1. We should reevaluate our arguments in opposition to Pentecostalism in general and the gifts of the Spirit in particular.

     Most Wesleyan commentators, conscious of history and of the similarity at certain points of Wesleyan and Pentecostal theology, have understandably approached the question of spiritual gifts from a defensive and apologetic viewpoint, rather than from a positive and constructive one. Our primary concern has been to explain why we differ from Pentecostals and to defend our ranks against outbreaks of tongues-speaking. Most of the Wesleyan-Holiness literature on gifts has therefore had this negative and defensive character. 1

     More recently, some Wesleyans have begun to approach the question of gifts in a broader and more constructive way. They are asking how a proper biblical understanding of gifts can make us more effective in our work and witness. Two books with similar titles exemplify these two approaches within Wesleyan-Holiness ranks: W. T. Purkiser’s Gifts of the Spirit and Kenneth C. Kinghorn’s Gifts of the Spirit. Purkiser takes care to guard against glossolalia, while Kinghorn is more open to all the gifts.

     Most Holiness writing on the gifts so far has zeroed in on tongues-speaking, focusing particularly on the Corinthian problem. The general line of reasoning has been similar to that described by Charles Hummel in his book, Fire in the Fireplace:

     Most commentaries paint a picture of [speaking in tongues] along the following lines: at Corinth it was an emotional, sensational experience similar to the ecstasy of the pagan religions. The Christians had an exaggerated respect for this gift which they considered of the highest value. Misuse of tongues was the greatest problem in the church. Paul considers it of least value since it appears last on some of his lists. At best he begrudgingly commands that it not be forbidden. 2

     Paul’s statements do not support these conjectures. Significantly, these opinions come from a culture for which speaking in tongues is both intellectually and socially unacceptable. Since in every generation Christianity is influenced by its environment, is it not possible that this spiritual gift is far more a problem for the modern church than it was for the Corinthians? The first eleven chapters of I Corinthians indicate that for Paul other issues were of much greater concern. 3

     In the case against speaking in tongues, for example, a sharp distinction is often made between tongues as the miraculous speaking of a known but unlearned language and glossolalia as an “unknown tongue” or ecstatic speech. But this distinction is not so obvious and logical as it seems.

     First, the New Testament does not make or support this distinction, although it is clear that known languages were involved at least on the Day of Pentecost. While different kinds of tongues-speaking seem to be reported in the New Testament, no biblical writer makes the language/nonlanguage distinction that is common today, at least not as a way of validating the one and condemning the other. The issue in 1 Corinthians 14 is not what is spoken but when it is spoken and whether the congregation is edified through interpretation. In Acts 2 we know for sure that a variety of known languages was spoken; we do not know whether “unknown tongues” were also manifested. Apparently that was not an important question to Luke.

     Second, the idea that nonlanguage tongues-speaking is a highly emotional, irrational, ecstatic form of behavior involving “mindless utterances” 4 or being “out of control” 5 is a caricature that most Charismatics would reject.

     Third, it is not clear that it makes any real psychological or spiritual difference to tongues-speakers whether they are uttering a “known” or “unknown” tongue if in any case the tongue is unknown to them. In either case, to them it is an “unknown tongue” that is in some sense unintelligible.

     Another logical problem is the inconsistency of the arguments made against tongues. One writer, for instance, considers tongues-speaking (other than known languages) as illegitimate because it involves yielding one’s rational control to an irrational, overpowering, ecstatic speech pattern. Another author argues that tongues can’t be legitimate because the speaker can speak in tongues deliberately at will, whereas a truly valid spiritual gift comes by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 6 One argues that tongues is wrong because it is irrational and uncontrollable; the other that it is false because it is rationally controllable!

     The truth, however, would appear to be that tongues-speaking is a nonrational but not necessarily irrational speech pattern which lies within the range of normal human behavior. Such tongues-speaking may or may not be prompted or inspired by the Holy Spirit. In some contexts it may be induced by other forces, whether psychological, social, or demonic. This is no more than we would admit for other rather extraordinary forms of behavior which in certain contexts we do not consider abnormal or pathological, including crying, screaming, shouting, or dancing. In this sense, “getting blessed” has many parallels to tongues-speaking. Sometimes it may be of the Spirit; other times it is clearly a manifestation of “the flesh.”

