Speaking in Tongues Privately and Publicly: Charles F. Parham’s View of Speaking in Tongues

Parham-s view on tongues (changsoung lee) (2).pdf

Speaking in Tongues Privately and Publicly:
Charles F. Parham’s View of Speaking in Tongues

Chang-Soung Lee

I. Introduction

    About one hundred years ago, when the understanding and experience of speaking in tongues was almost like an unknown world, Charles Fox Parham as a pioneer explored the valleys and tops of the tongues world and left maps, coordinates, and the accounts of expeditions. But, up to the present, the maps and the records have been abandoned at a remote place. Now, as Josiah read the Book of Law found in the temple of the Lord, it is the time to find out and read Parham’s accounts of tongues expeditions, and to receive guidance for understanding the world of tongues.

 A. Studies on Parham’s View of Speaking in Tongues

    Existing Studies on Parham’s view of speaking in tongues focused primarily on missionary tongues for witness, so it is necessary to see Parham’s view in all its aspects. In 1991, James R. Goff studied the history of Parham’s understanding speaking in tongues as missionary xenoglossolalia for preparing imminent second coming of the Lord. In 1993, Roland Wessels followed down Parham’s changes in his bible study and thinking to the point that Parham combined the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues by the usage, evidence, and saw speaking in tongues as an unknown language for foreign mission. But Parham’s view was more diverse. In fact, the two studies were not comprehensive. Therefore, a more overall research on his view is needed. To meet the demand, this study will investigate Parham’s view of speaking in tongues comprehensively and systematically.

 B. Basic Structure of Parham’s View of Speaking in Tongues

    The useful criterion for establishing whole structure of Parham’s view of speaking in tongues is his distinction between public tongues and private tongues. He said, “I have good times walking and talking with the Lored in the night . . . I . . . pray in tongues; but publicly I follow the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians and obey it.” Following Paul, Parham classified speaking in tongues into private speaking and public speaking in meetings of church. His division can be taken as the basic structure of his view. This study will use his frame for arranging various sayings, which are scattered over his writings, about speaking in tongues.

 C. Summary of Parham’s View of Speaking in Tongues

    For Parham, speaking in tongues was, privately, a way of prayer and praise to God and conversation with God, publicly, the invariably accompanied, unseparable, outer, definite, and only Bible evidence of the inner Baptism of the Holy Spirit, a sign of believer and to unbeliever, speaking unknown languages of the world by the Spirit, so a medium of message from God for foreign mission and preaching, and a method for praise to and judgment by God. However, Parham did not adhere only to xenoglossolalia. Writing that the initial gift of tongues may develop into a real gift of language, he acknowledged so called glossolalia to some extent. 

II. Private Tongues

 A. Prayer Tongues

    Parham understood speaking in tongues as a way of private prayer. Considering his saying “I prayed in tongues”, it can be said that he used to pray in tongues when he was alone. Especially, his private tongues can be said to be a channel of intercession. He wrote, “This morning I prayed in tongues to the delight of a man who could not speak our language, and had not had a thing out of our services.”

 B. Conversation Tongues

    For Parham, private tongues was a means of conversation with God. To him, speaking in tongues was not an one sided prayer to God, but a conversation with God. The reason of this insisting is that he wrote, “I have good times walking and talking with the Lord in the night, I . . . pray in tongues, and talk in tongues.” on the one hand, he made a distinction between prayer and talking, on the other hand, identified talking with talking in tongues. 

 C. Praise Tongues

    Parham viewed private tongues as a channel of praise. When he was alone, he not only prayed to and talked with, but also praised God in tongues. He said, “. . . in the night. I sing in tongues.” His praise in tongues might be started at the first experience of speaking in tongues. When he began to speak in tongues at the prayer room of Bethel Bible School in Topeka, he worshiped, praised God in tongues. He wrote looking back the praise, “Right then there came a slight twist in my throat, a glory fell over me and I began to worship God in the Swedish tongue.” The ｅxpression “worship” might has same meaning with “praise.” When he entered the room, others who were already in the room and received the Sprit baptism accompanying tongues were standing and singing in tongues
    Parham’s recognition of private tongues as prayer, intercession, and praise should be relighted. McGee insisted, “Although Parham retained his view of the preaching nature of tongues, more and more Pentecostals concluded that tongues represented prayer in the Spirit, intercession, and praise.” But, differently from the assertion of McGee, Parham had both missional tongues and devotional tongues. He also referred to sing, pray, and preach with tongues in a sentence(bestowing the power so that we can sing, pray, and preach “in the Spirit” as a “gift of tongues”).

