Good afternoon, All.

The various Revivalist sects make considerable noise about ‘speaking in tongues’. The question that begs asking is, how can any Revivalist be certain that what they do when they 'speak in tongues' is, in any sense, miraculous? To be perfectly blunt, they can't. Theirs is naught but an institutionalised habit of assumption; the evidence of anything miraculous taking place is completely lacking. Long story, short: assumption does not equal evidence; significant claims for miracle require significant proof.

Now an important caveat: tongues remains a valued part of my personal prayer-life, and accounts for perhaps 5% of my overall prayer time. But unlike Revivalists my prayer time in tongues isn't excessive, and it doesn't exclude the more important engaging with God via my mind. A little more on the significance of this, later.

Revivalism links personal tongues-speaking with what we read occurred on the Day of Pentecost recorded by Luke in Acts chapter 2. Surprisingly, Revivalists seem to forget some pretty important qualifiers that distinguish what happened then, from what happens now. First, the 'who'. On the day of Pentecost only the apostles spoke in tongues, the grammar of the underlying Greek text is clear on this point. Second, the 'how'. The apostles were neither praying nor 'seeking' at the time; Luke described them as sitting down (Jews in the first century prayed standing, kneeling or prostrate—but never seated). In other words, what occurred was unexpected, and caught them by surprise! Third, the 'what'. Luke vividly describes the apostles' tongues-speaking as the culmination of a series of audio-visual miracles: (1) there was the audible sound of a roaring windstorm, but without the wind. (2) There was a visible Shekinah-like flame that parted, and settled over each apostle individually, but without burning him. And (3), the apostles spoke in ordinary human languages that they hadn't learned, but each of which was perfectly understood by the Jews gathered together from across the Roman Empire. Fourth, the 'where'. At Pentecost, tens of thousands of Jews had gathered in the Temple courts at Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts of Passover and Pentecost. The Temple was significant to the Jews as it was where God dwelt. Fifth, the 'when'. God, the Spirit, was poured out in power at a specific time in history, the previously mentioned Feast of Pentecost. Fifty days after the original Passover in Egypt, Israel was gathered at the foot of Sinai as Moses received the Law written by God's finger on tablets of stone (the 'finger of God', by the way, is how the Jews of the first century referred to the Holy Spirit). At the Christian Pentecost, God's finger wrote his new Law on tablets of flesh.  Sixth, the 'why'. In Acts chapter one the resurrected Jesus commanded his apostles to remain in Jerusalem until they were imbued with heavenly power. He told them this was to equip and confirm them as his personal eyewitnesses. Critically, he said nothing about these men becoming 'saved' at this point, noting that earlier in his earthly ministry he declared to them that their names were already written in heaven (see Luke 10:20).  

No Revivalist can claim their personal experience mirrored that of the apostles at Pentecost in AD30. Long story, short (again): they're nothing alike.

So if what Revivalists do, and if what I claim to do isn't Pentecostal, then what is it? Well, I'm glad you asked!

In his first letter to the church at Corinth, Paul found it necessary to correct certain of the more arrogant believers about their true spiritual status. Notably, he chided the 'Spirit-Filled' among them for thinking their tongues-speech placed them on a higher plane than the non-tongues speaking Christians in the same church. In chapters twelve through fourteen Paul described a series of representative gifts that God's Spirit had distributed among them according to his will and agency, and he used the metaphor of a human body to make his point. Paul also chose to categorise these representative spiritual gifts according to how well they edified the church collectively, rather than the gifted person individually. He placed speaking in 'unknown tongues' very low on this list, and he went on to recommend it as being better suited for personal prayer than for corporate edification. The sole caveat he placed on the public use of tongues was that a tongues-speaker must also interpret his or her tongue in order to edify the congregation, rather than just him/herself.

The tongues spoken by the apostles at Pentecost were unlearned, authentic human languages. The technical term for this experience is xenoglossia, or xenolalia. By contrast, the 'unknown tongue' of the Corinthians; the 'new tongues' of Mark 16, doesn't comprise authentic human languages. The technical term for this religious experience is glossolalia. The former has a definable linguistic structure, comprehensive syntax, and applies a range of vocables absent from the speaker's native range. The latter doesn't have a definable linguistic structure, it lacks a comprehensive syntax (being largely repetitive), and it uniformly applies vocables from within the speaker's native range. It remains a gift, being an individual prayer language in which the human spirit disengages the mind and prays directly to God. At best what Revivalists do, and what I claim for myself, falls into this latter, 'Corinthian' category. I say at best, as given how the average Revivalist gained his or her 'tongue', even this is doubtful! 

If you received your 'tongue' while being coached in the fully contrived, un-biblical, so-called Seekers-meeting; if you were saying, "hallelujah, hallelujah, Praise the Lord" or something similar over and over until you became tongue-tied, if you were encouraged to "let your tongue go" by some well-meaning spiritual coach, then it's likely what you received was nothing more than a self-deluded, practiced, natural and emotional experience. Put simply, if this describes you, then you were defrauded and there is absolutely nothing spiritual about your practice.

Now before anyone starts thinking, "well, my tongue might not be the same as Pentecost, but it's in line with the Corinthian experience so clearly I'm saved!", I'd recommend you take a quick peek at Matthew 7:21 to 23.    

Blessings,

Ian