Controversy over charismatic gifts understandably centers most often in the more dramatic manifestations of the Spirit—particularly tongues-speaking, miracles, and healing. This has been true down through history and at present, just as apparently it was at Corinth in the first century. While we rightly insist (with Paul in 1 Corinthians 12—14, for example) that all gifts must be viewed corporately and in the context of love, yet the question always arises: Yes, but what about tongues? Of necessity, therefore, we must give particular attention to glossolalia in the course of this book.

     As we will see, it is this gift more than any other that has been the bone of contention between Wesleyan and Pentecostal-Charismatic branches of the church. We therefore briefly trace the history of tongues-speaking in the church, since this is essential for putting the contemporary scene in perspective. But we remind both ourselves and the reader that even this focus runs the risk of distorting the more holistic view of the church as charismatic for which we are arguing.

     Two questions invariably arise in discussions of glossolalia: Has tongues-speaking been a rare, only occasional phenomenon in church history, or has it always been present to some degree? And is the legitimate, biblical gift of tongues only and exclusively the supernatural ability to speak a known language, so that speaking in an “unknown tongue” is by definition mere “gibberish” and illegitimate? Bitter battles have been fought over these issues.

     While these are important questions historically, they are not central to the argument of this book. Volumes have been written as to whether tongues-speaking is eccentric or normal in church history, and the matter still isn’t resolved. When tongues and other charismatic gifts do attract attention, this is often in the early period of a wave of renewal. Accurate historical assessment of renewal movements is notoriously difficult. Such movements are often considered heretical or at least eccentric, with the result that their literature is usually suppressed, and we have to evaluate them through the writings of their opponents. (This may be one of the best arguments for the divine inspiration of the New Testament; would such writings otherwise have survived?) Thus tongues-speaking may have been, in the words of John Nichol, “not a religious innovation,” but a phenomenon that “in one form or another . . . has manifested itself throughout the history of the Christian Church.” 1 But this is not the real issue.

     The key issue is what a person concludes from the frequency or infrequency of glossolalia in history. For those opposed to tongues-speaking, the syllogism runs as follows: If tongues-speaking were a normative gift of the Spirit, it would always be present in the church; it has not always been present in the church; therefore it is not a normative gift of the Spirit. We would take issue with the major premise here, however, regardless of the historical question. The frequency or infrequency of tongues-speaking in church history says nothing, necessarily, about its legitimacy. Many things that should be normative in the life of the church have in fact not been.

     One of the arguments against the doctrine of regeneration or justification by faith was, in some periods and contexts, that it was an innovation. Yet few today would argue that preaching the New Birth is illegitimate because it hasn’t always been preached. We would agree here with John Wesley: The charismatic gifts largely disappeared, not because they were illegitimate, but because of spiritual decline in the church (see more on this in chapter 4, “The Charismatic Wesley”). Our view is that tongues-speaking is legitimate whenever it is prompted by the Holy Spirit, regardless of one’s theology!

     We would argue similarly with regard to the language/non-language question. In most cases the evidence is not sufficient to determine conclusively whether demonstrations of the Spirit did or did not include glossolalia, and whether possible instances of glossolalia involved known languages or non-language ecstatic utterance. As we will make clear in chapter 6, however, these distinctions may not be as significant as they seem. In the following analysis we do not attempt to distinguish between these kinds of tongues-speaking except where the evidence seems clear and unambiguous. Our reason for this is that often the language/non-language distinction is inserted into the discussion illegitimately, for polemical reasons. We want to leave the question open to avoid the danger of premature judgments.