III. Public Tongues

 A. Evidence Tongues

   1. Inseparable Evidential Tongues from Spirit Baptism

    Parham understood tongues as the inseparable evidence of Spirit Baptism. He insisted that the Spirit of the promise was accompanied with speaking in tongues, and was being accompanied today also. And he asked to do not forget that this point has no ground for controversy in the Bible. Speaking in tongues testifies that the Spirit whom God promised to give descended. In the preface of the second edition of A Crying in the Wilderness, Parham looked back that after the publication of the first edition eight years ago the Apostolic Faith Movement had been spread all over the world, and until that time the whole world accepted the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the accompanying evidence of speaking in other tongues, the gifts of healing, and driving out demons in the name of Jesus etc. The Sprit Baptism accompanied speaking in tongues means that tongues can not be separated from the Baptism. Parham said, “the speaking in other tongues is an inseparable part of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit distinguishing it from all previous works” The word, “evidence” does not appear in the Bible, in other words, it is not a biblical usage, but a extra-biblical, theological usage which Parham used creatively.

   2. The only Evidential tongues of Spirit Baptism

    Parham asserted that speaking in tongues was the only Bible evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. He took the words, “the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the Bible evidence of speaking with tongues.” He brought the meaning, “only” into relief through attaching the definite article, “the” to the singular noun, “Bible evidence.” To him, speaking in tongues was the only evidence. And he saw that modern speaking in tongues was the “same evidence” as the evidence of Apostolic age. For him, Jesus who promised the sealing of the Spirit had given them the same evidence as that of Apostolic age, namely, “speaking with tongues.” Parham argued that speaking in tongues was the Biblical evidence of Spirit Baptism on the basis of the Spirit descendings in Acts: chapter 2 Jerusalem descending, chapter 10 Cornelius home descending, and chapter 19 Ephesus descending. He also mentioned that speaking in tongues was God’s witness to the Baptism. For him, speaking in tongues which the Spirit gave to say was “God’s witness to the Baptism.” And Parham called speaking in tongues as the Bible evidence and the only Bible evidence. He wrote specifically “the only Bible sign” to define speaking in tongues.

   3. Manifested/Outer Evidential Tongues of Inner Spirit Baptism

    For Parham, speaking in tongues was the outer evidence of inner Spirit Baptism. It discloses Wesley’s influence on Parham’s theory of tongues. He described tongues as “the manifest evidence resulting from this Baptism.” He recognized that Spirit Baptism essentially took place in the spirit of him. So, for him, when the Spirit Baptism was granted internally, the outer result and evidence was speaking in tongues. His grasp of tongues as the outer evidence of the Baptism would be to harmonize his view with Wesley’s understanding Spirit Baptism as entire perfection. About John 7:39, “For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified,” He insisted, “Now, the Apostle cannot mean here, (as some have taught,) that the miracle-working power of the Holy Ghost was not yet given.” The reason which was provided by him was that all the power over unclean spirits to cast them out, to heal the sick, and to raise the dead had been given to the Apostles, but the Spirit was not yet given in his sanctifying graces, and “when the day of Pentecost was fully come, then first it was, that they who waited for the promise of the Father were made more than conquerors over sin by the Holy Ghost given unto them.” For Wesley, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit meant inner holiness essentially. And Parham’s classifying Spirit Baptism into double aspects: the inner one and the outer one, reflected the influence of Holiness Movement on him. H. C. Morrison wrote, “The baptism with the Holy Ghost purifies believers’ hearts, and empowers them for service.”
    Parham was already aware that speaking in tongues was the outer side of inner Spirit baptism before William J. Seymour. C. M. Robeck Jr. asserted that Seymour altered and “broadened” Parham’s narrow view of the evidence. According to Robeck, it was Seymour who classified Spirit baptism and the evidence into two aspects: the inner ethical and the outer charismatic, following the tradition of Holiness teachings.

