PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol. 15, No.

1, Spring 1993 61
Pp 61-76

Tongues as a Sign: Towards a Sacramental

Understanding of Pentecostal Experience
Frank D. Macchia*

Simon Tugwell observed that most classical Pentecostals1 do not

regard baptism and the eucharist as "sacramental" in significance.
Instead of functioning as visible signs of God's presence to save, the
principle sacraments of baptism and the eucharist among Pentecostals
appeared to Tugwell to be tied more closely with human acts of
repentance and testimonies of faith. Of significant interest, however, is
Tugwell's recognition of the "sacramental" character of Pentecostal
speaking in tongues. He noted that, for Pentecostals, glossolalia
signified God's presence here and now. Rather than representing mere
emotionalism, tongues made God present for Pentecostals in a special,
audibly identifiable way. As a Catholic, Tugwell felt most at home in
this aspect of Pentecostal worship and speculated that tongues might
provide a fruitful point of departure for future Pentecostal/Catholic
dialogue.2
Scholars of Pentecostalism, such as William Samarin and Walter
Hollenweger, have also noted a sacramental element in the Pentecostal
use of glossolalia. Samarin argued that tongues for Pentecostals
represented a "heightened awareness of God's presence," such as one
normally finds in response to the eucharist in sacramental communions.
As a "linguistic symbol of the sacred," tongues says, "God is here."3 In
this context, Hollenweger offers the provocative statement that tongues
is the "cathedral of the poor," signifying God's majestic presence for
people who cannot afford to worship in gothic church settings.4
Most Pentecostals are uncomfortable with the term "sacrament"
because of the association of the term with an "institutionalization" of
the Spirit or with "formalistic" liturgical traditions. Under the influence
of a Reformed (especially Zwinglian) critique of sacramentalism, many
Pentecostals fear that any use of the term "sacrament" would imply an
understanding of sacramental efficacy as necessitated by a causative
dynamic intrinsic to the elements, thereby institutionalizing or
* Frank D. Macchia is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at
Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God, Lakeland, Florida.
1
The term "Pentecostal" throughout this article is used in reference to the classical
Pentecostal movement.
2
Simon Tugwell, "The Speech-Giving Spirit, A Dialogue with Tongues'," in New
Heaven? New Earth? An Encounter with Pentecostalism, ed. S. Tugwell, et. al.
(Springfield, IL.: Templegate, 1976), 151.
3
William Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels (New York: Macmillan, 1972),
154, 232.
4
Walter Hollenweger, Geist und Materie (Interkulturelle Theologie, 3; Muenchen:
Chr. Kaiser Verlag 1988), 314-315.
62 PNEUMA The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol 15, No l , S p n n g l 9 9 3

formalizing the free Spirit or grace of God Such a belief would imply
for Pentecostals a denial of their cherished belief in the unmediated
gracious presence of God conveyed directly to the believer by the Holy
Spirit
Do Pentecostals consistently hold to such a view of experiencing
God? Morton Kelsey would answer in the affirmative He is convinced
that Pentecostalism advocates an experience of God that is unmediated
and direct For Kelsey, glossolalia serves to grant the believer direct
access to God that bypasses rational and liturgical forms of mediation5
In a similar vein, Karl Rahner viewed "enthusiastic" worship as a means
of achieving an immediate experience of God that calls into question
institutional, rational and sacramental forms of mediation between God
and humanity, thereby providing a context for possible institutional
renewal6 Such views rightly draw our attention to the role that tongues
play in bypassing, even calling into question, liturgical forms of
sacramental mediation Yet, such views do not adequately take into
consideration the role of tongues as an audible means of making God
present that may also be viewed as "sacramental" in significance
Pentecostal misgivings described above concerning the term
"sacrament" are not wholly without historical or theological
justification Pentecostalism has inherited from reformationboth
classical and radicaland pietistic movements a keen awareness of the
dangers of institutionalizing or formalizing the Spirit of God But such
misgivings are one-sided and mainly justified in relation to a
neo-scholastic Catholic understanding of "sacrament" that has been
radically questioned by contemporary Catholic theologians, such as
Karl Rahner and E Schillebeeckx As we will have occasion to note,
this more recent Catholic sacramental theology views the sacraments
primarily as occasions for a personal encounter between God and the
believer7 Rahner does not locate sacramental efficacy in some kind of
material causation necessitated by the elements as elements Rather, he
deals with the question of sacramental efficacy only in the context of
the sign value of the sacrament This redefinition does not mean that
Rahner holds to a simplistic understanding of "sign" as an intellectual
reference to some other reality yet to be experienced For Rahner, the
reality signified becomes present and is experienced through the visible
sign in the process of signification The reality signified is actually made
5
Morton Kelsey, Tongue-Speaking An Experiment in Spiritual Experience (New
York Doubleday, 1964), 218-233
6
Karl Rahner, "Religious Enthusiasm and the Experience of Grace," Theological
Investigations, V XVI (New York Seabury, 1979), 35-59
7
Note, E Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God (Kansas
City Sheed and Ward, 1963), and the essays on the sacraments by Rahner in
Theological Investigations, V IV (New York Seabury, 1982) "The Theology of
the Symbol," 221-252, "The Word and the Eucharist," 253-286, "The Presence of
Christ m the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper," 287-311
Tongues M a Sign 63