     Evelyn Underhill rightly notes that, from the first, Christian worship has been

     both liturgic and prophetic, historical and mystical, sacramental and spontaneous. . . . In Catholicism, the liturgic and sacramental element has decisively triumphed. The Evangelical Churches have restored, perhaps sometimes to excess, the prophetic and Biblical strand; whilst in those frequent revivals of free worship and claims to a direct experience of the Spirit which shock the decorum of the traditionalist, we see the continued power of the charismatic strain. But a full and balanced Christian cultus would find room for all these elements, and means of harmonizing and controlling them. 2

     The New Testament, however, shows two basic kinds of meetings: larger assemblies, and smaller, probably more informal home gatherings. Both presumably made room for varieties of worship gifts, if 1 Corinthians 14 is at all representative. It seems likely that in the first century at least, the larger assemblies were comparatively more liturgical and more indebted to synagogue patterns, while the home meetings were more informal and spontaneous and perhaps more varied. But it is impossible to be dogmatic about this.

     Threats of heresy and schism during the period following the Apostolic Age set the church on a course toward institutionalization. The church through early councils agreed on the canon of Scripture and developed its creeds. It gradually became more liturgical and institutional. While theological definition was necessary in the light of attack, controversy, and divisions, one negative consequence of these institutionalizing tendencies was that teaching on the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts was largely neglected. Glossolalia declined or was suppressed.

     Morton Kelsey suggests,

     Since most people were already irrational enough about Christianity, describing glossolalia would have been to magnify this sign into wild rumor. These first writers had had a good dose of the hatred that came from such rumors, accusations that Christians ate newborn babies, or conjured up crop failures and floods and earthquakes. They were trying to be rational in the face of so much feeling. . . . Talking about tongues would only have added fuel to the fire that flamed into irrational rejection of Christians as monsters, or, at best, queer people. 3

     Here is no popular acclamation, no thought given to consanguinity or kinship;. . the government of the people is handed over to him whom God has chosen, to a man who . . .  has in him the Spirit of God and keeps the precepts of God in high sight. Moses knew from personal experience that he was preeminent in the law and in knowledge, so that the children of Israel should obey him. 5

     “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (v. 18).

     Origen’s criteria for true successors to Peter were charismatic: spiritual insight and holiness of life, not official position. He also felt that intellectual abilities acquired through disciplined study qualified as gifts of grace. Thus he represented what many today consider a contradiction in terms—the charismatic intellectual. 6

     Origen had a clear vision of how the church should function. However, the charismatic leadership he envisioned was not to be. In spite of Origen’s objections, the church had already acquired an institutional structure that tended to repress charismatic leadership and the spontaneous use of grace gifts. This trend continued as the Catholic Church established itself as the universal manifestation of Christ on earth.

     The earliest known description of the church as “catholic” (universal) appears in Ignatius’ letter to the church in Smyrna in which he declares, “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” 7 By the end of the second century the church as “catholic” signified both orthodoxy (right belief) and universality. Latourette identifies three motives in this development of the Catholic Church: “to unite all Christians in conscious fellowship . . . to preserve, transmit, and spread the Christian Gospel in its purity . . . , [and] to bring all Christians together into a visible ‘body of Christ.’” 8

     The “catholic” designation also served to distinguish beliefs considered to be orthodox from those of professed Christians thought to be deviating from true Christianity. Increasingly regular gatherings, or synods, of bishops were called to root out heresy and to establish creeds. The first synod of record was held in Asia Minor to deal with Montanism, which was condemned as heretical. 9 Most noteworthy of the early synods was the first Council of Nicea in AD. 325, at which the newly converted Emperor Constantine was a key figure. The Nicene Creed, or Confession, was adopted at this meeting, and Arianism was condemned.

     After the first century, only a few references to tongues-speaking are found in Christian history until the modern period. This has led many Christians to conclude that the charismatic gifts in general, and the gift of tongues in particular, disappeared from the church after the apostolic era, never to reappear. This, however, is a faulty conclusion. Pro-charismatic writings in the early church were often destroyed by those who questioned their orthodoxy. Yet some literature does exist that suggests intermittent outbreaks of tongues-speaking and other charismatic phenomena. 10

     A few cryptic “sayings” attributed to Montanus and his disciples Priscilla and Maximilla suggest that a movement of the second century in Phrygia prophesied and spoke in tongues. It called itself “The New Prophecy” at the time and later came to be called Montanism. Because the movement taught that these gifts were reserved to themselves alone, the survival of Montanism until the fifth century offers no proof that the charismata continued in the church generally. 11 Unfortunately, most of our information about the Montanists derives from Eusebius and subsequent mainline historians opposed to the movement. 12

