Ah... Those CRAZY Charismatics (Part I)

The following is an unaltered email I sent to a Missionary Hubbard in May of 2001 after he asked me why I decided to leave the Insane Asylum.... I'm sorry... the Pentecostal Church. I believe either he or I were in a hurry, and we exchanged emails, and I told him I would give him a list of "issues" that I had with the movement. I didn't even mention logical questions such as: "why does this NEVER happen in any church other than one that has been made to believe that this must happen? Why not a conservative Lutheran church?"

It only magically seems to happen to those who seem to really really REALLY want it to happen. I wont go into detail, but it should be noted that PRIOR to Azusa Street, William J. Seymour, a preacher *sigh* from Houston, taught about tongues, though he had not recieved it. Neely Terry, a Los Angeles woman who was in Houston at the time, heard his message and invited him to speak at her church, pastored by Julia Hutchins. The next Sunday, Seymour came to find that Hutchins had locked the doors to the church! The leaders of the church rejected the teaching, a large reason being that William J. Seymour did not make it a secre that he HAD NOT recieved this blessing he was preaching about. Some of the members were disagreed, and Edward S Lee let him stay and teach in his home. The group began to regularly pray seeking the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Five weeks in, and 3 days into a 10-day fast, Edward Lee became the first to speak in tongues. The next day, Seymour shared Lee's experience with the others while preaching on Acts 2:4, when 6 more began to speak in tongues. A few days later, after praying for it all night long, Seymour himself spoke in tongues for the first time. Attention began to garner, Pastor Julia Hutchins and her members were some of those who began coming to the house and Hutchins herself began to speak in tongues. The meetings (and attention) became too large for the home and they looked for a new place, an empty former African Methodist Church building on 312 Azusa Street... and the insanity has been on... ever since.

So the VERY FIRST INCARNATION... was an event where people... were seeking... and seeking... and seeking... and (magically?) started speaking... and speaking... and speaking. It illegitimizes the ENTIRE movement! There's no way to disprove tongues. I could make up my own language that I could claim can't be translated or patterns picked up because its from a different space galaxy... how can you disprove that? And people get shocked... that something people sought... and sought... and sought... (something unverified) finally happened. 'Wow, they talked in tongues. What a miracle!' They trained themselves to talk in tongues. They brainwashed themselves, in a since. If I wanted to have an esoteric experience and have the language from a totally different solar system "magically imprinted" on inner mind... and I stayed home for five weeks and tried and tried and tried to find it...? Oh, believe me, I'd make my mind find it. I'd be speaking "Quasarinese" with the best of them! Anyway, this is the end of my 2008 rant on the very beginning of the Charismatic movement being tainted in psychosis...

The following email is COMPLETELY UNALTERED (even spelling!), save for color highlights:
________________________________________________________

1] Today, you 'appear' to be taught to work or recieve the Holy Ghost as if the Holy Spirit can be compelled by our actions. Oddly enough, theologically, the Holy Spirit is the one that compels. Jesus says noone can come to Him unless drawn by the Father. How are they drawn? By the Holy Spirit. To suggest that a person who is unsaved can take the initiative and compel the Holy Spirit to come to him is just unbiblical. You do not see that happen one time in the bible. The"tongues" in the biblical accounts descend upon a group. I won't say arbitrarily, but I also won't say it's because a group worked for it. (i.e. I worked for my tongues, and if you would just travail in the Spirit, you could get yours, too.)

2] Joe W. Perry said that he talked in tongues cause he wanted to. That in and of itself needs explanation. He specifically said (I still have the tape) that pentecostals give people the idea some mystical feeling comes over people and they just talk in tongues. And then he replied that this isn't true, and that he talked in tongues because he wanted to. Of course, as of late, I know he is not a resputable source, yet, if this is a prevailing view it needs explanation.

3] It seems to be common knowledge that a LARGE movement of charismatics were teaching people to talk in tongues. This underminds the legitimacy and authenticity of a great number of people if there original "experience" is one where they were taught to speak in tongues. For instance, if you are originally taught to speak in tongues when on some emotional high, and from then on out (like the former Bishop) you speak in tongues because you want to, it dampens the legitimacy of the Holy Spirit having anything to do with such a tongue.