present in the process of signification, in a way analogous to how we as

"souls" are made present as "bodies." Through sacramental
signification, the eschatological presence of God is realized among
believers.8 Might we extend the analogy to say that sacramental
signification is analogous to the way in which we as embodied "souls"
are present to others in language? Do Pentecostals not regard God as
uniquely present through glossolalie signification?
May not Rahner's view of "sacrament" help Pentecostals to
understand why they regard tongues as such a significant medium for
the realization of God's presence to empower believers for service?
Perhaps a Pentecostal appreciation for the term "sacrament" in relation
to tongues would be helped by a stronger emphasis on the divine
initiative in freely granting tongues its role of signification, in the sense
of "making present" divine empowerment. We might add here what
Paul Tillich noted about the integral connection between the free
self-disclosure of God and the physical/audible reality that becomes the
occasion in which this self-disclosure is encountered. Tillich maintains
that this integral connection between the divine revelation and the
physical/audible sign is realized from the divine initiative, as God takes
the sign up into God's own self-disclosure. Tillich refers to this process
as a "kairos" event.9
Tongues function for Pentecostals in ways similar to Rahner's and
Tillich's descriptions of "sacrament," even if we are using the term in a
broad or "analogical" sense. Speaking in tongues is integral to the
experience of Spirit baptism for Pentecostals and is the audible medium
for realizing the presence of God to empower and heal. There is
nothing essentially alien in such understandings of sacramental
signification to a Pentecostal understanding of the role of tongues as
initial evidence of Spirit baptism. To the contrary, we may learn
something valuable about our own spirituality through such insights.
Yet, the Pentecostal uneasiness with liturgical traditions must not be
ignored or easily dismissed in an enthusiasm to incorporate insights
from recent sacramental theologies into Pentecostal traditions.
Glossolalia is a different kind of "sacrament" than that which is
conveyed in formalized and structured liturgies. Glossolalia accents the
free, dramatic, and unpredictable move of the Spirit of God, while the
liturgical traditions stress an ordered and predictable encounter with the
Spirit. The allergic response of Pentecostals to liturgical worship may
be one-sided but reveals a valuable accent on the spontaneity and
freedom of the Spirit in worship. There is implied a "chaotic"10 or
8
Rahner, "Theology of the Symbol."
9
Paul Tillich, The Protestant Era (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947),
94-112.
10
Of course, general order in charismatic manifestations is taught in I Corinthians
14 and honored by Pentecostals, at least in principle. But, by liturgical standards,
there is a "chaotic," even playful, element to Pentecostal worship that can appear
64 PNEUMA The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol 15, No 1, Spring 1993