     Tertullian, a prominent church father of the early third century, became a Montanist in later life and was critical of the majority church until his death. Some historians maintain that Tertullian was quite specific about the existence and value of glossolalia. Others point out the influence of Montanism on Tertullian’s writings and contend that the references are ambiguous. In the fourth century Chrysostom, like Origen earlier, discredited accounts of speaking in tongues and rejected its validity. Apparently the phenomenon was still in evidence, or the debate would not have surfaced. 13

     Speaking in tongues may still have been practiced in the fifth century, for Augustine makes reference to it. Augustine’s argument is that tongues-speaking in the New Testament sense has become superfluous because the church is now universal:

     Why is it that no man speaks in the tongues of all nations? Because the Church itself now speaks in the tongues of all nations. Before, the Church was in one nation, where it spoke in the tongues of all. By speaking then in the tongues of all, it signified what was to come to pass; that by growing among the nations, it would speak in the tongues of all. The Church, spread among the nations, speaks in all tongues; the Church is the body of Christ, in this body thou art a member: therefore, since thou art a member of that body which speaks with all tongues, believe that thou too speakest with all tongues. 14

     Montanism and other manifestations of glossolalia appear to have had virtually no influence on the creeds or the establishment of the Roman Catholic episcopate, except as their existence may have prompted the church to institutionalize more quickly than it might have done otherwise. Indeed, the Nicene Creed promulgated in AD. 325 makes no mention whatsoever of the Holy Spirit. 16 At the Second Ecumenical Council in AD. 381, numerous additions to the Nicene Creed were introduced, including the phrase, “I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.” 17 But this reference was prompted by the theological question of the relation of the Spirit to the Father and Son, not by issues relating to the charismata.

     Another Christian tradition, the Greek Orthodox Church in the East, experienced very different cultural conditions at Constantinople than the Western church experienced in Rome. Partly for this reason the Greek church has maintained a rather different attitude toward the charismata. Kelsey notes,

     At Constantinople a strong central government provided the base for a brilliant and colorful civilization which never passed through the throes of the Dark Ages. Indeed its capital city remained secure against pagan invasion until 1451. Thus the church was never forced to take over the secular functions which were forced upon the Western church. The Greek church remained far more otherworldly and mystical. It continued the Greek bent of introspection and individuality. Greek monasticism, even though it came to play an important part in Byzantine politics, was never as organized or controlled as that which grew up in the West. There was a strain of wild enthusiasm and individualism in the Greek way which could make a saint of a man who sat for years on a solitary pillar. The East developed a mystical, individualistic, otherworldly, introverted Christianity. In this tradition the individual gifts of the Spirit flourished. The door was never closed to experiences like tongues. 18

     An example would be the Waldensians, a kind of medieval “charismatic renewal.” Peter Waldo was a rich merchant of Lyons, France. In 1176 he chose to distribute his wealth among the poor and beg for his own daily bread. Taking no purse, he preached in city and country as Christ had commanded his apostles. Others imitated Waldo, calling themselves the “Poor Men of Lyons.” Although the Pope excommunicated them in 1184, the movement spread rapidly to Spain, Italy, Germany, and Bohemia. Noted for their simple dress, industrious labor, chastity, temperance, truthful speech, and belief that accumulating wealth was evil, these “heretics” were persecuted by the church and civil authorities. Those who survived settled primarily in the valleys of the Italian Alps. The established church would encounter their views again at the time of the Reformation. 21

     The Lollards, a group of John Wycliffe’s followers in England, may be another example. Likewise, several groups of followers of John Hus, including the Hussites, Utraquists, and Taborites, were in many ways charismatic. They recognized various gifts and often provided wide opportunity for “lay” ministry. Equally significant, these groups provided spiritual ancestors and precedents to the Protestant Reformation. They prepared the way for an increased outpouring of the Holy Spirit and his gifts in the church.

