Tongues: Why This One Gift Causes So Much Stir - Pt 1
“Having an opinion about tongues is like poking a hornet’s nest—everyone suddenly shows up to tell you why you’re wrong.”
That’s how it feels anyway. I’ve learned the hard way that no matter how carefully I word things, the moment you say “tongues,” you’re going to get reactions. Strong ones.
I find myself between a rock and a hard place. I’m not often seen as Pentecostal enough for my Pentecostal friends, and I’m far too passionate about the things of God and the mystery of the Spirit for my friends who don’t want to venture into things they can’t control or fully understand.
So where do I fit in this whole conversation? Somewhere in the messy middle.
Where I Stand
I consider myself Pentecostal or charismatic.
I believe in and seek the work of the Spirit in all His biblical fullness.
I just don’t arrive there through hardline or original Pentecostal theology.
And let’s be clear—I’m not a cessationist. I believe God’s gifts are for now, His power is at work now, and I pray in tongues. I’ve interpreted tongues. I’ve been in services where tongues were spoken and interpreted. I haven’t preached in tongues yet… but hey, a guy needs something to look forward to.
Why Tongues Gets So Divisive
Part of the reason is hermeneutics — that’s the way we interpret and apply Scripture.
Different groups read the same passages through different lenses, and different lenses lead to different conclusions.
When it comes to Acts, the Spirit, tongues, and “initial evidence,” those differences get magnified. Let me start with the hardline/original Pentecostal approach before I share my own.
A Hardline Pentecostal Approach
Original Pentecostals had an experiential, Spirit-led, Christ-centred reading of Scripture that prioritised Acts as the interpretive lens for the New Testament and the church today.
The Book of Acts was viewed as normative, not merely descriptive. It was seen as the blueprint for church life and ministry — especially Spirit baptism with tongues as initial evidence. They prioritised reading Scripture in its “plain” or literal sense. In this way, Acts became the hermeneutical key for reading the rest of the New Testament letters.
Because of that approach, they looked at verses like Acts 2:4, 8:15–17, 10:44, and 19:6–7 — where people experienced the Holy Spirit in identifiable ways — and often concluded:
Believers should seek a “baptism of the Spirit” in addition to conversion.
The normative evidence this has occurred is speaking in tongues.
This experience is often taught as necessary for receiving power to witness and minister.
How Tongues Evolved in Early Pentecostalism
In the first two to three decades of the 1900s, when early Pentecostals were seeking their own “personal Pentecost” and God showed up, people were filled with the Spirit and tongues began manifesting — along with other works and gifts of the Spirit.
It’s important to note that tongues evolved in those early decades. In the earliest accounts, there doesn’t seem to be a clear, fully formed theology to explain it — just a genuine seeking for a New Testament reality in their time. In some ways, the experience came first; the theology followed, as leaders tried to put language, training, and defence around what was happening. It's worth noting that early Pentecostals were highly orthodox and had solid theological roots. Pentecostalism isn’t and wasn’t an experience looking for a theology. It was theology being refined by experience.
In those early years, things were fluid and moving. People were filled with the Spirit, spoke in tongues, and then someone interpreted. There was a strong missions movement, with people heading across the world to spread the gospel, believing they would be given the native tongue of the people they were going to reach — much like Acts 2. (While some claimed this happened, many discovered the locals didn’t actually hear them in perfect Swahili or Mandarin.)
Over time, the emphasis on tongues as publicly spoken and interpreted — or as real known languages previously unlearnt — became less central. In its place, the focus on tongues as a prayer language or praise language — for both private devotion and collective worship — grew. The reasons for this shift vary: theological refinement, practical church life, and, for some, responding to public criticism.
Today’s Pentecostal Spectrum
While there’s variety today, here’s what’s generally common in Pentecostal churches:
Common Practices
Laying on of hands for the filling or baptism of the Spirit.
Speaking in tongues as the normative initial evidence (though some broaden this to “inspired speech” — including praise, prophecy, or preaching, all of which appear in Acts).
Collective praying or praising in tongues during worship.
Less Common but Still Present
Public declaration of tongues accompanied by interpretation.
Occasional reports of people speaking in tongues and being understood in someone’s native language (xenolalia).
The theological thread running through much of Pentecostalism is this: although you receive the Spirit in some way at conversion, the fullness or empowering of the Spirit comes in a second work called the “baptism of the Spirit.” This can either be part of conversion or occur later, and the evidence is typically speaking in tongues or receiving a heavenly prayer language.
Why Start Here?
Because understanding this history and framework explains why tongues still stirs such strong feelings. This is the lens many Pentecostals inherited — one built on real encounters with God, deep hunger, and an expectation that the Spirit shows up in tangible ways.
In the next part of this series, I’ll share why I think Pentecostal passion is one of the church’s greatest treasures — and why we might need to rethink some of our assumptions.