     Probably the major argument against glossolalia in Holiness circles has been that it is an irrational form of behavior and speech, while the gospel always calls us to rational behavior and speech. 7 This argument needs reevaluation on at least two counts. First, it operates on the basis of an unnecessary rational/irrational dichotomy or polarity. What is not totally rational to us may not be irrational; it may simply be nonrational (in the sense that emotions in general, for instance, are nonrational but not by definition irrational). Or it may simply function beyond our present level of knowledge. Thus we now know Einstein’s theory of relativity is not irrational, although it appeared to be so at first. In this sense, tongues-speaking when accompanied by other signs of the work of the Spirit—notably the fruit of the Spirit— may have its own reason and rationality that we have yet been unable to fully discern. 8

     The second problem with this argument against tongues-speaking is its assumption that modern glossolalia is a highly emotional, ecstatic experience, verging on frenzy, as in pagan religions. But this is an unfair caricature. Hummel notes,

     Since some pagan religions have a glossolalia involving frenzy and trance, it is often assumed that the Christian experience is similar. These religions also have ordinary prayer, meditation and sacrifice, but their meaning is hardly determinative for the Christian expression. On the contrary, the Corinthians were not possessed by evil spirits but were led by the Holy Spirit. In fact Paul assumed that they could control their speaking in tongues (14:24).

     The Corinthians may have exercised this gift with strong emotion, just as they may have prayed, prophesied or sung emotionally. But this style of expression is not inherent in the gift. 9

     We may criticize some Pentecostals for making tongues the necessary evidence of the fullness of the Spirit or for attempting to induce people to seek or experience this gift. But we should be careful that our arguments grow inductively from Scripture and stand the test of the rationality for which we contend. 10 The modern Wesleyan polemic against tongues has been grounded in an appeal to reason. But the arguments have not been totally sound, especially when viewed in the light of the apostle Paul’s letters to the church at Corinth.

     The most difficult passages for a rigid anti-tongues position, as some Wesleyan writers have noted, are three of Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 14:
 

     Some Wesleyan writers and others have gone to great lengths in attempting to establish that these statements do not mean what they seem to say (even suggesting that Paul is employing a very subtle psychological method here). However, a sound hermeneutic demands that we take these statements and the whole chapter at face value and in as straightforward a manner as possible. Such an approach must take note of several things:

     a. There is no sound exegetical basis in 1 Corinthians 14 for giving “tongues” two different meanings in Paul’s use here or for restricting “tongues” to “known language.” Whatever Paul means when he speaks of Corinthian tongues-speaking, he means the same thing when he speaks of his own experience.

     b. Paul’s affirmation that “I speak in tongues more than all of you” cannot, by the text or context, be required to mean “I speak in more languages than all of you.” First, in the following verse Paul contrasts his own tongues-speaking with “intelligible words,” which would seem to mean that he in fact knew something about speaking in nonintelligible words. Second, the context here is the gift of tongues, not the acquired ability to speak languages. Even if “tongues” in verse 18 means “languages,” the interpretation would have to be, “I thank God that I miraculously speak in languages I never learned more than all of you.” But there is no more biblical support for the idea that Paul in fact frequently employed Spirit-inspired, unlearned known languages in his ministry than there is that he spoke in “unknown tongues.” So the question must be left open.

     c. Paul’s statement “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues” cannot with consistency be understood as an encouragement to speak in various known languages unless verse 2 is understood as saying “anyone who speaks in a known language speaks only to God”— which makes little sense.

     d. Similarly, in the context of the whole chapter, verse 39 means literally what it says: Do not forbid tongues-speaking! Whatever the nature of the tongues-speaking going on in Corinth, Paul says: Do not forbid it (or possibly, “Stop forbidding it”). 11 Control it according to the teaching of this chapter, yes; but do not forbid. This is the “bottom line” of the teaching in this chapter.