     The church of the Middle Ages was not, of course, entirely devoid of Spirit-led leaders nor was it intent on stamping out all charismatic manifestations. Monasticism provided some space for the charismata; mysticism, in which gifts of grace were sometimes in evidence, flourished throughout this period. 22 But the long sweep of history suggests that if charismatic phenomena and ministry were few and far between, this was due in no small part either to repression or to a general lack of spiritual vitality in the institutional church. 23

     Kenneth Kinghorn writes, “The Lutheran and Reformed theologians seldom mentioned spiritual gifts. . . . When Luther discussed spiritual gifts he identified them with talents or material blessings.” 24 It is worth noting, however, that one of Luther’s most radical doctrines—the priesthood of believers—relates directly to spiritual gifts. Luther himself made this connection, as his writings show.

     The link between the priesthood of believers and the gifts of the Spirit in Luther’s thought has received relatively little attention. That is probably because Luther did not stress the gifts of the Spirit as much as other aspects of the universal priesthood. Yet, without this emphasis Luther’s doctrine of the priesthood of believers appears more static than he himself apparently conceived it to be.

     Commenting on 1 Peter 4:10—11, which mentions the charismata, Luther notes, “. . . we should serve one another. With what? With the gifts of God which everyone has received. The Gospel wants everyone to be the other person’s servant and, in addition, to see that he remains in the gift which he has received, that is, in the position to which he has been called.” 25

     Luther goes on to say, “God has poured out varied gifts among the people. They should be directed to only one end, namely, that one person should serve the other person with them, especially those who are in authority, whether with preaching or with another office.” 26

     Elsewhere Luther refers to the Pauline passages on spiritual gifts in speaking of the priesthood of believers. In his sermon on Psalm 110:4 he observes,

     Out of the multitude of Christians some must be selected who shall lead the others by virtue of the special gifts and aptitude which God gives them for the office. Thus St. Paul writes (Eph. 4:11, 12): “And His gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints . . . , for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ . . . 27

     Here the prophet applies the priestly office and adornment to the Christians, the people of the New Testament. He says that their worship of God is to consist in the beautiful and glorious priesthood of those who are always in the presence of God and perform nothing but holy sacrifices. .

     Well, what is this “holy adornment,” these priestly garments which adorn the Christians so that they become His holy priesthood? Nothing else than the beautiful, divine, and various gifts of the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul (Eph. 4:11, 12) and St. Peter (1 Peter 4:10) say, which were given to Christendom to advance the knowledge and the praise of God.

     Their adornment is different from the external splendor, the gold, precious jewels, and silks of the Levitical priests. . . . The chrism, anointing, and priestly ordination He bestows is quite different; it is the Holy Spirit who adorns them in glory and holiness and clothes them in His power and with His gifts. 28

     John Calvin’s teachings on the Holy Spirit shed little light for us, since Calvin maintained that supernatural gifts of the Spirit ceased with the apostles. 30 When Calvin spoke of gifts, he tended to identify them with offices of leadership in the church. Thus, he says, in commenting on Ephesians 4:11,

     Now, we might be surprised that, when he is speaking of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, Paul should enumerate offices instead of gifts. I reply, whenever men are called by God, gifts are connected with offices. For God does not cover men with a mask in appointing them apostles or pastors, but also furnishes them with gifts, without which they cannot properly discharge their office. 31

     It is understandable then, surveying the historical landscape, that Kinghorn concludes, “Whatever contributions early theologians have made—and they have been many—a theology of spiritual gifts has not been one of them. The subject is seldom touched on in the writings of most of the Christian leaders of the past.” 33

     Yet there is some irony in these theologians’ failure to embrace a fully charismatic posture. Vinson Synan observes,

     One of the charges leveled against the Reformers by the Catholic authorities was that Protestantism lacked authenticating miracles confirming their beginnings. To Catholic theologians, charismata were seen as divine approval at the beginning of the church. Catholics demanded of Luther and Calvin signs and wonders to attest to their authenticity as true, orthodox Christian churches. 34

     Both the Reformed and Anabaptist streams of the Reformation, therefore, in their own ways helped to set the stage for Methodism and subsequently the Holiness Movement, which in turn provided fertile soil for the modern manifestation of the charismata in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements.

