Tongues Speaking: A Historical Perspective

 

Our previous lesson examined the role tongues-speaking played in the New Testament church. It was pointed out that tongues-speaking in the New Testament was always speaking in a foreign language, which the speaker had never learned, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Tongues speaking was a sign to unbelievers.

 

In I Corinthians chapters 12, 13 and 14, Paul devotes a prolonged passage to a discussion of spiritual gifts, and especially tongues. Tongues speaking was just one of nine miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Not all Christians in the early church spoke in tongues. Love was superior to all these spiritual gifts, and especially to tongues. Tongues were imperfect and the time would come when they would cease. Tongues were to be used for edifying the church and were not to be used unless people could understand them either naturally or through an interpreter.

 

In this lesson we will took at tongues speaking from a historical perspective. To understand the current tongues movement, one must know something of its history. A.D. 100 marks the approximate end of what we might call Biblical history and the approximate beginning of what we might call “church history.” Our previous lesson dealt with tongues speaking during the time of Biblical history—during the days of the early church in New Testament times. Now we want to consider tongues speaking as it occurred in the church after the first century, after New Testament times.

 

First Four Centuries

 

The first fact that becomes apparent as we survey church history after the close of the first century is the relative infrequency of recorded instances of tongues speaking. Those groups after A. D. 100 where tongues speaking occurred were minority groups, often under persecution, and usually considered heretics by the church in general. The question we must face as we examine this history is, “Are those few occurrences of tongues-speaking after the end of the first century the same spiritual gift of tongues as in the New Testament, or is it possible there are other explanations?”

 

A group known as Montanists was among the, earliest people in the church to claim the gift of tongues after the end of the first century. The founder of the group, Montanus, who lived in the second century, is reported in church history to have spoken in “an irregular ecstasy, raving, and speaking and uttering strange things.” But those who cite Montanism as an example of tongues speaking after the first century must remember that the church judged Montanus to be a heretic because of his unorthodox views. Montanus and his followers were excluded from the fellowship of the church because of their claim to have received revelations superior to the Bible. Though it cannot be denied that tongues speaking, in the sense of ecstatic utterances, did occur among the Montanists, the fact that it occurred among this heretic group hardly constitutes a strong recommendation.

 

A leader in the second-century church, lrenaeus, is often quoted to indicate tongues speaking continued in the church throughout the second century. Late in the second century, lrenaeus mentions spiritual gifts and. even the gift of speaking in “all kinds of languages.” Many scholars feel, however, that lrenaeus was discussing what went on in New Testament days rather than in his own days. Others feel he is referring to a phenomenon in his own day, but that he has the Montanists in mind, rather than members of the regular church. To say the least, the meaning of the quote from Irenaeus is obscure.

 

In the, early third century, there is a passage in the writings another church leader, Tertullian, in which he indicates that an ecstatic type of speech was common in his group in the church. But Tertullian had joined the heretical Montanists at the time he made this statement, and as such, was no longer in fellowship with the church.

 

By the time we reach the fourth century, we have clear testimony from church leaders that there was no tongues speaking in the church of that day. Chrysostom, a fourth-century church leader, commenting on Paul’s discussion of tongues-speaking in I Corinthians 12-14 says the passage is obscure due to limited knowledge on the part of the fourth-century church of the tongues-speaking phenomenon which, he said, “used to occur, but no longer takes place.” And Augustine, also in the fourth century, confirms there was no tongues speaking in the church of his day. In his sixth homily on I John, he writes, “In the earliest times ‘the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues,’ which they had not learned, ‘as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away.” In another writing, he adds: “For who expects in these days that those on whom hands are laid that they may receive the Holy Spirit should forthwith begin to speak in tongues?” It would seem, therefore, that by the time of Chrysostom and Augustine in the fourth century, there was no trace of tongues speaking in the church.