"inchoate"11 sacramentality in Pentecostal worship that was formed in

protest to any attempt at a formalization or objectification of the Spirit
in liturgical rites This insight serves to explain the nonsacramental
approach to the liturgical rites of baptism and the eucharist among
Pentecostals, but also the presence of the sacramental element in the
free and spontaneous manifestation of tongues This author believes
that a reflection on glossolalia as a sacramental sign in dialogue with
Catholic and Reformed theologies, especially in relation to the function
of tongues as initial evidence of Spirit baptism, can contribute much to
Pentecostal theology and spirituality We must not forget that the
dramatic sign of tongues in Acts 2 4 is followed in 2 42 by the
"breaking of bread" among believers Sacramental traditions would
accent this latter sign in reading Acts, while Pentecostals would accent
the former In our various readings of Acts chapter 2, what can we
learn from each other?
Tongues as Initial Evidence in the Book of Acts
Tongues as "initial evidence" of Spirit baptism is perhaps the most
enigmatic and controversial of classical Pentecostal beliefs There can
be little doubt that tongues serve as an apostolic sign for most
Pentecostals, signaling an evidence of the Spirit's anointing for service
that connects pentecostal believers with the initial apostolic anointing
for service The exegetical argument for this evidential logic is based on
the prominence of tongues in the original Jewish baptism of the Spirit
at Pentecost in Acts 2 The presence of tongues in both of the major
Gentile Spirit baptisms (Acts 10, 19) visibly connects the Jewish and
Gentile experiences of the Spirit Acts 10 44-46 is central in connecting
the Gentile Spirit baptisms with the original Jewish experience on the
Day of Pentecost Pentecostals have argued for a "pattern" of tongues
in Acts that implies the kind of visible links just noted between the early
12
Jewish and Gentile communities The pattern suggests that there is
indeed a special connection between tongues and Spirit baptism in the
book of Acts
This connection is sought after in current Pentecostal worship
services Pentecostals wish to become a part of the Acts "pattern" that
connected early Jewish and Gentile experiences of the Spirit The
Pentecostals wish to be connected to these ancient communities so that
the story of the Book of Acts might continue in their contemporary
story Tongues as initial evidence becomes the primary means by which
strange or threatening to those not accustomed to such worship Such "chaos" can
remind us that, the need for order aside, the Spirit is not under our absolute control
11
Rex Davis, "Living Liturgically The Charismatic Contribution," in Strange
Gifts? A Guide to Charismatic Renewal, eds D Martin and Mullen (Oxford
Basil Blackwell, 1984)
12
Gary McGee, "Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics Tongues as Evidence in the
Book of Acts," in Initial Evidence, ed G McGee (Peabody, MA Hendrickson,
1991), 96-118
Tongues as a Sign 65

this continuation of the biblical story can occur The process by which
Pentecostals arrive at this conclusion is not so much a rationalistic
inductive method of biblical interpretation as it is a creative interaction
with the book of Acts in the context of Pentecostal worship In their
effort to live the book of Acts, Pentecostals have discovered a pattern
by which to justify certain expectations in worship when the Spirit
moves in freedom and power The key expectation is the occurrence of
tongues when the Spirit empowers believers for service in the kingdom
of God
The Pentecostal practice of drawing theological conclusions from
biblical narrative is no longer a major point of contention The point of
controversy is whether or not one is justified in drawing the tongues
"pattern" from the narratives of Acts Eduard Schweizer argued that
the narratives of Acts resist any interpretation that seeks to determine
the experience of the Spirit in advance through an ideology or church
practice For Luke, the Spirit is experienced anew each time the story
of Jesus is told and embraced in faith What determines the experience
of the Spirit for Acts is the story of Jesus alone The Spirit moves only
in accordance with a Christological determination Schweizer finds
"analogies of experience" {Erfahrungsanalogien) between Jesus and
the early Church created by the Spirit in new and unexpected ways each
time the Spirit is experienced Such analogies would include anointing,
proclamation, persecution and miracles The analogies imply that
Schweizer is not primarily objecting to patterns of experience reflected
in Acts that give the communities of the early Church a sense of
continuity with Jesus and, by extension, among themselves He is
objecting to external human efforts to determine the move of the Spirit
over and beyond the proper Christological determination of the Spirit's
work 13
Can not tongues be viewed in the light of Schweizer's analogies of
experience created by the Spirit between Jesus and the Church? It is
interesting that Peter responded to the Spirit baptism/tongues
phenomenon of Acts 2 1-13 with the statement in 2 26 that Jesus' heart
was glad and tongue rejoiced at his resurrection Did not Luke intend
to imply that the apostolic tongues of Acts 2 4 was analogous to this
glad tongue of Jesus? Does evidential tongues not play a special role
for Luke in providing an analogy between the praises of Jewish and
Gentile churches in anticipation of the victory of the imminent parousia
and the Christ who rejoiced prior to his resurrection for his near victory
as the mediator between God and humanity? To answer these questions
in the affirmative would not necessarily imply that we are creating a
fixed ideology or cultic "law" of the Spirit that would deny divine
freedom and sovereignty,14 though this more radical step is sometimes
13
Eduard Schweizer, "Plaedoyer der Verteidigung in Sachen Moderne Theologie
versus Lukas," Theologische Literaturzeitung 105 (Apnl 1980) 242-252
14
Henry I Lederle, "Initial Evidence and the Chansmatic Movement An
66 PNEUMA The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol 15, No 1, Spring 1993