     Another group manifesting the charismata were the Jansenists, a reform movement in the Roman Catholic church that flourished in France in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. In revoking the Edict of Nantes, Quebedeaux writes,

     Louis XIV of France called upon the Protestant Huguenots to return to the Roman Catholic Church, and reinforced his urgings with severe persecution. During this time, some of the Huguenots (the Camisards) reported phenomena among them such as “strange sounds in the air; the sound of a trumpet and a harmony of voices.” Those affected were known as “prophets of the Cevennes mountains,” and the episodes continued until 1711. 37

     John and Charles Wesley knew of the French Prophets and had contact with them on at least one occasion, as we will see in chapter 4.

     Closer to the modern era, one of the best documented occurrences of glossolalia involved the Irvingites.

     Edward Irving, who was born in 1792, the year after Wesley died, was pastor of a Presbyterian church on Regents Square in London in the 1830s. A popular preacher, he spoke often on the need for renewal of the apostolic gifts, especially those of healing and speaking in tongues. When a renewal actually began in October, 1831, it caused a minor sensation in the city. Thomas Carlyle even suggested in his Reminiscences that a bucket of water be dumped on the “hysterical madwoman,” Mary Campbell, a former invalid who was suddenly healed and spoke in an unknown tongue while friends were praying for her. She lived out a healthy life and became a prominent spokesperson for the movement.

     Irving never received the gift of tongues himself, but the phenomenon continued in his church for months. The eloquent preacher was the center of controversy for other teachings in addition to the charismata, and the Presbytery of London eventually convicted Irving of heresy. In the meantime, some of his followers organized the Catholic Apostolic Church, which taught that the charismata had been restored. Though the new church organization soon waned, the Irvingite experience contributed to the expectation of many Christians for a charismatic outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 39

     Other movements which, like the Irvingites, grew out of the Anglo-American revivalism of the 1830s and 1840s manifested the charismata to one degree or another. In the United States they included groups as diverse as Mormons and converts of Charles G. Finney’s revival campaigns. All these groups documented pre-twentieth century cases of tongues-speaking. It is probable that these occurrences are not isolated instances. Robert Anderson observes, “If we turn to individual instances of speaking in tongues . . . , it is quite possible that such have occurred sporadically throughout Christian history. . “ 40

     But none of these events had wide-ranging and lasting influence on the church at large. The nineteenth century drew to a close with the church on the threshold of a charismatic resurgence greater than any she had experienced since the first century.

     Before the Reformation most movements of a charismatic nature were branded as heretical and either died out or dwindled to small groups of minor significance. To a large extent this was due to the structure, power, and influence of the extensive Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps it was also due to poor organizational skills and leadership ability of charismatic leaders, though often key leaders were martyred in the early stages of renewal movements.

     Even after the Reformation, charismatic movements tended to be offshoots from larger movements and lacked the staying power of the ecclesiastical forces that gave them birth.

     In light of this, it is striking that charismatic renewal today has the blessing of the Pope, is led by educated and influential leaders, and is pervading both Catholic and Protestant circles. George Carey writes that “It is the only revival in history which has united evangelicals on the one hand, with their strong emphasis on the death of Christ and full atonement, and Roman Catholics on the other, with their emphasis on the sacraments. Somehow charismatic experiences have brought together people who on the face of it have little in common theologically. “ 42

     Clearly, charismatic renewal has become a major force in church history. We turn now to examine the shape of charismatic renewal today and the issues it raises.