Seymour began to argue that perhaps the ability to speak in tongues had lost its uniqueness as the evidence. His Wesleyan-holiness background, with its emphasis upon the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23), had an equally important point to make. . . . While Parham had taught Seymour to expect “the Bible evidence” of speaking in tongues, Seymour had clearly broadened his understanding of Spirit baptism to include an ethical dimension.

    But, contrary to Robeck’s own opinion, in 1902, three years earlier, before Seymour became a student of Parham’s Bible school in Huston, Parham already divided Spirit baptism into inner aspect and outer aspect, and defined speaking in tongues as manifested evidence of the inner side.

   4. Evidential Tongues as a Definite Standard of Spirit Baptism

    For Parham, speaking in tongues could become “a definite standard” of Spirit baptism because it was the outer evidence which speaker as well as hearers could identify for certain. He regarded only speaking in tongues as “a definite standard.” His remark means that speaking in tongues is the criterion to distinguish Spirit baptism from other works of grace: regeneration, sanctification, and etc. He said, “the speaking in other tongues is  . . . part of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit distinguishing it from all previous works.”

   5. Evidential Tongues as the Initial Gift of Spirit Baptism

    Parham considered speaking in tongues clearly as the last gift, and unclearly the first gift. on the one hand, he saw tongues as the last gift. According to him, the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, working of miracles, prophecy, discernment of spirits, and interpretation of tongues were fully manifested in Old Testament prophets, and New Testament disciples before the day of Pentecost, yet Holy Spirit’s personal Baptism accompanying speaking in tongues was not yet ministered.
    on the other hand, it seems that he might regard speaking in tongues as the first gift of Spirit Baptism. There is no direct mention of him that speaking in tongues is the first gift of the Baptism. Although he used the usage, “initial” for describing tongues(“the initial gift of tongues”), it was not for the first gift of gifts. But considering he saw that after the evidence, tongues was given with Spirit Baptism, and then other gifts were given, it can be said that he recognized speaking in tongues as the first gift of gifts. Praham recorded that at the dawning of the great Millennial days, “the Son of Righteousness arising with healing in His wings, realize the power of the ends of the world, the age to come, the Restitution of all things; having been privileged to stand with the apostles, and again see the signs, wonders, and mighty deeds, with all the nine gifts of the Holy Ghost revisit the Church.” For him, full gospel was attended with signs and wonders, divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit: wisdom, knowledge, faith, gifts of healings, working of miracles, tongues, discerning of spirits, prophecy, and interpretation of tongues.

   6. Private Evidences of the Spirit Baptism Except Tongues

    Parham classified various visible phenomena which other people insisted that were the evidences of Spirit Baptism as “private evidence,” not Bible evidence. He thought that other people’s calling “mighty convictions,” “floods of joy,” and “unctions or anointings” the Baptism was unbiblical. And they presented shouting, leaping, jumping, falling in trance, inspiration, unction, and divine revelation as evidences of Spirit Baptism. But he bound those manifestations under the words, “their private evidences” unsupported by the Bible. For his eyes, they “have failed to seek, obtain and honor the only Bible sign given as the evidence of the Baptism.”

  B. Sign Tongues

   1. Sign Tongues as the only Sign of Spirit Baptism

    Parham connected speaking in tongues not only with the extra-biblical theological usage, “evidence,” but also with the biblical usage “sign.” The word, “evidence” was theologically imported from the outside of the Bible, but the word, “sign” was taken from the Bible by him, on the ground of so called longer ending, Mark 16:17-18. He linked evidence and sign with Spirit Baptism in a sentence, “the only Bible sign given as the evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.” For him, speaking in tongues was not “a” sign of the Spirit Baptism, but “the” only sign of the Baptism.

