Printer Friendly Version

Particulars of Christianity:
310 Pentecostalism,
the Charismatic
and Faith Movements


Applying the Test of Purpose
and Verifiability (Part 1)

5 Tests for Authenticity: The Test of Apostolic Continuity
The Test of Origination
The Test of Quality (or Ecstasy)
The Test of Heresy
Defining the Test of Purpose and Verifiability
On Faith and Miracles
The Sign Sign-Giver Process
Applying the Test of Purpose and Verifiability (Part 1)
Applying the Test of Purpose and Verifiability (Part 2)

Section 1 | Section 2 | Section 3 | Section 4 | Section 5



Based upon the Biblical examination in the preceding section, we arrive at the Test of Purpose and Verifiability. This test has to do with the Biblical purpose of a sign and our ability to verify the supernatural character of the sign in question.

If it cannot be verified whether or not an event is supernatural in character, then we cannot know whether or not that event actually required God's involvement. If we cannot determine whether an event required God's involvement or occurred as a result of ordinary, natural factors, then that event cannot demonstrate God's endorsement. Since the purpose of a sign is to demonstrate God's endorsement, any event that cannot be verified to be supernatural must be rejected as counterfeit since it fails to meet the criteria involved in the Biblical purpose of a sign.

How this test works will become more apparent as we apply the test to specific areas within the modern Charismatic Movement.

In the early Church, the gift of tongues certainly would have passed this test. We can see this from the very first occurrence of tongues in Acts 2.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

In Acts 2:1-11, when Jewish pilgrims from around the known world heard the apostles declaring the works of God in their native tongues from over a dozen foreign lands, they knew that this was the work of God and that the apostles message was true. The most significant thing to note from this account is that the only explanation for how these Galilean men could have been able to speak all of these diverse languages was that God himself had enabled them to do so.

So, in the early Church, the gift of tongues passed the Test of Purpose and Verifiability. First, this sign could be verified. If the apostles were actually speaking in foreign tongues, then their words should be able to be understood by foreigners who spoke those languages. And that is exactly what happened. On the other hand, if there was no one there who spoke those languages, there would have been no way to verify that the apostles were actually speaking in real foreign language or just making up nonsense words.

Second, once this sign was verified as indeed supernatural, it could fulfill the Biblical purpose for signs, which is to prove God's endorsement. Therefore, this original occurrence of tongues fulfilled the Biblical requirement for signs and the Biblical purpose of demonstrating that God was involved.

In the modern setting, however, there is no such verification available. In a modern setting, right from the very origins of the Charismatic Movement, the languages of tongues were said to be "unknown." The following encyclopedia excerpts will demonstrate the importance of speaking in tongues as an evidence of the supernatural in the rise of the Charismatic Movement.

"Pentecostalism - worldwide 20th-century Christian movement that emphasizes the experience of Spirit baptism, generally evidenced by speaking in tongues (glossolalia)." (Bartleby.com, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. "Pentecostalism.")

"Classical" Pentecostalism - What is sometimes called classical Pentecostalism grew out of the late 19th-century Holiness Movement in the United States. The Holiness preacher Charles Fox Parham began preaching (1901) to his Topeka congregation that speaking in tongues was objective evidence of baptism in the Spirit. (Bartleby.com, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. "Pentecostalism.")

"The Charismatic Movement - A second form of Pentecostalism arose in the 1960s after many non-Pentecostals became aware of Pentecostalism through an earlier Pentecostal revival organized by faith-healing evangelists (notably Oral Roberts). The formal origin of the new Pentecostalism or charismatic movement, as it is often called, is traced to Dennis Bennett, an Episcopal minister who declared to his congregation in Van Nuys, California (1961) that he was speaking in tongues. Following Bennett's confession the charismatic movement appeared in nearly all the Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic church, and, to a lesser extent, in Eastern Orthodox communions." (Bartleby.com, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. "Pentecostalism.")

"On January 1, 1901, Agnes Oznam became the first of Parham's students to speak in an unknown tongue. Others soon had the same experience, and Parham claimed that glossolalia was the Ôinitial evidence' that one had been truly baptized with the Holy Spirit." (Britannica.com, "Pentecostalism.")

