[AJPS 2/2 (1999), pp. 195-211] EVIDENTIAL GLOSSOLALIA AND THE DOCTRINE OF SUBSEQUENCE

If there is one teaching that appears to have the least support in the larger spiritual tradition, it would be the doctrine of glossolalia as the initial evidence of Spirit-baptism. Although more recent studies like McDonnell and Montague’s have given the Pentecostal-Charismatic experience a wider historical grounding, glossolalia particularly in the way that Pentecostals have understood it, remains highly problematic. It is one thing to show that there was some historical evidence of occurrences of prophetic gifts including tongues, but quite another to show from history that it had the same significance that modern Pentecostals have given to it. No wonder theologically it is becoming something of an embarrassment, even while classical Pentecostals continue to maintain its special place of importance. Increasingly, even ordinary lay people are questioning if it is really that important. When we have no strong theological underpinning for a practice, it will eventually fall into disuse. Signs of its practical abandonment are already apparent in Pentecostal churches. The doctrine of “initial evidence” as it stands is difficult to defend as long as we try to do it on the basis of historical or biblical evidence. But I would like to argue in this essay that it can be coherently understood if we could establish the logical relationship between glossolalia and Spirit-baptism. These two terms have a theological