   2. Sign Tongues of Believers
   
    For Parham, speaking in tongues was a sign of believers. He put speaking in tongues under the words, a sign of believers. He connect the word, sign not only to Spirit Baptism, but also faith. He presented the basis of his view through indirect way quoting questions, “why is it that so many leaders of so-called Apostolic Churches have many, or nearly all of the signs that were to follow believers, recorded in Mark 16:17, 18, except the speaking with new tongues?” Parham wrote, “Speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance is not only a gift, but it gives you the sign as a believer.” For him, if some one speaks in tongues, other people may know that one is a believer. 
    Parham claimed that speaking in tongues was a visible or clear sign. According to him, Christ did not depart from the children of God without leaving “visible signs,” special features following them. The world can aware of who are Christians, or who are not through the signs. Christ did not send forth His servants to preach the vague speculative theories of a world to come, but visible signs, e.g. speaking in new tongues. Was his attaching “visible” to speaking in tongues proper? “Visible” means basically “visual.” Can any one see speaking in tongues with eyes? Positively, the answer is yes. Let us suppose that some one speaks in tongues, and other people look at his mouse. In that case, it can be said that speaking in tongues has a visual aspect. And “visible” has the meaning, “distinct” and “clear” also. In this case, it goes without saying that speaking in tongues is visible.
    For Parham, speaking in tongues was the outer confirmation of inner spiritual benefit. According to him, the world can know some one is Christian who is receiving spiritual benefit or not through the sign. New tongues, an outer visible sign, confirms “the word of inward spiritual benefit wrought in Jesus Christ.” It agrees with his understanding speaking in tongues as the outer evidence of Spirit Baptism.

   3. Sign Tongues to Unbelievers

    Parham defined tongues as not only a sign of believers, but also a sign to unbelievers. He said, “as a witness only, and we need for that purpose the sign of believers and the sign to unbelievers.” According to him, modern Pentecost is given not only as the sign of a believer, but also as the sign to unbelievers, and is the power to witness not only in one’s own language, but also in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. When he talked about the relation between believers and tongues, he used the preposition indicating possession, “of”, and made words, “the sign of believers.” on the contrary, when he talked about the relation between unbelievers and tongues, he took the preposition indicating direction, “to”, and composed words, “the sign to unbelievers.” Such his ｅxpression would be come from the reason that tongues was never given to unbelievers, but only heard and seen by unbelievers. The grounds of his depicting tongues as a sign to unbelievers might be 1 Corinthians 14:22. According to Paul, tongues is a sign not to believers, but to unbelievers.

 C. Proclamation Tongues

   1. Language Tongues

    At first, Parham thought all tongues as languages of the world(so called xenoglosolalia). He said that on the day of Pentecost the disciples spoke various different languages, and Jews who gathered together from various nations heard that the disciples spoke the great things of God, through their native languages. He interpreted “other tongues” as “various foreign languages.” Parham regarded the tongues of Agnes N. Ozman as Chinese which confirmed the biblical study on Spirit Baptism of Bethel Bible School. He recollected that time and wrote, “she began speaking in the Chinese language, and was unable to speak English for three days. When she tried to write in English to tell us of her experience she wrote the Chinese.” And he also recollected tongues which he received with Spirit Baptism were the languages of the world too. When he prayed for Spirit Baptism accompanying tongues, his tongue was twisted, and he began to worship God through Swedish. And he had spoken in tongues through various languages till the next morning. After that time, he used to speak frequently the Yiddish language which all Jews in Central Asia could understand.

   2. Un-language Tongues

    But, afterward, Parham admitted un-language tongues(so called glossolalia) as well as language tongues. He sorted tongues into two kinds: “the initial gift of tongues” and “a real gift of language,” and insisted the former should be developed into the latter. The speaking in tongues as the witness to Pentecost was named “the initial gift of tongues” by him. Such naming was his admitting that when any one spoke in tongues, at first time, in most cases spoke xenoglossolalia as Parham’s own experience, but there could be ambiguous utterances, glossolalia also. James F. Goff, Jr. deemed that Parham did not change his asserting tongues as speaking real foreign languages till his passing away. But unlike the opinion of Goff, Parham became to acknowledge that “the initial gift of tongues,” which seemed to be not languages of the world, might develop into “a real gift of language.” According to Parham, such development was similar with the developing of the faith being formed at the conversion into the gift of real faith believing God without doubt. 

