Speaking in Tongues: A Response to Remnant Radio (Part 1 of 3)

The following is a transcript of a response I gave to Remnant Radio on the WWUTT podcast, Episode 2375, after they twisted my comments about speaking in tongues. I also included in this episode a brief history of the modern charismatic movement. Listen to the audio below or read the transcript beneath.

Back in the fall of 2023, the documentary Cessationist debuted at the last G3 national conference, a documentary I was pleased to take part in, thanks to the invitation of creator David Lovi. I did not have an opportunity to respond to any interview requests because we were at that time moving from Texas to our home now here in Arizona.

However, charismatic pastor Sam Storms and the guys at Remnant Radio, a charismatic podcast, did a series of critical responses to the Cessationist documentary, and I did a three-part rebuttal to select portions of their combined 24-part series (Remnant Radio did 9 episodes and Storms did 15 articles). You can listen to my three rebuttals in episodes 2020, 2025, and 2030.

• Episode 2020: Q&A Responding to Critics of Cessationism
• Episode 2025: Q&A Open but Cautious, Private Prayer Language
• Episode 2030: Q&A Responding to Sam Storms and Remnant Radio

Now, in the episodes of Remnant Radio that I was able to watch and in the articles of Storms I read, I never saw an argument raised against any of what I said (most of my comments in the documentary addressed either speaking in tongues or having a private prayer language, and then I gave a presentation of the gospel at the end). Well it turns out Remnant Radio did criticize something I said in video number 9, the last installment in their 9-part series. (EDIT: They've since changed this episode to part 8.)

This is a video that until last week I didn't even know existed. I did not know the Remnant Radio guys had ever responded to anything I said in the documentary. Apparently they did, and not to my surprise, they treated my comments the same way they treated every other comment in the documentary they responded to.

When I was first responding to Remnant Radio, which was back in October of 2023, it was in episode number 2020 of this podcast where I said the following about Remnant Radio's treatment of the documentary Cessationist:

"Their arguments were not very well done. I think they were charitable. I think that they were very devoted to the Scripture. I think they did their research before they made some of the arguments that they did. But there were occasions in which these guys—it was like they weren't even hearing what was being said. They were responding to an argument that wasn't even being made."

And they did the same thing with the snippet of mine they took out of the documentary. They responded to something I said about a private prayer language as if I was talking about speaking in tongues. But I was not talking about speaking in tongues in that clip. I didn't even use the phrase. I do not believe a private prayer language is speaking in tongues.

To clarify, speaking in tongues according to the Bible is a miraculous gifting of the Holy Spirit given to a person to speak another human language they did not previously know. This is what we read of the disciples doing at Pentecost in Acts 2. Many charismatics practice a form of prayer in which they babble in a sort of private prayer language that they call speaking in tongues. But I do not believe that's what the Bible calls speaking in tongues, nor does the Bible teach us to pray this way.

Let me play that clip, where you will hear my voice from the documentary, and then I'll play a brief portion of how the Remnant Radio guys responded to it. Here we go: this is Gabe Hughes from the 2023 documentary Cessationist:

HUGHES (from the documentary)
"'But I read in Romans chapter 8 that the Spirit speaks with groanings that are too deep for words.' Maybe that verse is what is meant by this, 'I feel this overwhelming urge from the Spirit to utter something and that's what comes out.'

"There is no given permission in Scripture to speak some gibberish nonsense that no one is going to understand. Think about what Jesus said when He taught us how to pray. In Matthew 6:7, He said, 'Don't heap up empty phrases like the pagans do.' And then He says, 'Pray then like this:' and Jesus taught us to pray clear prayers.

"He was never praying anything that was some otherly language. And if there was anyone who was going to pray in such a language, it would certainly be the one who was sent down from heaven—Christ Himself."

LEWIS
"Interesting. Is Matthew 6 telling us not to speak in tongues. Is the fact that Jesus never spoke in tongues evidence that we shouldn't speak in tongues. These seem like bad arguments."

Now let me just stop it right there. We already have a problem. What is it? The problem is that  this was not my argument. I was not saying that Matthew 6 is telling us not to speak in tongues. I wasn't even talking about speaking in tongues. They did not set the clip up well, they played it out of context, they cut out part of it.

I was addressing a common charismatic belief that we can pray in some kind of heavenly language as a private prayer language. When I was in charismaticism, I heard this all the time, taking 1 Corinthians 13:1 out of context: "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels." Well if I can speak in the tongues of angels, then maybe that's what this language is when I pray like this:

Keya sebba batsha, keya sebba batsha, Father God, thank you for this heavenly language...

That was a brief clip from a WWUTT video I did on this subject. As I explained, we have not been taught anywhere in Scripture to pray like this. Not one verse says anything about a private prayer language.

Even the one who came down from heaven did not pray in a private prayer language, as if there's another divine, other-worldly language spoken in heaven. In His teaching on prayer, He taught His disciples to pray clear, meaningful prayers. Praying in nonsense gibberish is not how Jesus taught us to pray. We should pray like Jesus prayed and like He taught us to pray—that was very simply my point.

There was someone in the comments under this video saying that my exegesis on this point was terrible. Sure, if I was saying what the Remnant Radio guys said I was saying. It was such a poor set up of my argument that it was a straw man—they propped up this easy to knock down dummy so their arguments would sound better, whether or not they deliberately misrepresented what I said.

Now, I'm not going to go any further in responding to the arguments they make against the argument I wasn't making—at least not today. We'll get deeper into this video another time. I just wanted to play that part for now so you could hear what initially caught my attention.

What, I'd like to do here is what they did not do with me, and that's look at their whole argument in context, especially concerning the way they define and defend the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues. I'm going to make this a teaching opportunity, so this is going to take a little bit of time, and it will stretch out over more than one episode.

Let's go back a little further in this episode entitled "Responding to the Cessationist Documentary—Part #9" as it was published to YouTube on December 13, 2023. This will begin with a clip from the documentary featuring an answer given by Nathan Busenitz, professor of historical theology at The Master's Seminary.

Now, they don't really start this clip in a good spot, nor do they set it up well. However, I do not have the Cessationist documentary at the ready, so I cannot give you the original. You will hear Joshua Lewis of Remnant Radio cue this clip from Nathan Busenitz, who then explains the Greek term Glossalalia which means to speak in tongues, and then he gives a brief history of the understanding of speaking in tongues within the charismatic movement.

This is unfortunately edited—the Remnant Radio guys cut up the clip and speed it up, but whatever. This at least gives us a starting point. After Busenitz speaks, host Joshua Lewis throws it to Michael Miller, a pastor from Denver, and Michael Rountree, a pastor in Oklahoma City, with Miller being the first to respond. So here we go, with Lewis cuing up Nathan Busenitz:

BUSENITZ (from the documentary)
"[Glossalalia is] a term that comes from two Greek words: glossa meaning 'tongue' or 'language,' and laleo meaning 'to speak.' So when we use those terms together, glossolalia is used to refer to tongue-speaking or to speaking in tongues. The modern charismatic understanding of the term allows for glossolalia to refer to ecstatic spiritual speech that doesn't conform to any known language.

"Parham was in the newspaper on multiple occasions talking about how now that the gift of tongues has been restored to the church, no one is going to have to go to language school to learn foreign languages, and we'll be able to send missionaries all around the world without them having to spend years training and learning a foreign language in order to be effective.

"Of course they all came back utterly disappointed and dejected when they realized that what they were doing in terms of their modern glossolalia did not communicate in terms of a foreign language with the people they were trying to reach. And so consequently the Pentecostal movement had to change its understanding of Scripture to fit its experience rather than acknowledging that its experience did not fit the clear teaching of Scripture.

"You don't find the notion that tongue-speaking in the Bible is anything other than real human languages until you get to the modern charismatic movement. The modern charismatic movement has invented a new kind of tongues because the tongues that they practice don't match what the Scripture reveals as the real gift of tongues, and as a result they had to broaden the biblical category to make room for their experience."

LEWIS
"Interesting arguments, guys. Is it really the reason that we believe and preach about the tongues that we believe and preach today because of a historical event, because of an experience, and has nothing to do with the Bible? What say you guys?"

MILLER
"I started believing in tongues before I actually started speaking in tongues. However speaking in tongues has certainly helped affirm what I already believed in Scripture, which I actually think that's what the gifts should do: they should affirm what you already believe to be true in Scripture, and if they don't then there's something off in your practice of gifts, not the Scriptures.

"But man, he's really reaching here. One, Josh, you already proved the fact that they thought that you need to learn languages. However, there probably was some truth to that. I can't remember the book I read on this, about the number of Pentecostal missionaries that went out because of this.

"One of the things I think they failed to mention though is how the Pentecostal movement became the fastest growing worldwide denomination on the earth largely because they felt like they were empowered for ministry—which is interesting because that's what Jesus says: go and wait in Jerusalem so that you will be baptized with spirit and power, right? Like, that's the point of that.

"So regarding his idea about the gift of tongues being known human languages, uh, prove it! We actually have Paul saying flat out in 1 Corinthians 14:2, "For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he's speaking mysteries by the Spirit." Well we have a pretty explicit scripture right there that seems to imply that people could be speaking a language that nobody understands because it says no one understands.

"Now the question in my mind is does that mean no one on the earth or no one through history? Does the language itself have no actual meaning, or is it that it has no meaning to those who are around that person? And I tend to lean towards the second of the two. I think it has meaning—there's no language without meaning—but who it's meaningful to is the question.

"The question is whether it's meaningful to God or some other person on the earth or some other person through history. We're just not told in Scripture. And so to pigeon-hole the view of tongues into that small confined space is not one the Bible actually explicitly states. He doesn't have a text to state that.

From here, Lewis jumps back in and he repeats the verse that Miller just gave, 1 Corinthians 14:2, as an argument for the gift of speaking in tongues being an unknown language that is not a real human language. This is their starting point on the gift of speaking in tongues, 1 Corinthians 14:2. This is the exact same error I committed when I was a charismatic. In my defense of speaking in tongues, I always started with the same verse.

It was in February of 2015, ten years ago now, when I had a conversation in the living room of a friend of mine. And it was not our intention to talk about cessationism vs. continuism, but that's where things went. And in defending my charismaticism, the gift of speaking in tongues in particular, I started with 1 Corinthians 14:2.

My friend, Joe, rightly handling the word of truth, told me you cannot start there. This is the very last chapter in the New Testament that even mentions speaking in tongues. It never comes up again after this. You cannot start building your doctrine at the end and work backwards. You must start at the beginning. So let's go back and look at the first occasion of speaking in tongues in Acts 2. After that, in the second half of this podcast, I want to address their history of charismaticism argument, which I don't believe they get right either.

First of all, Miller said, "Regarding [Nathan Busenitz's] idea about the gift of tongues being known human languages, uh prove it!" And then he said that Busenitz did not have a text to state that. Now I cannot remember if Busenitz or the Cessationist documentary did prove that. The Remnant Radio guys cut these clips up so bad, it's hardly a fair presentation.

But Miller has to prove his point with the text of Scripture, too. He has to be able prove that speaking in tongues is not only the ability to speak in another real human language, but it can also mean praying in gibberish. And I don't believe Miller did that.

I'm reading here from Acts 2:1-4 which says: 

"When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance."

And that verse right there, verse 4, is the verse that launched the modern Charismatic movement—and you'll see how in a moment when I get to the history of Charles Parham. It was specifically a desire for the gift of tongues that was on the nose of the rocket.

It's interesting because, when I left charismaticism and became convinced of cessationism, speaking in tongues was for me the last domino to fall. I had heard enough false prophecy and seen enough false claims of healing to make me a bit skeptical whenever someone said God told them something or they witnessed a miraculous healing. But speaking in tongues was the reason I could not be a cessationist. I was a witness to it, and I could not be convinced that gifting had ceased in regularity. But I had a faulty understanding of what it was.

Going on to verse 5: 

"Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in their own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, 'Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and vistors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.' 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, 'What does this mean?' 13 But others mocking said, 'They are filled with new wine.'"

In these 9 verses, it is said three times—in verses 6, 8, and 11—that speaking in tongues is speaking other real human languages. Once again verse 11: "We hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." And observe that the people didn't understand what they were saying. They could hear them telling the mighty works of God, but that didn't mean they knew what it meant: "And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, 'What does this mean?'"

What did 1 Corinthians 14:2 say? "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries of the Spirit." That's the same reaction the people had to the apostles speaking in tongues in Acts 2. There is not one single verse in the New Testament that ever says the gift of speaking in tongues is anything other than a supernatural, God-given ability to speak another human language that the speaker did not come to know on their own.

If you start with 1 Corinthians 14:2, and you think that verse is talking about unknown mutterings that are not real human languages, you impose that onto the text. The text says no such thing, nor is there anything prior to 1 Corinthians 14:2 that could lead someone to that conclusion.

When Miller quoted 1 Corinthians 14:2, he said, "We have a pretty explicit scripture right there that seems to imply that people could be speaking a language that nobody understands because it says no one understands." Well, that doesn't make any sense.

The word "explicit" means "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity." So 1 Corinthians 14:2 cannot be an "explicit Scripture" that "seems to imply" that it "could be" about indiscernable mutterings that are not a real tongue in the human language family.

Again, it is explicitly stated three times in Acts 2:5-13 that the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues is a supernatural occurrence whereby the Holy Spirit empowers a person to speak a language he did not previously know nor was he studied in. The modern charismatic practice of muttering gibberish is not explicitly described in any verse in the Bible, nor is the practice demonstrably supernatural. It is on the Remnant Radio guys to prove otherwise.

The History of Modern Charismaticism

Now as far as exposition goes, I'm going to stop here, because there is more to this video that will open up our discussion later. Let's pivot toward the historical claim Busenitz mentioned in his segment and Miller contended with briefly. Busenitz mentioned Parham, who is Charles Fox Parham, the father of the modern charismatic movement, who lived from 1873 to 1929.

Busenitz said that Parham taught that we can send missionaries all aroudn the world without having to go through years of training to learn the language, and through the power of the Holy Spirit, they will just be able to speak the language of the people they are sent to witness to. The Remnant Radio guys disagreed with that, but that is historically accurate.

As many of you know, I lived in Kansas for almost 30 years, and Charles Parham was someone I heard a lot about and witnessed the effects of his former ministry. Many people may be unaware that Topeka, which was just an hour away from where I pastored, was where the modern charismatic movement began. When you hear about the history of charismaticism in America, you often hear about the Azusa Street Revival. However, what was dubbed the "Topeka Outpouring" occurred a few years earlier—on literally the first day of the 20th century.

Of course there were plenty of what we might categorize as charismatic practices going on way before then. When I warned my congregation and fellow ministers of the practices found in the International House of Prayer, I compared with them the second century heresy called Montanism

A teacher named Montanus of Phrygia and his two prophetesses, Prisca and Maximilla, were not content with the teachings of Jesus and desired new revelation. And again, this was just in the second century. They were already bored with apostolic teaching and wanted something new and more experiential. Montanus believed he was a prophet of God and that the Holy Spirit spoke through him. His teachings spread to Africa and Gaul, the region of modern day France and Germany, and they lasted for several centuries.

However, no Montanist writings exist. We only know of Montanism through those who spoke against it. The early church father Tertullian was actually a fan. He wanted Montanism to be declared orthodox, and some believe he joined Montanism. The Montanists called themselves spiritales (or a spiritual people) and their opponents psychici (or a natural people). It was like an early form of the continuists vs. cessationist debate. I'm being a bit tongue and cheek there.

According to what Eusebius wrote, the Montanists would babble in strange utterances, sometimes they would throw themselves in a kind of spastic frenzy, and then, Eusebius said, they would prophesy "in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by the tradition from the beginning." So there would be prophecy, but not like we see in prophecy in the Bible, in other words.

Epiphanius of Salamis, writing in his "Against Heresies," captured one of these Montanus prophesies, which sounded like this: "Lo, the man is as a lyre, and I fly over him as a pick. The man sleepeth, while I watch." Obviously that's very vague. What does that mean? Well, that's kind of like a lot of the charismatic prophecies that are popular today. It's been going on for about 1800 years.

Now what got Montanus branded a heretic is because he claimed to speak as God, not merely a messenger of God. In one instance, it is said that Montus declared, "I am the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." But again, that's also not terribly unusual compared with modern day charismaticism.

You'll probably remember the controversy that Justin Peters and I responded to a few years back with Steven Furtick declaring of himself, "I am God Almighty." Now some debated whether or not that was a gaff, and I was one of them. But he never recanted it, and there are other instances of him making such claims. That wasn't the only time.

Perhaps you've seen the clip of Paula White, spiritual advisor to President Donald Trump, who along with Televangelist Larry Huch, proclaimed that Jesus Christ was not the only begotten Son of God. I'm a son of God and you're a son of God. Listen to this:

WHITE
"When Jesus Christ paid the price, the first thing that happened after he said 'It is finished' is the veil was rent from top to bottom signifying that no man could do that but the price that was paid, was that there was now no separation, so that we have direct access into the Holy of Holies. We understand, according to Hebrews that Jesus is our High Priest, and He's the first of many brethren, which means I now come into a priestly anointing, so I'm now..."

HUCH
"Say that again because they don't get it. Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God. He is not. I'm a Son of God. He's the first fruit. He's the firstborn of many."

They take words that you find in the Bible, and they twist and apply them to mean something they don't. Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God—period. John 1:14 and 18 and John 3:16, if you need a reference. You and I are children of God adopted by faith in Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God, it doesn't mean we are sons of God like Jesus is the Son of God, and it does not mean we receive a priestly anointing like His.

Through this you can see how some of the heresies we've seen creep in through the modern charismatic movement are nothing new.

And by the way, I've made some posts recently on social media about Paula White that got a lot of attention. I had Roman Catholics telling me, "Well she's one of yours. She's a result of Protestantism." No, she's not. Montanism was far before Protestantism. This was when both the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox claim they were the only true church. This kind of stuff supersedes denominational bounds. Roman Catholics are heavily charismatic, which I'll get to later.

For now, let's jump way ahead to the 19th century, right in the middle of the Second Great Awakening. Like the Montanists, many professing Christians grew bored with the sound doctrinal preaching, like the teaching that came out of the First Great Awakening, with preachers such as George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards. That kind of preaching was now regarded as stuffy and bland. Give us something new—something exciting!

The Second Great Awakening became very anti-confessional, and worship was rather feeling-driven. Many church services and sometimes outdoor meetings were filled with all kinds of what we'd call charismatic practices. The Christian faith was more about having a personal experience. As in the time of the Montanists, people were seeking after new revelation.

Charles Finney, perhaps the most well known and influential evangelists of the 19th century, claimed to have heard God speak to him and received a post-conversion second baptism of the Holy Spirit. He was critical of reforming the church and was more in favor of revivalism. Finney is still highly regarded among charismatics today.

Sean Feucht, a musician associated with Bethel Church, part of the New Apostolic Reformation, posted on Instagram pictures of himself putting the hands of his infant son on the grave of Charles Finney. Bethelites practice grave soaking, this belief that they can soak or absorb the spiritual mantle left behind by departed heroes of the faith. The late Benny Johnson, wife of Bethel's pastor Bill Johnson, had also taken pictures of herself hugging Finney's grave.

Others in the 19th century included the Stone and Campbell movement, from which the Church of Christ and the Christian Church would arise, churches affiliated with what's called the Disciples of Christ. There are still many websites of these churches where you can go and click on "What we believe," and you'll find something like, "No creed but Christ!" or "No creed but the Bible!"

Among more charismatic gatherings, there were the Shakers, or the Shaking Quakers, called that because of their trembling, ecstatic behavior. They'd fall on the floor and call out in incoherent gibberish which they claimed to be "the gift of tongues." There was the Millerite movement which splintered into the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, all built upon new revelation from God. Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, claimed to receive new revelation. He had been inspired by members of his family who were what we might today call charismatics, including relatives who were seers and a mother who claimed to receive dreams and visions from God.

In the midst of all of this religious fervor of the 1800s was the Holiness movement, which was a precursor to charismaticism. This was born out of a sermon that Finney preached in New York in 1836. It eventually led to the Keswick Convention, if you've heard of that; the general holiness conferences held in Cincinnati and New York; the Salvation Army came out of the Holiness movement, as well as the Church of God and the Nazarenes.

Another major contribution to this movement were the Methodists in the midwest—by the way, lots of Methodist churches in Kansas, and I preached or sang in several of them as a young itenerent preacher. At this time they were obsessed with the more miraculous spiritual gifts, seeking after divine healing and speaking in tongues.

One of these Methodists was Charles Fox Parham. He attended Southwestern College in Winfield, KS, which I also attended. I was a piano player for one of their traveling choirs back in 2002. Parham was a charismatic preacher, not just in the spiritual sense but in the sense that he oozed charisma, and he often employed memorable gimmicks into his sermons. For example, he might dress as someone from the Bible and preach a message from their perspective.

Parham began preaching when he was only 18. It is recorded that even at that young age, he taught that if one was baptized in the Holy Spirit, this would be manifested by the recipient speaking in tongues. If you've heard that theology taught today, it originates with Parham. So committed was he to this doctrine that in 1900, Parham opened a school in Topeka so that he may teach it. The name of this school was Bethel, meaning House of God.

The movement that was spurred by this teaching was called by several names, including Apostolic, Pentecostal, and the Latter Rain movement, all different labels for the same thing. Parham had a newspaper he called The Apostolic Faith. And all of this was to further Parhams' teaching about the spiritual anointing of speaking in tongues.

Now, when Parham first taught on speaking in tongues—and this is what Buzenitz referred to in the clip we heard a bit ago—he spoke of the gift only in the sense of being able to speak other known, earthly languages. This was the clearest understanding of speaking in tongues as we see it demonstrated and talked about in the Bible. Even the earliest charismatics understood it this way.

Parham preached that the church was on the edge of an end-time revival—influenced by the revivalism of the previous century—and they would go out preaching in other known human languages that they had not previously learned. And in so doing, the church would bring about the end of the church age and usher in the return of Christ.

On New Years Eve, 1900, when Parham was only 27, he and his students conducted what they called a Watch Night service. One of Parham's students asked that hands would be laid on her and she would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit to go out into foreign countries and share the gospel. It was said that her head began to glow and she started speaking in Chinese. As no one in the room knew Chinese, no one was ever able to verify if this was true. But from that point on, everyone in the school claimed to speak in foreign human languages.

So this was how the 20th century began—on the first day of the year. And from there other revivals happened across Kansas and the rest of the Midwest. Despite all this excitement, the Bethel school closed, and Parham went out preaching up the East Coast and into Canada. From there his teachings made it across the sea and there was a big revival in England, which led to the founding of the Apostolic Church, and shortler after the Apostolic Church of Nigeria.

In 1905, Parham went to Texas and set up a school there where he taught, and his teaching attracted the attention of a black minister named William Seymour. It was through his friendship with Parham that Seymore was invited to join a little Baptist church in Los Angeles that had split from another church because they wanted to openly practice the miraculous spiritual gifts. Long story shorter, it was this move—Seymore going to LA with Parham's teachings—that would lead to the famous Azusa Street revival meetings in April of 1906.

It all kicked off believing they could and did speak in tongues. Seymore's first sermon was out of Acts 2:4, which says, "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterances." This was what launched this revival, and the meetings that resulted would go for hours—sometimes all day, from 10 am to 2 am. This was all very novel. Hardly anyone had ever heard or seen anything like this before. And during a time of segregation, these meetings brought together blacks and whites and Hispanics and Asians.

All kinds of people came to see what these meetings were all about, even preachers from other churches, and they would get caught up in the frenzy, and the revival meetings just continued to grow. It's difficult to know how many attended, because the building on Azusa Street was not that large. A few thousand people altogether may have come to Azusa. But as the word spread and revival meetings broke out in many places, that number easily could have been in the tens of thousands.

And by the way, it might be hard to picture it now, but LA was less than a quarter of a million people at that time. So it's possible that 10 percent of the city or more attended some kind of Azusa revival meeting in those days.

A reporter from the Los Angeles Times came to observe and wrote in the paper that a prophet at one of these meetings said there would be "awful destruction" against the city of LA. They may have printed this to get people to think negatively of this movement. But the very same day that was printed in the paper, April 18, the San Fransisco earthquake hit, killing hundreds, and tremors were felt in LA. Though the prophet specifically said destruction was coming to Los Angeles, this was received as an accurate prophecy, causing the revival to grow all the more.

Now these 12 to 16 hour revival meetings did not consist of hours upon hours of preaching. Seymour would say just a few words, and then he'd walk around the room and get in people's faces and tell them to start speaking in tongues. Some of these utterances were the babbling gibberish often called tongues today. The Times reported on these nonsensical outbursts that would happen in a frenzy of religious zeal. The most fanatical were blacks with a spinkling of whites, they said.

This kind of thing was all brand new to most people. It's not like there were charismatic or Pentecostal churches every few blocks like you might find today. The Assemblies of God wasn't founded for another 12 years after this. The Apostolic Church was just beginning, influenced by the teachings of Charles Parham. The Foursquare Church, founded by Aimee Semple McPherson was still 20 years away. So few people had ever seen this kind of tongues speaking.

Despite these occasions of ecstatic ramblings that sounded like the speech of a toddler, it was still believed among Parham's disciples that genuine speaking in tongues were the utterings of other languages. They thought they were speaking languages like Chinese and Hebrew and Hindi, but they had no one to verify that these were actual languages.

The Azusa Street Revival went from April to October of 1906, and it ended due to some pretty sharp divisions. There could be as many fights as there were fits of religious frenzy. I hardly ever hear this side of the revival talked about. Most people think it was this big Kumbaya where the Holy Spirit moved, and there was all of this great preaching and singing, and there was communion and foot washings, and people were saved and they were healed and other miracles were observed.

But the fact of the matter is the gospel played very little role in any of this. Again, this started with an errant application of Acts 2:4. Throughout the revival, there were surely preachers who shared the gospel and perhaps people even got saved. But when you get below the surface, you see that the Azusa Street Revival was filled with so much spiritism, errant doctrine, and rivalry, you would have to say that any work the Holy Spirit did was contrary to the revival, not through it.