taken by Pentecostals in efforts to guarantee the reception of Spirit

baptism by mimicking tongues or by making disparaging judgments
concerning those who do not participate in this gift
Pentecostals have been primarily concerned in their reading of Acts
with the unique role of tongues in helping to grant visible,
Christologically determined links between the experiences of the Spirit
in worship among diverse communities The activity of the Spirit in
inspiring such visible links and the tendency of faith to participate in
them grant diverse churches a sense of visible continuity in worship
across the gaps of space and time This visible linkage is an aspect of
what grants our encounter with God its "sacramental" quality That
these links can be developed into a fixed law for the purpose of binding
and guaranteeing the Spirit's presence is indeed possible The
temptation is always present to trust in tongues instead of in the God
whose presence is realized in these glossolalie utterances Such a
temptation is present with any sacramental experience of the Spirit But
initial evidence in Pentecostal worship does not have to be interpreted
in this way Visible continuities in Acts among diverse experiences of
the Spirit is not the same phenomena as ideological or institutional
attempts to manipulate the Spirit
Glossolalia is, of course, not the only visible link among the
experiences of the Spirit in Acts between Jew and Gentile There are
other charismatic signs, such as healing, that function for Luke to
manifest the freedom and power of the Spirit in and through the diverse
witness of the Church Pentecostals, however, grant tongues a primacy
among charismatic signs in signifying the empowerment of the Spirit
There have been non-Pentecostal scholars, such as Herman Gunkel15
16
and James Dunn, who have noted that Luke does seem to grant
tongues a special role in connecting the Jewish and Gentile experiences
of the Spirit But this role granted by Luke to tongues in Acts has been
attributed to the enthusiastic element in Luke's theology, an element
allegedly of little-to-no theological significance for the Church today
Pentecostals have read the book of Acts differently But the debate
over the pattern of initial evidence in Acts can not cease with the
question of Luke's original intention or theology The process of
reading biblical narrative and interacting with its various elements is

Ecumenical Appraisal," in Initial Evidence, ed G McGee (Peabody, MA

Hendrickson, 1991), 131-141
15
"If we intend to understand the view of the Spirit chenshed in the apostolic age,
then we must begin from the Spirit's most sinking charactenstic activity, that of
glossolalia " Hermann Gunkel, The Influence of the Holy Spirit, trans R A
Harnsville, A Quanbeck II (Philadelphia Fortress, 1979), 30, note also 25
16
Note, for example, James Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, An
Inquiry Into the Character of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia Westminster,
1977), 177-182
Tongues ai a Sign 67