 

Middle Ages

 

George B. Cutten’s work, Speaking with Tongues, is regarded by students of the subject as the most thorough, older history of tongues speaking in the English language. In the period of the Middle Ages, Cutten records several isolated instances when an individual was said to have spoken in tongues, particularly in foreign languages, which he had never learned. St. Vincent Ferrier (early 1 ₅th century) is said to have been understood by Greeks, Germans, and Hungarians though he spoke to them in the dialect of his native Valencia. St. Louis Bertrand (₁₆th century) is supposed to have converted 30, 000 South American Indians of various tribes and dialects through the use of the gift of tongues. It is also reported that St. Francis Xavier (₁₆th century) was able to preach to natives of India, China and Japan in their own language, though he never studied them.

 

Cutten goes on to point out, however, that these reports contradict both the testimony of Xavier himself and the explicit statements of other historians who indicate Xavier had to work very hard to master Japanese and other languages which he studied. When we see how the history of Xavier has been embellished through the years with fantastic legends, we can learn to take with more than a grain of salt these other claims from the Middle Ages regarding the miraculous gift of tongues.

 

Church history, then, indicates that tongues-speaking, even in the sense of ecstatic utterances, has occurred only infrequently in isolated instances, and then only among minority groups in unusual circumstances. For those who claim that tongues speaking is intended to be a normal part of continuing Christianity throughout the ages, there is the obligation to show why it appeared so spasmodically and so seldom. The voice of history seems to deny their claim, even if they could show that what is claimed is the real thing.

 

American Church History

 

As far as American church history is concerned, tongues speaking did not begin on a large scale until the rise of Pentecostalism in 1906. Until about 30 years ago, tongues speaking remained pretty well confined to Pentecostal churches, but within the last thirty years we have seen the rise of what some writers call “Neo-Pentecostalism.” This term refers to the spread of tongues speaking to other churches, including the larger and more dignified “established” churches.

 

It began with an Episcopal minister in California and spread to Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and was taken up by certain groups of interdenominational character. It has affected some in the Church of Christ and warrants investigation.

 

Though most of these people do not encourage tongues speaking in the regular Sunday services of their churches, they do exercise their “gift” of tongues in private devotions or in small prayer groups. Tongues speaking among these people are usually much less emotionally charged than among the older Pentecostals. But both Neo-Pentecostals and older Pentecostals regard tongues speaking as evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

Ecstatic Utterances or Known Language?

 

What shall we say about all of this? First, it should be pointed out again that present-day tongues speakers, for the most part, see tongues speaking as “ecstatic utterances” rather than a known foreign language. In this respect, modern-day tongues are different from the tongues of the New Testament, which in every instance were a foreign language spoken by a person who had never studied it. Yet, for the vast majority of current tongues-speakers, their utterances are unintelligible, and are not in any human language.

 

Some tongues-speakers, however, do claim to be speaking in a human language, but instances of this are very poorly documented. The most palatable and popular defense of the contemporary tongues movement is the widely-circulated paper back edition of John L. Sherrill’s book, They Speak with Other Tongues, Fleming RevelI Co., 1964). Sherrill insists that there have been some instances in modern times when an individual would speak in a tongue, meaningless to the speaker, but which was recognized by someone else as being a known language. Documentation, however, for the few such instances cited by Sherrill is lacking. The cases are introduced by such phrases as “So and So said he had spoken in Polish”. “So and So heard an Irishman speak Hebrew”. . . “I had a letter saying.. .“ “I ran across a story. . . “This is hardly sufficient documentation to establish a case. Most of the cases cited occurred thirty of more years in the past, and the author admits that “some cases cited occurred thirty or more years in the past, and the author admits that “some cases of tricks-of­-memory” may have existed” (p. 95).