1. Although the word “charismatic” is often used to describe a person who speaks in tongues, we have seen that it has a much broader biblical meaning. In the light of this broader meaning, what other practices or aspects of your church might be labeled “charismatic”?
2. Do some programs or activities in your church not seem to be based in the operation of God’s grace? If so, do you think these programs or activities in any way restrict the way the Holy Spirit would like to function?
3. Pretend that Origen were alive today and could walk into your church to meet with believers. What comments might he make concerning the way your church functions? How do you feel about his criticisms of the church of his own time? Were they valid? Are they relevant to your church today?
4. The Protestant Reformation brought about dramatic changes in the direction the church would take in the centuries that followed. Some modern church leaders think Charismatic renewal will ultimately affect the church as dramatically as the Reformation did. What do you think?

1 John T. Nichol, Pentecostalism (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), p. 19.

2 Evelyn Underhill, Worship (New York: Harper and Row, 1936), pp. 236—37.

3 Morton T. Kelsey, Tongue Speaking: An Experiment in Spiritual Experience (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 
p. 33.

4 Joseph W. Trigg, “The Charismatic Intellectual: Origen’s Understanding of Religious Leadership,” Church History (March 1981): 12—13.

5 Origen, Homilies on Numbers 22.4 (7.209.3-14), quoted by Trigg, pp. 13—14.

6 See Trigg, pp. 14—19.

7 Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953), P. 130.

8 lbid.

9 lbid., p. 132.

10 See R. Leonard Carroll, “Glossolalia: Apostles to the Reformation,” The Glossolalia Phenomenon, ed. Wade H. Horton (Cleveland, Tenn.: Pathway Press, 1966), pp. 67-94.

11 Robert M. Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 25.

12 Richard Quebedeaux, The New Charismatics (New York: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 20—21.

13 Ibid., p. 21.

14 Augustine, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 32, in Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 1st series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974 repr.), 7:195.

15 Vinson Synan, In the Latter Days: The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Twentieth Century (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1984), p. 29.

16 See Latourette, p. 155, for a copy of the original Nicene Creed. The full classical doctrine of the Holy Spirit as the Third Person of the Trinity emerges only with Augustine.

17 Latourette, p. 164.

18 Kelsey, p. 42.

19 Ibid., p. 43.

20 E. Glenn Hinson, “A Brief History of Glossolalia,” in Frank Stagg, E. Glenn Hinson, and Wayne E. Oates, Glossolalia: Tong ye Speaking in Biblical, Historical, and Psychological Perspective (Nashville: Abingdon, 1967), p. 58.

21 Latourette, p. 453.

22 See Louis Bouyer, “Some Charismatic Movements in the History of the Church,” in Edward D. O’Connor, ed., Perspectives on Charismatic Renewal (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975). Bouyer writes, there is no doubt that early monasticism . . . was in its origins a definitely charismatic movement” (p. 120).

23 Hinson writes, “New sects have resulted as frequently from the unwillingness of the majority to accept the minority as from undue pride or inherent factional tendencies among the spiritualists. So many factors can and have contributed to divisions within Christendom that it would not be fair to these movements to single them out for censure” (p. 74).

24 Kenneth C. Kinghorn, Gifts of the Spirit (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), p. 15.

25 Sermons on the First Epistle of St. Peter, Luther’s Works 30, pp. 123—24.

26 Ibid., pp. 124—25.

27 Commentary on Psalm 110, Luther’s Works 13, p. 332.

28 Ibid., pp. 294—95.

29 In Concerning Ministry Luther speaks of “the office of teachers, prophets, governing, speaking with tongues, the gifts of healing and helping, as Paul directs in 1 Cor. 12” (Luther’s Works 40, p. 36).

30 Kinghorn, p. 16.

31 John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), p. 178.

32 Ibid.

33 Kinghorn, p. 17.

34 Synan, In the Latter Days, p. 29.

35 Quebedeaux, p. 21.

36 Ibid., p. 22.

37 Ibid., p. 21.

38 Ibid

39 Synan, In the Latter Days, p. 32—35. Also see P. E. Shaw, The Catholic Apostolic Church (New York: King’s Crown, 1946), and Andrew L. Drummond, Edward Irving and His Circle (London: James Clark and Co., 1935).

40 Anderson, pp. 26—27.

41 Quebedeaux, pp. 22—23.

42 George Carey, A Tale of Two Churches (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1985), p. 17.