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is as universal as salvation, and the speaking in tongues as the witness to Pentecost is the initial gift of tongues that may develop into a real gift of language, just as the faith that comes in conversion is the initial faith that may develop into the real gift of faith, which enables one to believe God without any doubt. But the gift of tongues is given to everyone to profit withal to the glory of God.

    To Parham, the repetition of certain sounds was never accepted except what occurred at the first time of Spirit Baptism. Such repetition should be changed rapidly into real languages, and then the languages might be used.

No one in the true Apostolic work ever claims the Baptism of the Holy Spirit until he speaks fluently and smoothly in another language, and then have it proven by some disinterested foreigner witnessing to the fact that they really used a language. No repetition of sounds or chattering are ever accepted unless it occurs at the first reception of the baptism, but must then speedily give away to a clear real language that you are able to use without any undue emotions or unnatural action of the body.

    Such change of Parham’s perspective on tongues may be a result of his confrontation with tongues which occurred in William J. Seymour’s Azusa Mission. Cecil M. Robeck Jr. recognized the collision between Parham’s understanding and Symour’s understanding on tongues. Robeck wrote, when the collision took place, “the boundaries of appropriate glossolalic behavior were under scrutiny by both Parham and Seymour.” But Robeck limited the crash to see tongues either the evidence or signs.   Although Robeck quoted Parham’s criticizing the actions of Seymour’s meetings for “barking like dogs, crowing like roosters,” he could not penetrate into the real criticism of Parham on the un-language tongues which were appeared in Seymour’s meetings. on the one hand, though Parham criticized the un-language tongues of Seymour’s, on the other hand, he recognized such tongues, and then accepted them into his system of tongues. Parham’s view on speaking in tongues became more rich through the confrontation. The results of the controversy between Parham and Seymour were not only negative, but also positive.

   3. Unknown Languages Tongues

    For Parham, speaking in tongues was speaking the languages of this world, but was speaking unknown languages through the Holy Spirit. He put speaking in tongues outside  the gifts of brains. He said, “but in these last days the Holy Spirit is sealing in the forehead and bestowing the power so that we can sing, pray, and preach ‘in the Spirit’ as a ‘gift of tongues,’ not a gift of brains.” Such saying was to express that one could not learn tongues by brain. For that reason, tongues was “languages they[men and women preaching] know not a word of which.” Parham regarded unknown tongues as a substitution for wasting much money and lives of missionaries on almost impossible being acquainted with languages. He condemned urging people who could not speak in tongues well to imitate the guttural sounds and simulate a speaking in tongues, because tongues could not be learned. For him, such imitation could lead to “many false and injurious things under the guise of the Holy Spirit.”

   4. Message Tongues

    Parham emphasized that if tongues, the languages of the world, were interpreted, they had a function of message. He said, when speaking in tongues was “interpreted the hearers will know it is truly a message from God, spoken through lips of clay by the power of the Holy Ghost.” Parham understanded that tongues could be a passage of the message which God wanted to say to people. So, for him, tongues was a medium for witness. “Pentecost is given as a power to witness, There is no increase of healing power, nor power to cast out demons in Pentecost, for proof which I call to witness the experience of the disciples. It is primarily given as a power to witness.” “By a careful study of Acts 1:8, we find that the power was to make them witness.” 

   5. Mission Tongues

    For Parham, message tongues was especially for mission. The need for speaking in other tongues was his bent for “the world’s evangelization.” What given in Pentecost are two kinds. one of the two was the ability to witness through a language of this world in the efforts of worldwide mission. The reason was that the Gospel of the Kingdom of God should be spread over all nations quickly. Because he was speaking Yiddish language, He expected God would make him do remarkable works among Jews who lived in Jerusalem. Parham enumerated the instances in which missionary tongues had been manifested through the church history. He found some Catholic priests spoke in Japanese when they arrived at the Japanese coast. According to him, Jenny Glassey of Saint Louis received her Pentecost after special stay, and could speak, sing, write, and translate certain African dialects. And then, she went to Africa for mission. Missionary tongues appeared in Parham ministries also. According to Thistlethwaite, at one time while Parham was preaching he used another language for some time. At the close a man arose and said, “I am healed of my infidelity; I have heard in my own tongue the 23rd Psalm that I learned at my mother’s knee.”