In all four of the quotes above, we can see that speaking in tongues is considered "evidence" of Baptism in the Holy Spirit. In short, speaking in tongues is acting as the miraculous sign proving that the Holy Spirit of God is actually working among the practitioners. This formula itself is consistent with the Biblical model in which a supernatural event, such as speaking in tongues, functions as a sign of God's endorsement. But, does the speaking in tongues practiced by modern Charismatic groups actually pass the Test of Purpose and Verifiability by proving God's involvement?

From the last excerpt from Britannica.com, we see that Agnes Oznam was the first student to speak in tongues. But what language was she speaking? How could it be verified that she was speaking an actual language as opposed to simply making up non-sense words? The reality is, that Agnes Oznam was said to be speaking in an "unknown tongue."

At this point, it is good to restate that the authors of this article were in the Charismatic Movement for over a decade, spoke in tongues regularly in times pasts, and heard more than a few sermons on it. Having said that, there are several problems with this initial modern occurrence of speaking in tongues. In particular, the following issues will illustrate that the initial modern occurrence of tongues, which was so foundational to the explosion of the modern Charismatic Movement, is entirely explainable by ordinary, natural factors.

1.) The doctrine predicted and even required that it would happen.
2.) There was no way to verify whether or not this was a real language.
3.) The phenomenon was not confirmed by multiple persons having the same experience simultaneously.

The first problem with the outgrowth of tongues that came from Parham's school in Topeka, Kansas was that the doctrine of that group required that tongues would have to happen before it ever actually occurred. As the excerpts above demonstrate, it has been the hallmark doctrine of Parham's school and of the Charismatic Movement as a whole that speaking in tongues is the "evidence" of baptism in the Holy Spirit. As such, unless they were teaching and believing false doctrine, someone was going to have to start speaking in tongues. And if no one started speaking in tongues, then the doctrine would be proven false. And the entire movement might fall apart.

We do not mean to suggest that someone knowingly or deliberately faked speaking in tongues. But we only point out that there was an atmosphere of positive pressure for someone to do so, even while subconsciously thinking this was the real thing. In short, there was ample motivation from natural factors for someone to start speaking in tongues. And this atmosphere created an environment where it was likely that someone would speak in tongues even if the Holy Spirit did not prompt them to do so.

Additionally, this expectation that the students should speak in tongues was conveyed by the teacher. Thus, there was an atmosphere of approval created in which anyone who spoke in tongues would immediately be admired by both the teacher and the other students. So, there was both a positive reward in terms of approval for anyone who would begin to speak in tongues and a negative consequence for the entire doctrine if no one began to speak in tongues.

Therefore, the initial occurrence of tongues in Topeka, Kansas had sufficient ordinary factors, which could prompt the students to speak in tongues without requiring God's involvement.

The second problem with this initial occurrence of tongues in the modern Charismatic Movement was no way to verify whether or not this was a real language. Agnes Ozman was said to speak in an "unknown" tongue. Modern Charismatic believers (and on this point I speak from ample experience) categorize the general occurrence of tongues into one of two categories. Either it is an angelic tongue, in which case the language is not known to humanity and, therefore, cannot be compared or verified. Or it is an "unknown" human language, which could be an extinct human language that no one speaks or perhaps more often just a language that isn't identified by those immediately present.

In other words, no one spontaneously starts speaking in fluent Spanish, which could then be identified and compared to the known Spanish language. Instead, someone invariably begins to speak in some unidentifiable dialect for which no comparison and verification can be made. Frequently, rather than fluent speech, modern tongues is marked by short phrases or groups of syllables that are repeated. This makes it even more difficult to verify whether or not the speaker is talking in an actual language with all the inherent properties of grammar and syntax, etc.

All of these things effectively remove modern tongues from any kind of verification that it is an actual language that is being spoken and, therefore, an actual supernatural event that is taking place. In short, there is no way to know whether or not the person is supernaturally speaking a language they have never learned or just repeating made up non-sense words and syllables.

Remember that since no modern occurrence of the gifts can be traced back through continuous practice to the Apostles, all modern occurrences of tongues must be categorized as hypothetical restorations. When we contrast the restoration that took place at this foundational occurrence in Topeka, Kansas to the initial occurrence of these gifts in Acts 2, we find some striking contrasts. In particular, we find that the occurrence in Acts was verified as a supernatural event by the fact that the languages were identified as real languages by the foreign pilgrims present that day. No such verification took place at the initial occurrence in Topeka, Kansas. Those who spoke in tongues could just as easily have been speaking non-sense words, which would in no way require God's involvement.