4] I have been on the altar and seen people "prepped"to speak in tongues. I have been prepped once or so myself. This is what I mean. Someone praying in your ear with the express purpose to either get you to repeat what they say or to just get their "utterances"in your head. For instance, to be told that you hear the words in your head and they may not make since just say them. Or... to say "c'mon c'mon c'mon yeyeyeye... c'mon c'mon yeyee" to coerce the person to make the same sounds. And I was right next to someone "prepped" and then they got a certificate for speaking in tongues. Yet, from their life, it is evident that no Holy Spirit dwells there.

5] Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His apostles in John 20 or 21 after His resurrection. And this is before the day of pentecost. There is no mention of speakingin tongues at this instant, and to suggest that He was speaking to a future event is just a reach since no other options are available. This would destroy the idea (that is embraced by New Life Temple) that a true experience of the Holy Ghost always includes the giftof tongues.

6] If tongues is so essential, why is it not given the attention by Paul and the other writers that it's given by modern day pentecostals. Some cry that that wasn't an issue in certain churches. However, modern day pentecostals view tongues as essential to salvation. Faith is essential to salvation (noone doubts it) and we see it in every epistle. Why would tongues, just as important, be found so sparcely in the scriptures?

7] I Corinthians 14 makes prophecy to be sought rather than tongues? If you look at the instructions given, most charismatic churches (including New Life) totally disregard the regulations given by Paul over tongues.

8] Why in I Corinthians 12 does he ask if all speak intongues, and if all interpret? The thrust of ICorinthians 12 is that of one body with many parts. He even asks can the eye say to another part of the body I do not need you. In my opinion, Paul writes this to rebuke people like most (not all) pentecostals of the present day. He even starts the chapter off setting the stage by saying that no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. And that no one can say Jesus is accursed if they have the Holy Spirit. It's absurb to even SUGGEST that Paul thought that all Christians spoke in tongues. He sees tongues as one function of the body. One of many parts. And to those that thought this part more than any other, they were rebuked for such foolishness. However, those who rebuked in Pauls time appear to be the dominant faction of the charismatic movement. And most charismatics who don't think they are the only true Xtianians, even they think they have a deeper relationship with God through their tongues as opposed to non-Charismatics. Such arrogance, though you can find no trace of proof in the scriptures.

9] Charismatic Catholics. What is that? A Charismatic Catholic is a Catholic who has a pentecostal Holy Ghost experience. Though... I find this very hard tobelieve. It is true that all denominations or different groups have differences, but historically, Catholicism is antithetical to anything not Catholic. We disagree on the very meaning of salvation. We disagree on the role of communion, the role of Mary, the role of confession, the role of the Pope, prayer to Saints, the list goes on and on. Either Catholics have the Holy Spirit, or non-Catholics, but both cannot. Historically, it can be proven, beyond a shadowof a doubt, that prior to Vatican II forty years ago, Catholics regarded non-Catholics as non-Christians.

10] Why have we not heard anything about tongues between the time period of the apostles and that ofAzuza street. (we will not even go into all the controversy surrounding certain leaders of the movement at Azuza) But, if I am to be like New LifeTemple, I will have to conclude that for 90% of the churches history.. noone had the Holy Spirit... which must be seen as absurd. And since everyone thinks that the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation, we must then conclude that noone went to heaven for 90% of the churches history. But which pentecostal has the guts to get up and say they believe that? In this time period (1800 year gap) tongues appears EXTREMELY sparingly. Even worse, when it does appear, it is usually among cultish groups that are not even recognized as Christian... like the Mormons. Can the Mormons have the same tongues as charismatics? They claim Jesus wasn't God, but became God, and they will one day become gods as well. And rule their own galaxy. Can such a group be Xtian? Groups like these are the only ones who appear to speak in tongues.

11] Why do we find nothing about tongues in early church writing? If the apostles put such a burden on tongues, are we to believe that the generations after them forgot so quickly? We have 8 separate pieces of literature from the first century, I have only been brought up to speed on 3 of them, but those 3 give no mention to tongues... AT ALL, let alone it's necessity. Oddly enough, the one that speaks of baptism speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the baptismal formula, and this is a piece of literature from the first century, but that is not the subject ofthe day.