     In addition, note the positive things Paul clearly does say about tongues-speaking at Corinth:
 

     First Corinthians 14 was Paul’s (and the Spirit’s) perfect opportunity to put a stop to glossolalia once and for all. But Paul did not do this. Clearly, he saw the dangers of a total prohibition and was satisfied merely to state general restrictions in the interest of good order in public worship.

     We realize that some may consider the degree of openness to Pentecostalism suggested in these pages to be an encouragement of tongues-speaking. This is not our intent. These comments are made only in the interest of an interpretation of Scripture that is logically sound and hermeneutically faithful, and out of concern that we not limit the work of the Spirit in the church. The most balanced policy seems to be the same as that of Wesley and mid-nineteenth-century Holiness leaders toward strong emotional manifestations: “Do not encourage; do not forbid; judge by the fruit.”

     The evidence suggests that we in the Wesleyan tradition should become more open toward and work more closely with our many Christian sisters and brothers in Charismatic groups. We should appreciate the work God is doing through them. They can learn from us, and we can learn from them.

     2. We should understand what the Charismatic Movement is today. Many common perceptions simply do not stand up to the facts. For example, the movement is much more diverse than often painted. We find not only the historical distinction between the older Pentecostalism and the newer Charismatic renewal, but also widespread varieties and differences within both. The more recent Charismatic renewal may be divided generally into the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, the Charismatic Movement within the mainline denominations, the somewhat nebulous group associated with The 700 Club and The PTL Club, old-line Pentecostalists who have “made the switch” to the newer Charismatic style, and the rather close-knit group associated with Bob Mumford, Charles Simpson, Ern Baxter, and others. Also, there are now fairly well-organized Charismatic renewal movements in some smaller, more-or-less evangelical denominations, such as the Mennonite Charismatic Renewal. There have also been modest attempts to initiate a Wesleyan Charismatic fellowship. A small conference was held for this purpose in Cincinnati in January 1979.

     These groups vary more widely than many people realize. They differ in their understanding of the precise role of tongues-speaking in Christian experience and in the church, although they all practice tongues-speaking. Many do not hold that tongues are a necessary evidence of being filled with the Spirit. Also, tongues are generally not the main concern of Charismatic groups that have been around for a decade or more. Many Charismatic groups are now primarily concerned with questions of Christian community building, discipling, authority, family life, and personal spiritual growth. To put it another way, there is a growing concern with ethical questions. One need not agree with Pentecostal and Charismatic interpretations of tongues (as we generally do not) to appreciate the diversity and spiritual vitality in much of the movement.

     Nowhere do common stereotypes of the Charismatic Movement become more inappropriate than when we examine the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Here is a movement that is very conscious of historic Christian roots and of the call to a life of holiness. A review of several issues of New Covenant magazine or the more recent publication Pastoral Renewal will show the blending of evangelical and Catholic emphases that marks the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. As noted earlier, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal has many parallels with eighteenth-century Methodism (as well as many differences), and there is no reason why contemporary Wesleyans should not have frequent and close fellowship with this branch of the Body of Christ. 12

     3. Finally, we should seek a more biblically charismatic expression of the church.

     We have already indicated the general direction this concern should take. We must seek to be charismatic in the fully biblical sense. Among other things, this means:
 

• A new awareness of the possibilities and potential of God’s grace in human experience, the church, and in society. We need to recover John Wesley’s optimism of grace as seen, for example, in his sermon, “The General Spread of the Gospel.”

•  A rediscovery of the charismatic nature and structure of the church. This means a balanced emphasis on gifts, but it also means understanding that the charismata provide a foundational insight for understanding the varieties of ministry within the church. We need to combine an emphasis on gifts with a reaffirmation of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. This recognizes that all believers are called to the servant-ministry (diakonia) of Jesus Christ.