more complex and creative than a mere historical investigation into the
original intention of an author/editor.17
When a Pentecostal hears of "signs" of the Spirit or of the grace of
God, he or she thinks immediately of the whirlwind experience of
Pentecost with tongues of fire. Of significance, as we have mentioned,
is Luke's reference to a different order of signs in Acts 2 that may be
found in the apostolic breaking of bread. This apostolic sign is not the
dramatic and theophanic manifestation of God's presence such as one
finds in the whirlwind experience of God at Pentecost. It is a far cry
from tongues of fire in the context of the sound of a violent wind. Yet,
the breaking of bread is placed side-by-side with dramatic signs such as
tongues in Acts 2, without any theological integration or explanation.
Our task as pentecostal theologians is to set about the task of
integrating them.
The Theological Basis for Initial Evidence
Our discussion thus far has still not arrived at the full doctrine of
initial evidence as it is commonly understood among Pentecostals. The
terms "initial" and "evidence" carry theological nuances that are based
upon, but still proceed beyond, the testimony of Acts. Initial evidence
has never been defended by Pentecostals on solely biblicistic grounds.
The charge that Pentecostals arrive at a full-blown doctrine of initial
evidence from a simplistic interpretation of isolated texts in Acts is
itself simplistic. This author is convinced that profound historical and
theological influences have contributed to the role of initial evidence
among Pentecostals. Is this not the case with the worship or
sacramental tradition of any church? Imagine how many questions
could be raised if representatives from mainline churches were to
defend their understanding of the eucharist on the basis of the New
Testament witness alone.
Theologically, Pentecostals have commonly justified initial evidence
with some kind of integral connection between Spirit baptism and the
experience of tongues. W. T. Gaston stated in 1918: "Tongues seems
included and inherent in the larger experience of Spirit baptism."18
Donald Johns represents a contemporary voice to the same effect: "It
seems to me that speaking in tongues is essentially one kind of
experience, produced by a certain kind of contact with the divine Spirit.
The first time this kind of contact occurs is the initiatory event of being
baptized in the Spirit."19 According to Johns, the kind of contact with
the Spirit that produces or involves the experience of tongues is an
17
Contrary, for example, to Larry W. Hurtado, "Normal, but not a Norm: Initial
Evidence and the New Testament," in Initial Evidence, d. G. . McGee (Peabody,
MA.: Hendrickson, 1991), 189-201.
18
Quoted in Lederle, "Initial Evidence," 128.
19
Donald A. Johns, "Some New Directions in the Hermeneutics of Classical
Pentecostalism's Doctrine of Initial Evidence," in Initial Evidence, d. G. . McGee
(Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson, 1991), 145-167.
68 PNEUMA The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol 15, No l , S p n n g l 9 9 3

overwhelming immersion or baptism of the human psyche by the person

and power of the Spirit, producing a prayerful response beyond the
scope of human capacities Others have viewed tongues as the
necessary yielding of the total person to one's immersion in the Spirit
through Spirit baptism Assumed here is the power of language to
express the total person, or the "tongue" as the most difficult to yield
to God, the last hold-out to the kind of submission implied by the
overwhelming experience of Spirit baptism20 This author has portrayed
tongues as a free and transcendent response to the free and
transcendent move of the Spirit21 Murray Dempster views tongues as
a new language signifying what God is doing in Spirit baptism, namely,
creating new integrated communities that witness to the transforming
power of God in history22 The list of integral connections between
tongues and Spirit baptism could be expanded What they imply is that
Pentecostals have not connected tongues to Spirit baptism by a
capricious external law, but through a theology of Spirit baptism that
includes tongues as an integral aspect of the experience It is for this
reason that Pentecostals would find strange the argument of J Ramsey
Michaels that the Spirit, and not tongues, is the evidence of our
encounter with God 23 Pentecostals cannot separate tongues from one's
initial experience of the Spirit in Spirit baptism In this light we can
understand why classical Pentecostals such as Donald Gee insist that
the glory and power of the Pentecostal experience of the Spirit would
depart if the initial evidence doctrine were forsaken 24
It is interesting that Pentecostals would make a visible/audible
phenomenon an integral part of their experience of the Spirit Does this
not sound more "sacramental" than "evidential?" The term, "evidence,"
seems too scientific, simplistic, and one-dimensional to capture all of
the theological nuances implied by the connections Pentecostals make
between tongues and Spirit baptism The term "sacrament" does imply
some kind of integral connection between the sign and the divine action
signified therein We have noted Paul Tillich's argument concerning
Christianity's need of a "sacramental" element that implies an integral
connection between the revelation of God and the physical/acoustic
reality used as a sign of this divine self-disclosure According to Tillich,
the "Protestant principle," most consistently applied by the Reformed
tradition, seeks to uproot the sacramental element of Christianity by a
20
J L Hall, "A Oneness Pentecostal Looks at Initial Evidence," in Initial
Evidence, ed G McGee (Peabody MA Hendnckson, 1991), 182
21
Frank D Macchia, "Sighs too Deep for Words Toward a Theology of
Glossolalia," Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1 (October 1992) 47-73
22
Murray W Dempster, "The Church's Moral Witness A Study of Glossolalia in
Luke's Theology of Acts," Paraclete 23 (Winter 1989) 1-7
23
J Ramsey Michaels, "Evidences of the Spirit, or the Spint as Evidence? Some
Non-Pentecostal Reflections," in Initial Evidence, ed G McGee (Peabody, MA
Hendnckson, 1991), 202-218
24
Quoted in Lederle, "Initial Evidence," 132
Tongues as a Sign 69

