive thinker and a well-known Catholic theologian, is a case in point. He stays in the church, but he disbelieves some of what the church requires him to believe and says he cannot deny without losing his salvation. Yet Küng maintains he is the real Catholic and wants only to eliminate the false accretions that have attached themselves to church doctrine through the centuries. But there is no evidence that he or the charismatics can “weed out” those elements “not truly of God,” by which we would like to think they mean, not supportable by Scripture.

Foremost among these doctrinal points that Catholic charismatics must face is that which lies at the heart of the salvatory process: justification. Catholicism teaches that men are justified because they are righteous. This has been known as the doctrine of infused righteousness. Reformation theology teaches imputed righteousness: man is not righteous in himself, indeed is unrighteous, but by his faith in Christ the righteousness of Jesus is imputed to him and he is justified. At no point in this life is the believer ever righteous in and of himself. He is declared righteous by reason of Christ’s merits, for he has none of his own. He is kept by Christ’s righteousness, and at last he will be glorified the same way.

The question of justification by imputed righteousness through faith cannot be sidestepped. Any speaking in tongues that is worthy of the name must be based upon a credible salvation, and there can be no salvation that is not based upon justification by faith alone. Without justification by faith alone there can be no valid tongues-speaking, Catholic, Protestant, or any other brand. For Pentecostals to accept Catholic charismatics as bona fide believers because they have spoken in tongues is to put the cart before the horse. Tongues do not prove the speaker has been justified. Acceptance in the Christian community must be based not upon tongues but upon the acceptance of imputed righteousness of Christ through faith alone.

Beyond justification by faith alone, other theological issues that Catholic charismatics must face are the sacrifice of the Mass, the infallibility of the pope, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, images, and the view that tradition has a place in the church on a par with that of Scripture. Catholic charismatics must sooner or later face these teachings and decide what they believe. If they don’t believe in the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary, they lose their salvation in the eyes of the church; if they don’t believe the church has the power or the right to do this, then again they put themselves outside the pale of the church. They are tied up to a comprehensive system, the denial of any vital part of which leaves them in a graceless state.

If they do accept the teaching of their church on these matters, then there is no possibility of a genuine Catholic-Protestant-Pentecostal fellowship. The reason is simple. If there were such a possibility, it would be based solely upon the baptism in the Spirit, the sign of which is speaking in tongues. This cannot be the basis for such a communion or fellowship unless the baptism in the Spirit accompanied by tongues becomes the first and the primary consideration. Since it cannot and should not be, either for Catholics or Protestants, those doctrines that precede tongues and from which tongues spring must assume their rightful role and be accorded the primacy that is due them.

In some quarters there is a tendency to make the baptism in the Spirit with tongues the sole criterion for fellowship, to make the charismatic movement ecumenical and in the process to brush aside fundamental doctrinal questions. A well-known Pentecostalist who has devoted years of his life to promoting the charismatic movement among Protestants and Roman Catholics wrote that in a recent Lutheran charismatic conference “the public recognized that we were all Christians by our love.” Any Christian can enthusiastically endorse the need for love. But love in the short run can be simulated, just as tongues can be counterfeited. John says we are known to be Christians by what we believe. “Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting” (2 John 9, 10).

This same Pentecostalist brother said: “Until now the Classic Pentecostals found it very difficult to accept the Neo-Pentecostals, and even more difficult to accept the Catholic Pentecostals. For ten years I have not had any official cooperation from Pentecostal leaders.” When speaking of the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America, he expressed a glowing hope: “What a glorious day it will be when this Fellowship opens up to all that are baptized in the Holy Spirit from all church and denominations. When that day comes I shall begin to look forward to the day when the Pentecostal World Conference will be open for all that are Baptized in the Holy Spirit. Then we shall learn to know the true unity in the Spirit.…”