• A recovery of the understanding and experience of the church as community. We need to see and experience the church primarily as a charismatic organism, rather than as an institutional organization. This means recovering some functional equivalent of the class meeting, but it also means a much deeper understanding of the nature of New Testament koinonia.

• A fully charismatic expression of the church that understands itself as a proto-community of the kingdom of God. This implies seeking by God’s grace to be a messianic expression of the kingdom in a world of contrary values. Perhaps no Wesleyan thinker in modern times has seen this more clearly than has E. Stanley Jones. 13

• A charismatic expression of the church that in no way compromises the call to sanctity and holiness. Rather, it will see holiness as encompassing both the corporate and individual experience of believers, and it will see the Christian community as the essential environment for making progress in the life of holiness. It will be concerned with the sanctification of the Body of Christ (Eph. 4:14—16; 5:27).

• An awareness that the life and witness of the church stem from the work of the Holy Spirit. A biblically charismatic church will seek to manifest the “catholic spirit” that John Wesley advocated. 14 It will seek visible expression of the unity of the church, basing that unity on openness and sensitivity toward the working of the Holy Spirit in the various branches of Christendom.

1. Why has the practice of tongues-speaking been objectionable to Wesleyan Christians in times past? Has this been due to an overemphasis on tongues by Pentecostals and Charismatics?
2. How can Wesleyans and Charismatics work to minimize their differences and focus instead on their common Christian beliefs and calling?
3. Once achieved, what might be the result of a greater sense of unity and purpose between Wesleyans and Charismatics?

1 See, for example, Harvey J. S. Blaney, “St. Paul’s Posture on Speaking in Unknown Tongues,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 8 (Spring 1973): 52—60; Charles D. Isbell, “Glossolalia and Propheteialalia: A Study in I Corinthians 14,” WTJ 10 (Spring 1975): 15—22; Charles W. Carter, “A Wesleyan View of the Spirit’s Gift of Tongues in the Book of Acts,” WTJ 4 (Spring 1969): 39—68; Carter, The Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit: A Wesleyan Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974, 1977), especially pp. 181—220; Carter, introduction and notes on I Corinthians in The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, ed. Charles W. Carter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), especially 5:114—16, 197—208, 214—23; LLoyd H. Knox, Key Biblical Perspectives on Tongues (Winona Lake, Ind.: Light and Life Press, 1974); Wesley L. Duewel, The Holy Spirit and Tongues (Winona Lake, Ind.: Light and Life Press, 1974). Most of these employ similar arguments, although the contrasting treatment of just what Paul means by “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 14 reveals the difficulty of basing a total prohibition of glossolalia on the New Testament material.

2 Hummel, p. 203.

3 Ibid.

4 Knox, p. 18.

5 Blaney, p. 55.

6 Knox, pp. 16ff.; Duewel, p. 21.

7 Timothy Smith sees this as the most foundational argument against tongues, as do many others. Timothy L. Smith, Speaking the Truth in Love: Some Honest Questions for Pen tecostals (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 1977), pp. 42—47. It is not helpful to cite Wesley here, because he never faced the modern phenomenon of glossolalia.

8 Hummel tentatively suggests four possible purposes for tongues-speaking, pp. 203—4. See also Kelsey, pp. 218—33.

9 Hummel, p. 135.

10 Frank Carver notes that “apart from those who have a pro- or con-tongues axe to grind for ecclesiastical reasons the tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is normally judged” by New Testament scholarship “to be some form of ecstatic utterance” (Carver, p. 13).

11 Hummel, p. 158.

12 ”A Colloquy on the Loss and Recovery of the Sacred,” sponsored by the evangelically-Methodist-oriented Fund for Theological Education, November 5—9, 1979, at the University of Notre Dame, and a subsequent similar conference on the hallowing of life, included a range of both Wesleyan and Charismatic scholars.

13 See, for example, E. Stanley Jones, The Christ of the Mount (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1931) and Is the Kingdom of God Realism? (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1940).

14 Sermon, “Catholic Spirit,” Works (Jackson), 5:492—504.