   6. Preach Tongues

    Parham thought tongues could be the way of preaching for natives as well as the way of mission for foreigners. For him, modern Pentecost was the power for witness through other tongues speaking what Holy Spirit gave to speak toward natives also. In these last days, the Spirit was making people can preach in the Spirit. He quoted 1 Corinthians 14:21 cited Isaiah 28:11, “With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people, and yet for all that will they not hear me.” Answering the question, “if we were going to a foreign land we should need to speak in other tongues, what need have we of it among our own people?” he said, “According to the above  prophecy, God intends to use the speaking in other tongues in preaching to our people.”

   7. Interpreting Tongues

    For Parham, it was possible through the gift of translation that certain public tongues became a proclamation. For that reason, he thought that public tongues should be translated. Tongues without translation at public meetings only made disorder. He took 1 Corinthian 14 for the criterion of public tongues. And he perceived that when people spoke in tongues publically, they needed translation for acting in line with the standard. In addition to translation, performing public tongues should have order too. For him, all the features of the works of the Spirit were decency, order, and propriety.

   8. Writing Tongues
 
    For Parham, most of tongues were languages, so they could be written. The possibility has been involved in words, “written tongues” or “glossographia.” It was reported that Agnes Ozman, who was the first person among the students of Bethel Bible School speaking tongues as the evidence of Spirit Baptism, wrote Chinese letter.  The picture below was collected by a pressman in January 1901. It has been informed as Ozman’s writing Chinese tongue. 

    A reporter heard tongues of the students, transliterated the sounds, and even interpreted them as follows;

“Euossa, Euossa use, rela sema calah mala kanah leulla sage nalan. Ligle logle lazle logle. Ene mine mo, sah rah me sah rah me.”
These sentences were translated as meaning, “Jesus is might to save,” “Jesus is ready to hear,” and “God is love.”

 D. Public Praise Tongues

    For Parham, public tongues were not only proclamation toward men, but also praise toward God. Although he insisted that when tongues were spoken in public meetings, they should be accompanied with translation one by one, but public praise tongues in his ministries did not always go with a translation. There were phenomena in which all the person, not one or two, who gathered together, sang in tongues simultaneously. To him, in these last days the Holy Spirit was bestowing the power so that one could sing in the Spirit as a gift of tongues.
    one of the cases of the public praise in tongues was that of Bethel Bible School. According to his testimony, people who were stimulated by the tongues of Agnes Ozman assembled in the prayer tower. While they were praying, all at once, all of them began to praise in tongues. When Parham was giving thanks to God behind a table, suddenly they began to sing, “Jesus Lover of my Soul” in at least six different languages. The praise was sung in different parts and angelic voice. Miss Lilian Thistlethwaite retrospected on the time and said, “Then as with a simultaneous move we began to sing together each one singing in his own new language in perfect harmony . . . it would be impossible to describe the hallowed glory of His presence in our midst.”
    In 1905, Mrs. Rothrock described what happened in a meeting led by Parham in Huston, Texas. There was a mention of praise tongues as follows;

But the singing! O, the heavenly singing in the various languages, under divine inspiration, was something one could never forget. one evening Sister Oyler arose and began to sing in tongues. Three others immediately joined her, each singing the same melody, the same words, and the four parts, soprano, alto, tenor and bass were beautifully carried through, and such music as that quartet rendered would do credit to an angelic choir.

 E. Tongues Breaking Down Ways of Man

    Parham asserted that speaking in tongues troubled people who did not recognized tongues. He referred to the division of one oral sound into various tongues because of building Babel tower. Parham thought that the purpose of “the divers tongues” was “to stop the man-made way to heaven.” For Parham, tongues of Babel was the judgement of God to scatter people who opposed God. He stated, “The falling of divers tongues today is to utterly confuse this modern Babylon and her Protestant daughters.” He might criticised Cessationism of Protestants through this mention. For Parham, Cessationism was a daughter of Babylon, and a man-made way like their ancestors’ tower. Modern tongues, like Babel tongues, is the judgement of God against those who refuse speaking in tongues. Cessationist Protestants have stuck to arguing perversely that gift of tongues existed in Bible time, but after that time the gift was ceased completely. When they encounter modern tongues, they will be confused and then split. For Parham, rejecting speaking in tongues was identical with constructing Babel tower in the point that it was made by men themselves, not by God, and different tongues, the diversification of oral sound was a disorder and scatter, and judgement of God which God made.