These assertions raise serious problems. Perhaps the writer did not say exactly what he meant to say. First, the statement is highly divisive because while it professes to aim toward Christian unity, that unity is limited to those who have been baptized in the Spirit and have spoken in tongues. This leaves out multitudes of true believers who have not spoken in tongues, even those who believe they have been filled with the Spirit but for whom there have been no tongues. It excludes “Classical Pentecostalists” who believe in tongues but have not experienced them. A fellowship that is “open for all that are Baptized in the Holy Spirit” is, obviously, closed to those who have not been. It comes down to this: Tongues are seen as normative and speaking in tongues becomes the test for true fellowship and unity. Is it not instructive that Jesus Christ might be excluded from such a fellowship too? He was filled with the Holy Spirit from conception and the Holy Spirit was present at his baptism, but there is no evidence that he ever spoke in a tongue.

The Assemblies of God, one of the large Pentecostal bodies, has never permitted its views on baptism in the Spirit with tongues to become a test of fellowship in its churches or outside them. This group has long been an honored member of the National Association of Evangelicals and has fruitfully labored with non-tongues-speaking groups. The Assemblies’ general superintendent, Thomas F. Zimmerman, was on the central committee of the U. S. Congress on Evangelism. As late as August of this year the denomination issued a statement on the charismatic movement in which the emphasis was properly placed. The statement said: “It is important that we find our way in a sound scriptural path, avoiding the extremes of an ecumenism that compromises scriptural principles and an exclusivism that excludes true Christians.”

What has been said about the problems that arise for Roman Catholic charismatics must also be applied to theological liberals who have spoken in tongues. This does not mean they have suddenly become theologically orthodox. For them as for anybody else the test of “the doctrine of Christ in the spirit of Christ” must be applied. No matter how many tongues a man speaks or how many times he does it, if his doctrine is defective, his tongues will not sanctify his aberration. The baptism in the Spirit cannot serve as a cover for heterodox belief or sanctify the denial of scriptural truth.

Classic Pentecostalism with few exceptions has always been evangelical in its theological position. Its adherents have taken the Bible to be the trustworthy Word of God. They have always adhered to the truths that are to be found in the historic confessions of evangelical groups through the centuries. The doctrine that has given Pentecostalism its uniqueness has been that of baptism in the Holy Spirit with tongues as the sign. Non-Pentecostal evangelicals, even those who accept the gift of tongues as the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit who bestows that or any other charismatic gift as he pleases and wills, believe that Christians are baptized by the Spirit when they are justified and regenerated, and that tongues are not a necessary sign of that baptism. They believe that Christians should be filled with the Spirit, but while tongues are not ruled out, they are not considered essential to the Spirit-filled life.

It is quite unlikely that there ever will be full agreement one way or the other about tongues and baptism in the Spirit. Those who believe in it can and should be expected not only to practice this view but also to propagate it. No evangelical need feel threatened by this emphasis because he has not spoken in tongues. If he is convinced from Scripture that he has the fullness of the Spirit without tongues, there is no reason for him to doubt it. If he is inclined toward the Pentecostal viewpoint, let him by all means seek both the baptism and tongues. But let those who have experienced tongues remember that there are Christians who have not had this experience who are filled with the joy of the Lord, experience his presence daily, and exhibit his power and love.

After the Great Awakening in New England, Jonathan Edwards wrote his classic work on religious affections. He saw the hand of Satan both in the revival and in those who fought against it; Satan sowed tares both ways to undo a true work of Christ. Edwards believed in religious affections, i.e., “experimental religion” that would surely include the Pentecostal aspect. He believed that testing the spirits is of the essence of experimental religion and so he argued, “The conduct of Christians in the world is to be guided by three demands. First, behavior must be in conformity with Christian rules; secondly, the ‘practice of religion’ must be the chief occupation of life; and thirdly, one must persist in this practice till the end of his earthly days” (Jonathan Edwards: A Profile, edited by David Levin, Hill and Wang, 1969, p. 207). If those three demands are met, both those who speak in tongues and those who do not need have no fear when they stand before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ.

George M. Marsden is associate professor of history at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has the Ph.D. (Yale University) and has written “The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience.”

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.