Sherrill records the results of a very significant experiment he conducted in an effort to establish that some in our day were speaking actual human languages by the power of the Spirit. He writes: “For months I had been making tape recordings of people speaking in tongues. If I should play these before a group of disinterested language experts and one of them should recognize a language, the position would be different. I could make a study of linguistic background of the speaker, feeling that the inquiry was based on something solid. About three weeks later, I met with David Scott, religious book editor at McGraw-Hill, and six linguists, in a private dining room at the Columbia University Faculty Club. Three of the linguists were on the staff at Columbia; two were professors at Union Theological Seminary, and one at General Theological Seminary. There are two specialists in modern languages, three in ancient languages, and one expert in the study of language structure. I was interested in their reactions to our experiment. They were extremely attentive, dubious without being hostile. As I put on the first tape, each man leaned forward, straining to catch every syllable. Several took notes. But at no time did I see a face light up with recognition. I played another tape, and then another. For the better part of an hour we listened to one prayer after another spoken ‘in theSpirit.’ And when, at last, we came to the end, I looked around and asked, ‘Well, Gentlemen?’ six heads shook in the negative. Not one had heard a language which he could identify.” (pp. 100, 101). Sherrill goes ahead to discount this experiment by concluding that tongues must be validated subjectively by one who has experienced them, rather than by those on the outside.

 

Even though Sherrill has presented in his book the most articulate defense of contemporary tongues-speaking available, one or two sections in the book give some insight into the type of subjectivity that undoubtedly enters into his reporting. Early in the book he recounts a recent hospital experience of his: “It was the middle of the night, and I was awake, fully awake, without transition from sleep. A little light came in from the hall, and from the windows. A nurse passed the door on rubber-soled shoes. Both of my roommates were restless, the one coughing, the other moaning softly. I don’t know how it was that I first became aware of the light. It was there, without transition, as my awakening had come. It was different from the light that came through the door and the window; more an illumination than a light with a defined source. But there was something remarkable about this light: it had, somehow, a center of awareness. It was awed, but not at all afraid. Instead there was a sense of recognition as if I were seeing a childhood friend, physically much changed so that what I recognized was a totality rather than a particular feature. ‘Christ?’ I said. The light moved slightly. Not really moved: it was just suddenly closer to me without leaving where it was. My roommates were still tossing, still coughing and groaning. ‘Christ,’ I said moving my lips only, ‘would you help that boy?’ the light did not leave me, but in some strange way it was now at the bedside of the boy in pain. A little ‘Ohhh. . . came from him and he was silent. ‘And my other friend?’ the light was instantly centered on the bed of the old man who was in the middle of a spasm of coughing. The cough stopped. The old man sighed and turned over. And the light was gone.” (pp. 13,14).

 

Naturally, this type reporting is a barrier to one’s taking seriously Sherrill’s reported instances of persons who supposedly spoke known languages by the power of the Spirit. The documentation is simply not there.

 

Tongues speaking as ecstatic utterances are a phenomenon which has been known over many centuries, quite apart from any particular religious orientation. Ecstatic utterances were widespread in the Greek mystery religions and were referred to by Plato, Vergil, Plutarch and early Egyptian writers. Several of the religions of the Far East still practice speaking in ecstatic languages, which on the surface appear to be very similar to our current tongues-speaking phenomenon in America. A recent television film of Madagascar showed natives who were members of a heathen cult entering into this “mystical speech.”

 

Other Explanations

 

All of this tells us one thing: the symptoms of tongues-speaking, in the sense of ecstatic utterances, can be produced by something other than the Holy Spirit, so there must be some other explanations. That many people, separate and apart from Christianity, have experienced the tongues-speaking phenomenon is evidence that it could be the result of an emotional or psychological experience.

 

The late Dr. C.G. Jung found that tongues speaking was an evidence of a break-through of the unconscious and was even able to reproduce this experience in patients in a laboratory setting. Dr. Morton T. Kelsey, an Episcopal rector in California, and author of the book, Tongues-Speaking:

An Experiment in Spiritual Experience agrees that tongues speaking is similar to dreaming. (“In a dream the ego is relaxed, and another part of the psychic structure takes over so that images present themselves to the consciousness. In tongues, instead of a visual image coming before the consciousness, you have a motor response taking over.” He adds that