IV. Conclusion

    The result of this study is indicating that Charles F. Parham’s view did not limited to missionary tongues as the evidence of the Spirit Baptism, but he explored more broadly and deeply the undeveloped world of speaking in tongues. Parham categorized, according to place, speaking in tongues into two aspects: public tongues and private tongues, defined public tongues mainly as a medium of proclamation from God to people, private tongues as a way of prayer to, praise to, and communion with God, according to nature, admitted un-language tongues as well as language tongues, connected tongues to Spirit Baptism by the extra-biblical theological usage, “evidence,” at the same time by the biblical usage, “sign,” regarded tongues as a method of the judgement of God upon people rejecting tongues, and in essence recognized tongues as the manifestation of spiritual benefit and inner Spirit Baptism.
    The useful criterion for establishing whole structure of Parham’s view of speaking in tongues is his distinction between public tongues and private tongues. Parham understood speaking in tongues as a way of private prayer, praise, and conversation with God. When he was alone, he used to pray to, have conversations with, and praise God in tongues.
    Parham understood public tongues as evidence. For him, public tongues was the inseparable evidence of Spirit Baptism. He asserted that speaking in tongues was the only Bible evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Speaking in tongues was the outer evidence of inner Spirit Baptism, and it discloses Wesley’s influence on Parham’s theory of tongues. He was already aware that speaking in tongues was the outer side of inner Spirit baptism before William J. Seymour. Speaking in tongues could become “a definite standard” of Spirit baptism because it was the outer evidence which speaker as well as hearers could identify for certain. He considered speaking in tongues clearly as the last gift, and unclearly the first gift. Parham classified various visible phenomena which other people insisted that they were the evidences of Spirit Baptism as “private evidence,” not Bible evidence.
    Parham understood public tongues as sign. He spoke speaking in tongues was the only Bible sign of the Spirit Baptism. For him, speaking in tongues was a sign of believers. He claimed that speaking in tongues was a visible or clear sign. And for him, speaking in tongues was the outer confirmation of inner spiritual benefit. Parham defined tongues as not only a sign of believers, but also a sign to unbelievers.
    Parham at first thought all tongues as languages of the world, so called xenolalia. But, afterward, he admitted un-language tongues, so called glossolalia. Such change of Parham’s perspective on tongues may be a result of his confrontation with tongues which occurred in William J. Seymour’s Azusa Mission. For Parham, speaking in tongues was speaking the languages of this world, but was speaking unknown languages through the Holy Spirit. he emphasized that if tongues, the languages of the world, were interpreted, they had a function of message. For him, message tongues was especially for mission. He thought tongues could be the way of preaching for natives as well as the way of mission for foreigners. For Parham, it was possible through the gift of translation that certain public tongues became a proclamation. For that reason, he thought that public tongues should be translated. To him, most of tongues were languages, so they could be written. Public tongues were not only proclamation toward men, but also praise toward God. Parham asserted that speaking in tongues troubled people who did not recognized tongues. Modern tongues, like Babel tongues, is the judgement of God against those who refuse speaking in tongues.

Bibliography

Brathwaite, Renea. “Tongues and Ethics: William J. Seymour and the Bible Evidence, A Response to Ceclil M. Robeck, Jr.” Presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies.
Brumback, Carl. Suddenly from Heaven. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1961.
Goff, James R. “Initial Tongues in The Theology of Charles Fox Parham.” Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism.  Edited by Gary B. McGee. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1991, 57-71.
         . “Charles F. Parham’s Endtime Revival: The Eschatological Expectations of Tongues Speech in Early Pentecostalism.” A paper presented to the Society of Pentecostal Studies at the 18th Annual Meeting, 1988.
         . Fields White Unto Harvest: Charles F. Parham and the Missionary Origins of Pentecostalism. Fayetteville, AK: The University of Arkansas Press, 1988.
McGee, G. B. “Historical Background of Pentecostal Perspective.” Systematic Theology, ed. Horton. Stanley. Springfield, MO: Legion Press, 1994, 9-38.
Morrison, Henry Clay. The Baptism with the Holy Ghost. Wilmore, KY: First Fruits Press, 2012, originally 1900.
Parham, Charles F. Everlasting Gospel. Baxter Springs, KS: Apostolic Faith Bible College, 1911.
         . “Address by Charles F. Parham.” The Everlasting Gospel, 6-18.
         . “The Early and Latter Rain.” The Everlasting Gospel, 31-32.
         . “The Baptism of the Holy Spirit.” The Everlasting Gospel, 63-69.
         . “The Difference between the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the Anointing - Spooks.” The Everlasting Gospel, 70-73.
         . “The Sealing.” The Everlasting Gospel, 74-76.
Parham, Charles F. A Voice Crying in The Wilderness. Joplin, MO: Joplin Printing Corporation, 1902, 1910.
         . “Author’s Preface to Second Edition.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness, 4-6.
         . “Life Sketch of Author.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness, 11-20.
         . “Water Baptism.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness, 21-24.
         . “Baptism of the Holy Spirit - Speaking in Other Tongues - Sealing of the Church and Bride.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness, 25-38.
         . “Healing.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness, 39-52.
         . “Forsaking All and All Things in Common.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness, 53-60.
         . “The Bride.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness, 86-89.
         . “The Latter Rain: The Story of the Origin of the Original Apostolic Or Pentecostal Movements.” The Life of Charles F. Parham, 51-56.
Parham, Sarah E. ed. and wrote, The Life of Charles F. Parham. Baxter Springs, KS: Apostolic Faith College, 1930.
         . “Wonderful History of Latter Rain.” The Life of Charles F. Parham, 57-68.
         . “The Work Begun in Texas.” The Life of Charles F. Parham, 117.
Robeck Jr., Cecil M. “William J. Seymour and ‘The Bible Evidence’.” in Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspective on the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit Baptism, ed. Gary B. McGee. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991, 72-95.
Spittler, R. P. “Glossolalia.” Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.
Thistlethwaite, Lilian. “The Wonderful History of the Latter Rain,” The Life of Charles F. Parham, 57-68.
Wesley, John. “Christian Perfection.” Sermon 40. http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-40-christian-perfection/, 9. 21. 2015.
Wessels, Roland. “Charles F. Parham’s Exegetical Journey to the Bible Evidence of the Spirit Baptism.” a paper presented to the Society of Pentecostal Studies at the 23rd Annual Meeting, 1993.

Abstract

Speaking in Tongues Privately and Publicly:
Charles F. Parham’s View of Speaking in Tongues

Chang-Soung, Lee

    The Father of Pentecostal Movement, Charles F. Parham explored the world of Speaking in tongues about 100 years ago when the understanding and experience of tongue was almost like an unknown world. Existing Studies on Parham’s view of speaking in tongues focused primarily on missionary tongues for witness, so it is necessary to see Parham’s view in all its aspects. To meet the demand, this study investigates Parham’s view of speaking in tongues comprehensively and systematically. 
    Parham’s view did not limited to missionary tongues as the evidence of the Spirit Baptism, but he explored more broadly and deeply the undeveloped world of speaking in tongues. Parham categorized, according to place, speaking in tongues into two aspects: public tongues and private tongues, defined public tongues mainly as a medium of proclamation from God to people, private tongues as a way of prayer to, praise to, and communion with God, according to nature, admitted un-language tongues as well as language tongues, connected tongues to Spirit Baptism by the extra-biblical theological usage, “evidence,” at the same time by the biblical usage, “sign,” regarded tongues as a method of the judgement of God upon people rejecting tongues, and in essence recognized tongues as the manifestation of spiritual benefit and inner Spirit Baptism.

Keywords: Pentecostal Movement, Charles F. Parham, private and public speaking in tongues, a medium of proclamation from and communion with God, the evidence and sign of the Spirit Baptism,.

Parham-s view on tongues (changsoung lee) (2).pdf

0.26MB