 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

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.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |