Why Leave? My Church Is Fine!

Most of the ex-Pentecostals here have left their churches and the P/C movement because of bad personal experiences. Just read some of their stories of abuse and harassment, destroyed families, manipulation, guilt trips, outlandish lies from the pulpit. You might understand why they left.

But what if your Pentecostal or Charismatic church is fine: full of wonderful, loving people who would never hurt anyone, or embarrass anyone, or put a guilt trip on anyone?

What if your church never gets crazy: no whacky manifestations, no wild dancing, no barking like dogs or slithering like snakes?

Why should you even consider leaving a church like that?

Maybe you agree that there are abuses and excesses out there, but you believe that there is "good" Pentecostalism and "bad" Pentecostalism. You might say, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water." OK, where's the baby? What shall we keep and what shall we throw out? Let's throw out slithering like snakes, for one thing. That can't be good. Or can it? What would those who have practiced this say? They probably say, "Don't put God in a box!" To which I would say, "But some people think God has told them to kill their children. Isn't there a box we can put that 'God' in?"

We can't blindly accept anything and everything as coming from God, just because someone says so! Yes, the baby-killer "God" is an extreme example, and (thankfully) very rare, but where do we draw the line? Are personal prophecies, which are usually much less extreme (and not rare), any better? "God told me to tell you..." Whenever you hear that, does your instinct tell you to run away, or at least to listen politely, then ignore? Good for you. I dare say, that is a God-given instinct! Sure, they're usually less dangerous than "God told me to kill my children", but I maintain that any time someone misquotes God, it is very serious. While it's theoretically possible that God will give Frank a message for Sue, it usually seems to be just something Frank made up, maybe so he could seem spiritual, but it's usually pretty innocuous. "God says you will be a blessing to many people, Sue!" Sometimes, though, it's more troublesome. Personal prophecies can be downright meddlesome! "God told me that you are to marry me, Sue."

I can think of three things that make it very unlikely that God would use this method of guiding His flock:

1. It's usually impossible to tell whether a message is really from God or just made up. Not just hard: impossible. Sometimes it's possible to rule it out (God told you to kill your children), but if not, you still can't be sure it's real.

2. It's easy to abuse.

3. It's not needed.  When it comes to making decisions, big or small, I think God expects us to use our own minds, intuition even, as well as the wisdom in Bible. And there's nothing wrong with asking advice of a trusted friend.

So what's wrong with a seemingly "harmless" prophecy? Here's what's wrong with it: it's a lie! If God really didn't tell Frank to tell Sue that she'll be a blessing to many people, it's a lie to claim that He did. Lies are bad. And one lie leads to another, and another.

So, suppose we draw the line at tongues. Let's say tongues are the "real thing". Just tongues, and not slithering or convulsing or murdering babies. First, I think most Pentecostals would agree that, at least some of the time, people will speak in fake tongues. If you don't think so, stop by some time and I'll demonstrate for you. It's easy. Now, are there "real" tongues, too? Maybe, but how can we tell? Can the listener distinguish the fake from the real? Can even the speaker distinguish?

You might say, "Oh, I know it's real, because I feel deep inside that it's real!" Well, I feel deep inside that it's not real. Whose feelings are right and whose are wrong? Some feel deep inside that Hinduism is real, or Voodoo, or you name it. If you say that the Holy Spirit confirms in your heart that it's real, I could say that He confirms in my heart that it is not real! They're still just feelings (even if the Holy Spirit did put them in one of our hearts), and we are at an impasse!

So we need a standard. Ah! How about the Bible? Can we agree that the Bible should be our standard? If not, we are stuck with personal feelings and experience, which wouldn't help at all.

As practiced today, it seems that there are two main uses for tongues: 1. Evidence for the baptism in the Holy Spirit. 2. A prayer language, ostensibly a "heavenly" language, rather than a human language such as English or Japanese. A subcategory of type 2 is used during praise services in church or in private.

The first occurrence of tongues, and the model for the first type above, is described in Acts 2. The very first mention of tongues there is of tongues of fire! I've never seen that happen, have you? I wonder why! Anyway, the spoken tongues, next verse, were human languages, not heavenly languages. The speakers had not learned these languages in the normal way. This was a miracle, no doubt. Does it happen today? The baptisms I have witnessed and experienced didn't sound like a human language. I'm not a linguistics expert, but it would be obvious to any honest observer that "tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut ho la la la la ho shala la la la la la" is not a human language. Sure, it doesn't always include stuttering, but even so, it just never sounds anything like any human language I've ever heard. In fact, most Pentecostal defenders don't believe these tongues are human languages, either, and they are forced to depart from the Acts 2 pattern and claim that, when we are baptized in the Holy Spirit, we are "given our prayer language". So, we have a problem with type 1 tongues (evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit). As it's practiced today, it is not supported by Scripture.

There may be exceptions. (I'm more open-minded than I may seem!) I recall hearing stories of someone speaking Chinese, say, so a Chinese person hearing it was so impressed that he received Christ and was baptized, too. These stories always have an urban legend feel to them. That alone doesn't disprove them, of course, but they fall in the same box as stories of incredible healings, which never end up in the news media with names or dates. Gee, I wonder why. (Don't bother playing the "liberal bias" card on me: there are plenty of conservative news outlets, too.)

