Nlnews.org: Fighting for the values of honesty, fairness and the free pursuit of truth in journalism, at North Central University (NCU) and beyond (formerly representing North Central's student newspaper, the Northern Light)

Fighting for the values of honesty, fairness and the free pursuit of truth
in journalism, at North Central University and beyond

Tongues doctrine alienates many

By Chris Fletcher, Columnist

I don’t know anyone my age on the North Central campus who believes speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit. If initial physical evidence is important enough to be one of the Assemblies of God’s fundamental truths, why are we so ambivalent about it?

Initial physical evidence. It sounds so clinical. What does it mean, exactly? Does it mean that tongues will emanate from someone once they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit? Can a person be considered baptized in the Spirit if they have never spoken in tongues since it is just the initial “physical” evidence? These are the questions that the initial physical evidence doctrine begs in my mind.

Please do not misunderstand; I believe the gifts of the Spirit are for today. I just wonder why we invented the doctrine of initial physical evidence in the first place. The AG’s position paper on initial evidence refers to “an overall pattern of speaking in tongues.” A pattern is a good sign that something might be the norm, but it is simply not enough to establish doctrine in this case. There is no such doctrine in the New Testament, so why do we feel the need to augment our understanding of the Spirit? Is it a product of modernism? Is it part of the need to categorize and explain everything? Can’t we just let God decide how to work within us?

I realize I am raising questions without concrete answers, but I feel we need to take another look at initial physical evidence. What if we are wrong about it? I know some suggest we should not worry about speaking in tongues; rather, seek after God and the baptism in the Spirit, and to them I say, “Okay, then remove the doctrine.” If we just need to seek the baptism, then let us do so. Do not make us look for evidence that may not be necessary.

I have friends who seem to think all we need to do is wait out the “old people,” and then we can do whatever we want with the doctrine. I hear predictions of the removal of the initial evidence doctrine all the time. The rub is that the forecast always seems to be about 25 years out. Must we really wait 25 years before we can talk about the issue? Why not tomorrow?

“Don’t rock the boat,” you say. I say rock the stupid boat. Yes, I said the boat is stupid. Human institutions are always flawed in some way. Thus, rock the stupid boat. If we do not talk about the initial evidence now, we lose precious time. If it is possible that we are wrong, there are many people whom we need to set free from the bondage of waiting for tongues. I know good people who wonder if God can ever use them because they are not baptized in the Spirit. Who is to say that they have not been baptized? Isn’t that up to God?

For those of you who feel my generation is just rebellious, misguided or too “postmodern,” and that we just need to stop our rabble-rousing, please think about what I am saying. Wonderful people who are pursuing God’s heart are being disenfranchised by our precious “distinctive.”

The AG seems to be really hung up on being distinct from everyone else. Not only do we stress our differences from the world, but we also are proud of how we differ from the rest of Christendom. Shouldn’t we be trying the bridge the gaps between us and them rather than reinforcing the gaps wherever we can? If I hear another visiting missionary say that there are no missionaries for a particular area, but what they really mean is that there are no AG missionaries there, I’m going to throw up on my shoes.

But I digress. What I really mean to ask is, “Is being distinctive more important than the spiritual wellbeing of others?” What if we have been wrong all along and the gifts of the Spirit can come to us in any order?

Billy Graham does not speak in tongues. I hear some people have said, “Imagine what Billy Graham could do if he were only baptized.” Do we really believe he is not baptized in the Spirit? How is it possible for him to do what he does without the Spirit filling him?

Maybe all it will take is our admitting that we don’t know as much as we like to pretend. Maybe I am asking too much. After all, we are the intellectuals of the Christian world – if we don’t count the Baptists and the Methodists and the ... well, you get the picture.