And it's not just skeptics of Azusa who say that. This is according to the same people who started it. William Seymore was troubled by what was going on. He at one point sought Parham's counsel in dealing with the mediums and necromancers and the seances that were being conducted during the revival. There were all manner of strange doctrines being taught, so much so that Parham tried to distance himself from taking any credit.

Earnest S. Williams was one of the attendees, a future leader in what would become the Assemblies of God. He came from Denver to see the Azusa Street revivals (in those days, you traveled that kind of distance by train). And even he was put off by just the extreme level of fanaticism, spiritism, and false teaching. Still there was a genuine spirit in it, he thought.

And when I was in charismatic churches, I saw this constantly. There was just a flood of fakery. Even someone like Mike Bickle, the now disgraced pastor who founded the International House of Prayer, said that only 20% of it that you see in charismaticism is ever genuine. Listen to this:

BICKLE
"In the last 20 years I have concluded in manifestation meetings all over the world—again I've been to several thousand of them, a couple thousand at least—that 80% of them are not real but 20% of them are. Some people go, "What? Eighty percent? That's horrifying! If you say that people will be afraid of opening themselves to the Holy Spirit!"

"I go, 'No, what happens when people hear that I've said that in different countries around the world, I get applauses for it because people go, 'Wow, if somebody's got enough discernment to see what's really happening, maybe there's hope to keep pressing in. But if I have to believe all this, I can't believe any of it.'' I go, 'You don't have to believe it all. You can enjoy it without believing all of it because you see some of it.'"

Now, I think he's being way too generous with that number. I haven't been to thousands of manifestation meetings as he's claimed, but I have seen dozens, if not well over a hundred, and well less than 20% of it is real. But that aside, this is one of their own admitting the vast majority of it, at least 4 out of every 5 manifestations of the Holy Spirit, are completely fake.

But no matter how fake it is, they still defend it, just as Bickle was defending it here: "There's just this energy here," they might say. "Can't you feel it? The Holy Spirit is really doing something here."

Though Parham had tried to distance himself from the Azusa Street revivals, there's no question that his teaching launched it, and he is today considered to be the founder and most prominent leader of Pentecostalism, or what we might also call modern charismaticism.

Was it ever authentically verified that what Parham taught about the gift of speaking in tongues actually manifested itself in fervent Christians able to speak in the tongues of men—languages that they were not previously learned or studied in? Even Parham himself had to admit that any genine manifestation of this gift, to speak in another language, was extremely rare. But still, he was invested in the rare. He put all of himself behind however rare those occasions may be.

So what Buzenitz said was true: "The Pentecostal movement had to change its understanding of Scripture to fit its experience rather than acknowledging that its experience did not fit the clear teaching of Scripture." Now that doesn't mean that they organized and had a meeting and said something like, "Guys, this tongues thing that Parham taught ain't working. So going forward, maybe tongues aren't real human languages. Maybe it's speaking in ecsatitc utterances."

This is a change that came about organically, not organizationally. The fact that you cannot easily find anyone speaking a real human language that they did not previously know empowered by the Holy Spirit is proof of cessationism. Praying in gibberish is not supernatural. The Montanists did it, the Shakers did it—there are people of all kinds of religions and spiritual practices who do that all the time. I could do it right now if I wanted. Anyone could do it whenever they want to do it.

But for the genuine gift of speaking in tongues, speaking in another human language, Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12:30, not every Christian can or will do it, nor is it one of the higher gifts. Verse 31: "Earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way," the way of love. Because what's the reason for the spiritual gifts? They're for building up the church. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14:6, the gift of tongues does not build up the church. Verse 22: "Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers."

That's a point I'm going to come back to next time, because when the Remnant Radio guys explain what the gift of tongues was for, they miss that. Miller will actually make the argument that the gift of tongues was for prayer. Here's a teaser of him saying that:

"I think the, and I've said this already, but I think if you just look at 1 Corinthians 14, it's pretty clear that tongues is about prayer. Predominantly, it's about praying to God. And that to me seems like a really obvious thing because prayer is important to God, and He's helping us to pray when we're not really good at it."

Yeah, he helped us to pray by teaching us how to pray—by giving us a whole book of prayers and praise songs called the Psalms. How does Miller's explanation fit with 1 Corinthians 14:22, that tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers? A private blathering prayer language that no one can understand is a sign for unbelievers? We'll flesh that argument out next time.