Is there any instance of the second type of tongues, a prayer language, or a heavenly language, in the New Testament? Some look to 1 Cor. 13:1 and Rom 8:16 for support. Here's 1 Cor .:1:

But keep reading:

 

---

 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.  And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

---

Does Paul, in fact, claim to understand all mysteries? Have all knowledge? Or have the faith to move mountains? Or speak with the tongues of angels? I don't think so, and that wasn't his point, anyway. He's using a rhetorical device, just like we might say today, "Even if I could <insert something impressive here>, but I don't have love, <insert something negative, here>". The rhetorical device actually depends on the premise being at least partly false, or somewhat outlandish. Even if I gave everyone in the world $1000, but I didn't have love, it would be pointless.

Perhaps the rhetoric is a mix of true things and false things: maybe Paul does speak with the tongues of men, but not of angels. Maybe he does have the gift of prophecy, but doesn't understand all mysteries.

Or fine, maybe he does speak with tongues of angels and he does understand all mysteries! Who cares? It doesn't matter! My point is that we are missing Paul's point, if we focus on the "though I" side of these verses, as if it gives us evidence for something, whether it's tongues of angels or feeding the poor. Paul's point is simple: even if I could do some super impressive things (whether I really can or not), it doesn't amount to a hill of beans, if I don't have love. Period. If you still insist that this proves that humans can speak in heavenly languages, then I guess you must also know everything, and you can move mountains with your faith, and you give everything you have to the poor. If that's the case, then I salute you. You have won this debate! Now, let's see a mountain vanish. Otherwise, read on.

What about Rom 8:16?

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Groanings! Well, I suppose tongues might sometimes sound a little like groanings. Usually not. Usually more like babbling and gibberish. Random syllables. But regardless, it says these groanings "cannot be uttered". What?! Cannot be uttered ? So, it's not possible to speak them? Uh oh. Trouble. And what about this: "the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us"? For us, not through us! This is about as far from today's practice of tongues as you can get. It simply shows that the Holy Spirit is praying for us, in a way that we cannot. Again, don't try to make it say more than it really is saying.

Another scripture used in support of a prayer language, and it's a biggie, is 1 Cor 14. But the emphasis and tone is to minimize the importance of it. Paul would much rather we use English (or whatever native tongue), so others can understand and benefit (v 5). Still he does talk about (v 2) speaking to God in a way that men can't understand you. A heavenly language? Maybe, but he doesn't go that far. He simply says it's not going to be understood by men. And he repeatedly gives it inferior status to understandable speech, which he often refers to as prophecy, in the sense of speaking God's message in plain language so everyone will understand.

With a couple of exceptions, he puts such a negative spin on unknown tongues, that I wonder if he's really kind of dancing around the issue, so his audience won't instantly tune him out. This is pure speculation on my part: but what if he really hoped to stamp out this practice of praying in gibberish, without coming right out and forbidding it, feeling that that would just backfire? Mind you, that's not normally Paul's style -- he usually gets right to the point. But, I just wonder: could he be pulling a reverse Mark Antony trick here? "Friends, Corinthians, countrymen, lend me your ears. I am here to praise tongues, not to bury them!" Like I said, speculation. But, if the Corinthian church was getting out of control, and were the Pentecostal extremists of the time, perhaps a bit of reverse psychology was the best tactic Paul could use! Take it down a few notches; restrict it to two or three times in a service, and only when there is an interpretation. Or keep it private. Keep emphasizing its unimportance, so it loses its status. Maybe it will die out entirely, and if not, its limited use (supposing they took his advice) would be tolerable, as long as understandable speech took priority. (Contrast that with the big revivals of recent times, like Brownsville and Toronto! In its hey day, a Brownsville service would include preaching, but the preacher has been quoted, when the crowd seemed impatient for the preaching to be finished, "Don't leave me now ... just hang in there ... we'll get to the good stuff soon".)

But the big question remains: are there or are there not true, valid tongues today, as there were in the time of Paul?

Look at 1 Cor. 13:8:

This verse is at the heart of the question of whether tongues are for today. Each side has its own interpretation, of course. One side says tongues have ceased, and are no longer valid for today. The other side says no, not yet! Which is true? They can't both be true! Keep reading:

If Paul is still talking about the things he mentioned in verse 8, and it seems that he is, then it appears that when something (that which is perfect) arrives, tongues (along with prophecies and knowledge) will stop. There's the key: what is "that which is perfect"? One side says it's Christ, and his second coming, specifically. Further, this side claims that this has not happened yet, and so tongues are still valid. The other side says it's the written Word of God, the Bible. Further, that other side claims that that has already happened: we now have the complete Bible. "That which is perfect" has already come, and so tongues et al are no longer valid.