The third problem with this initial occurrence of tongues in the modern Charismatic Movement was that it was not confirmed by multiple persons simultaneously having the same experience. Again, we contrast this initial occurrence to the original occurrence in Acts 2. In Acts 2, all the Apostles began speaking in tongues simultaneously. In Topeka, Kansas, Agnes Oznam spoke in tongues first and then others followed.

Simultaneous occurrence without prior precedent, such as we have in Acts 2, goes a long way to prove the reality. Barring premeditation, it is unlikely that twelve people would spontaneously begin faking tongues in the exact same way at the exact same time. However, when one person begins an activity alone and others follow, it is quite possible that the others are simply mimicking the initial person rather than experiencing something unprompted and spontaneous.

Since the fact is that Agnes Oznam began speaking in tongues by herself and others followed, it is entirely possible that what occurred in Topeka, Kansas can be explained simply in terms of mimicry and does not require God's involvement. This becomes even more possible when you again consider the positive pressure of approval that was on those students. Once Oznam began to speak in tongues, she would have been in a position of admiration by the rest of the group who already believed that this had to happen and that it was a sign that the Holy Spirit was on Agnes. Everyone else would want to know the Holy Spirit was in them, too.

Now, Parham and the other students could have doubted Oznam's sincerity, but they had a personal investment in the doctrine which provided for them ample motive to believe she was being sincere. For, if they believed she was faking it, then their doctrine that tongues would occur would still have lacked fulfillment. But, Oznam's experience provided for them the opportunity for their doctrine to be fulfilled and their personal investment provided a motive for them to simply and blindly accept her experience as authentic.

Thus, having personal motive to accept Agnes' experience as sincere and authentic, all the other students would have to do is to mimic what Agnes was doing. And, because they believed Agnes was being sincere, they would not think that there was anything insincere about doing so themselves as well. Therefore, everyone, including Agnes, could have been acting without deliberate deception and believing that what they were doing was completely appropriate and authentic.

Since it cannot be verified whether or not the speakers are simply speaking "non-sense words" this kind of tongues becomes indistinguishable from the "babbling" of the Montanists as described by both Asterius Urbanus and Eusebius. And, just as the early Church rejected such babbling as counterfeit, so should we. It does not in any way prove God's involvement and so it doesn't fit with the Biblical custom of sign in both the Old and New Testament, just as Asterius Urbanus and Eusebius stated.

7...And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning." (Chapter XVI. The Circumstances Related of Montanus and His False Prophets.)

12...And this person was carried away in spirit; 13 and suddenly being seized with a kind of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to speak and to utter strange things, and to prophesy in a manner contrary to the custom of the Church, as handed down from early times and preserved thenceforward in a continuous succession. (The Extant Writings of Asterius Urbanus, From Book I.)

"But the false prophet falls into a spurious ecstasy, which is accompanied by a want of all shame and fear. For beginning with a voluntary (designed) rudeness, he ends with an involuntary madness of soul, as has been already stated. But they will never be able to show that any one of the Old Testament prophets, or any one of the New, was carried away in spirit after this fashion. Nor will they be able to boast that Agabus, or Judas, or Silas, or the daughters of Philip, or the woman Ammia in Philadelphia, or Quadratus, or indeed any of the others who do not in any respect belong to them, were moved in this way." (The Extant Writings of Asterius Urbanus, From Book III. IX.)

In conclusion, unlike the initial occurrence of tongues in Acts 2, the initial reoccurrence of tongues in Topeka, KS, is completely explainable in terms of ordinary, natural factors, including: an atmosphere and doctrine that necessitated tongues, positive peer pressure, awareness of negative consequences for the doctrine, made-up non-sense words, and imitation. There is no reason to assume that God was involved in the hypothetical restoration of the gifts in Topeka, Kansas and any modern Charismatic group that practices tongues as a result of these events in Topeka, Kansas would stand upon events that fall outside the Biblical purpose and function of signs. As such, there is no reason to believe that the events of Topeka, Kansas (or any movement that has grown from those events) constitute an authentic occurrence of the charismatic gifts.