Why the Charismatic Movement is so Popular

Back to something else Miller said, he responded to Buzenitz, "One of the things I think they failed to mention is how the Pentecostal movement became the fastest growing worldwide denomination on the earth, largely because they felt like they were empowered for ministry."

It's true that Pentecostalism grew immensely after Azusa Street. There are estimates today that put the number of Pentecostals between 200 and 600 million people who practice it—and that means they have adopted charismatic practices, not necessarily that they attend Pentecostal churches. As I said earlier, you could be Roman Catholic and be Pentecostal.

Roman Catholicism is filled with mystic practices we might call charismatic—dreams and visions and voices from God and prophecy and miraculous manifestations and casing out demons, statues that cry blood, appearances of Mary or angels or other saints. This not just a Protestant thing.

The largest Pentecostal denomination is the Assemblies of God, and while there are only 3 million people attending Assemblies of God churches in the U.S., there are over 90 million worldwide. That's 6 or 7 times larger than the Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.

So yes, Pentecostalism is huge. But I disagree with Miller when he says Pentecostalism is the fastest growing denomination on earth "largely because they felt like they were empowered for ministry." I did not get that sense when I was a charismatic. I never even heard that when I was charismatic. I was doing more ministry, and especially more effective ministry, after I left charismaticism than when I was a charismatic.

The number one reason why someone is a charismatic is for an experience. That is the reason—to experience God, to experience the Holy Spirit.

Now, let me clarify what I'm not saying. I'm not saying this is the reason everyone who is charismatic is charismatic. Michael Miller says he's charismatic because he was convinced by the Scriptures—who am I to sit here and say that's not the reason.

I'm also not saying they don't have a desire to be empowered for ministry, as Miller said. I'm not saying they don't want to be biblical—Charles Parham thought he was being biblical. He rooted his teaching in Scripture. But he attracted so many people to his movement because he promised them an experience—a real, felt move of the divine.

This is the reason why charismaticism today is so large—perhaps the largest movement within Christianity. Just think about it on a common sense, practical level. If someone were to ask you: "Which would you rather have: a real, felt experience of God, especially if you could be given some miraculous ability or prophecy or another spiritual gift, or would you rather not experience that?" What would you say? Who in the world would say, "Nah, I'd rather not experience God." Sure, we all would love to have some tangible experience of the divine that way.

That's a really powerful thing to be able to promise something like that—as all charismatic churches believe they can promise. That is what continues to attract people to the charismatic movement today. They can be totally solid everywhere else in their doctrine and theology. But there's that yearning for something just a little bit more. I understand that desire. I've been there.

When I was 18 years old, I begged God for that kind of experience. I wanted something to affirm to me that He was there, and I chased after a charismatic experience for years. I was convinced I had experienced such things. I wrote songs about it; songs I still sing to this day.

My ah ha moment came when I was reading Exodus. I wanted a burning bush type of sign like Moses had. And I was reading about all these incredible miraculous signs the Israelites saw—the miracles Moses did with his staff and his hand, turning the Nile to blood, all the other plagues of Egypt, the Red Sea part, manna and quail from heaven, the voice of God Himself speaking from a mountain.

And what did Israel do? Did it cause them to believe in God? Were they advanced to some kind of higher spiritual level? No, they grumbled and complained. They disobeyed. They rebelled. And then they turned around and worshiped a golden calf. The experience doesn't make you believe more. In fact, it will probably make you less of a believer, because you pin the reality of your faith on your experiences rather than trusting in God and His word.

Listen to 2 Peter 1 beginning in verse 3: 

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us into His own glory and excellence, 4 by which He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

"5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practices these qualities, you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Tell me, brethren, where in there did Peter say to go out and confirm your calling and election by miraculous healing, speaking in tongues, casting out demons? What did he say it meant to become partakers in the divine nature? He said to love.

Paul said the same thing: "But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way." The more excellent way is the way of love, chapter 13. The higher gifts are those gifts that benefit the church. And speaking in tongues does not benefit the church. Even if you speak in tongues the Acts 2 way, it does not benefit the church—how much less then to be babbling to yourself.

Conclusion

Bretheren, let me conclude with this frankness. I tell you this with all the love of my heart because I've been there—if you believe that the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues means an ecstatic utterance of praying gibberish, you are acting out of a desire, a want to experience something, and then you impose that desire onto the text, just like I did. You did not draw that from the text. It is not a supernatural move of God.

Desire the higher gifts which build up the body, and pursue the more excellent way of love. We will come back to this debate about speaking in tongues next time.