Well, I suppose it is up to you to decide which makes more sense. There is some merit to both, I suppose, but it seems to me that the second one has more going for it. Let me put it this way: if Paul really had the second coming of Christ in mind, what point would there be in saying "when Christ returns, there will no longer be tongues or prophecy or knowledge"? Well, maybe the point would be to emphasize that, until that happens, you should keep on prophesying and speaking in tongues and getting words of knowledge. Then when Christ returns, stop! Um, OK. I guess. On the other hand, if Paul really meant "when the written Word is complete, there will no longer be tongues or prophecy or knowledge", doesn't it seem that the ceasing of these things would be a pretty natural thing? We have God's written Word! Why should God keep giving us more words (spoken rather than written)?

The Assemblies of God (a Pentecostal denomination), for example, says right in their Statement of Fundamental Truths, "The Bible is our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice." If it's all-sufficient, why keep adding to it?

Even if you claim that tongues are for today, look at 1 Cor. 12:28-30.

It's clear from this and from chapter 14 that Paul thought tongues ranked the very lowest, among the gifts. Further, he asks are all apostles? etc. He felt that the answer to each of these questions is so obvious that he didn't need to put it on paper: no, of course not all are apostles, and no, of course not all speak with tongues. Yet, most Pentecostals single out tongues, for some reason, and claim that we all should (some even say must !) speak with tongues. Why? Even if tongues are for today, why not let it be one of several gifts that are given to different people as God chooses?

Just as with personal prophecies I mentioned before, most of the interpretations of tongues I have heard were pretty harmless: encouragement, admonishment to spread the Gospel, etc. So what's the big deal? Well, I would be very surprised if, among the thousands (millions?) of interpretations of tongues in Pentecostal services, around the world and over the years, at least some of them were not both (A) simply made up by the interpreters (not actually given by God), and (B) devious or even treacherous, to some extent. "The Lord would say unto all of you, thou shalt sell your houses and give all the money to this church, for the Lord will surely bless you, thus saith the Lord!"

Call it a hunch, but I would claim that part A is the norm and not the exception. As to part B, who knows? Probably rare. But if it ever does happen, how would you counter it? Test it against Scripture? That's the usual way of answering the question "How do you know it's from God?" Well, in my little example above (sell your houses), you'd have to say that it is not contrary to Scripture. In fact, there is precedent (Acts 4) for selling your house and giving all the money to the church! But did God, here and now in this church service, actually tell us all to sell our houses? I guess if you believe in tongues and interpretations, since this one doesn't contradict Scripture, bye bye house!

If the only questionable or debatable thing about Pentecostalism were tongues, that would be one thing. But there is much more than that. I don't know of a Pentecostal church that doesn't go beyond tongues, if only a little, and also get into miracles and healings, for example. So, what's wrong with that? Plenty, if they aren't real!

A few years ago, my brother had cancer. A visiting evangelist told me he would be healed, saying that God told him that. My brother died of cancer a few months later. Variations of this little drama are played out over and over again, in thousands of Pentecostal churches around the world. Not to mention the faith healers on TV, some of whom have been exposed as frauds, indisputably and verifiably! Still, their fans fill the stadiums, bringing their sick and crippled loved ones, hoping for a miracle. Has there ever been a verified miracle at one of these crusades? The stories abound, but it's always back pain or tumors or cancer or anything that can't really be seen by the cameras or those attending. It's never a missing leg, for example. There are screeners to keep those cases away from the stage.

Oh, but we were talking about the "good" churches, weren't we? Yes, well, if your church is quite free of abuse, guilt trips (I didn't even scratch the surface of that one!), fake healings, false hopes, putting words in God's mouth, outlandish "manifestations", etc., then more power to ya! If you have the real thing, where, for whatever reason, God speaks through you, whether in other tongues or in your native language, that's great. If it works as advertised, gives you boldness to be a witness, edifies you, lets you pray for things you don't even know should be prayed about, then consider yourself lucky. Stay where you are, and carry on.

So, what am I saying? That all Pentecostal churches, even yours, are full of liars, pretenders, manipulators, etc., despite appearances? No! I personally know of several churches where most of the people are loving and sincere (including the leaders), whose desire is to serve God and help other people. They happen to believe some things that are not true -- because they were taught that way, because the system is set up to make them believe those things, or want to believe them, even pretend to believe them. Things that are contrary to intuition, to common sense, and even contrary to the evidence. And it's intoxicating! Who wouldn't want to be among the chosen few, spiritual warriors with special magic powers?

I'm the first to admit that I haven't got it all figured out. I'm learning, searching, growing, or at least trying to. We each must find out own path. My path has led me from belief in the Pentecostal doctrine, to a near total rejection of it, through study and research. I no longer believe that the Holy Spirit gave me utterance to speak random gibberish. It was entirely made up, using a technique I learned from others. Whether others have the "real thing" or not, I can't really say. I suspect not. Most likely, if they really searched their hearts and were honest with themselves, they would probably reach the same conclusions I and many others have: without consciously knowing it, they were pretending, acting, mimicking, fulfilling expectations. Hoping it was real. Enjoying the endorphin rush, caught up in the excitement.

I hope this has been helpful to you. Food for thought, at least. And, if there's a baby in all this bath water, don't throw it out!

God bless you in your search for truth.

* (posted by permission of the author)