radical emphasis on the freedom of the Spirit In an attempt to avoid a

"demonic," idolatrous objectification of the Spirit in visible forms, the
Protestant principle for Tillich even threatens a legitimate sacramental
element that integrates the sign with the free divine self-disclosure25
In fact, Tillich's entire notion of a "kairos" event seeks to pave a path
between a radical notion of divine freedom that detaches the divine
self-disclosure from a visible form, and a demonic objectification of the
divine action in the form itself In Tillich's thought, the kairos event
occurs when God freely takes the visible human response up into itself
to be used as a vehicle of the divine self-disclosure Though God is
never to be identified with the human or creaturely phenomenon used in
the kairos event, this phenomenon is allowed genuinely to participate in
the divine action This understanding of sacramental signification is
consistent with recent efforts at a philosophy of signs that would
associate signification with "making present,"26 only the divine initiative
and freedom is made the focus of attention
This author believes that Pentecostals regard tongues in this way, as
a crucial aspect of the sacramental element to which Tillich referred
Pentecostals regard tongues as a kind of primary sacrament or kairos
event that signifies, while participating in, the empowerment of the
Spirit in the Christian life Tongues are the "new sign of the Christian
Church," according to Thomas Barratt,27 the "root and stem" out of
which all other spiritual gifts grow, according to Edward Irving,28 and
the "spiritual rest of the new covenant," according to the Oneness
Pentecostal J L Hall 2 9 If such characterizations are not "sacramental"
in significance, what is?
This author recalls the Catholic/Protestant discussion between
German theologians Walter Kasper and Gerhard Sauter concerning the
Church as the "place of the Spirit" (Ort des Geistes) 3 0 The authors
discussed the tension between the Catholic emphasis on visible means
of grace and the Reformed accent on the sovereignty and freedom of
the Spirit This discussion is actually only a small part of a broader
Catholic/Protestant attempt over the last few decades to proceed
beyond the traditional impasse between an extreme emphasis on the
freedom of the Spirit and an accent on sacramental means of grace,
which Tillich foresaw as a central problem for an ecumenical theology
For example, Reformed theologian, James F White, admits,

25
Tilhch, Protestant Era, 94-112
26
See, for example, Rahner, "The Theology of the Symbol "
27
Cited in McGee, "Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics," 126
28
Cited m David W Domes, "Edward Irving and the 'Standard Sign' of Spirit
Baptism," in Initial Evidence, ed G McGee (Peabody, MA Hendnckson,
1991), 49
29
Hall, "A Oneness Pentecostal Looks at Initial Evidence," 181
30
Walter Kasper and Gerhard Sauter, Kirche-Ort des Geistes (Basel Verlag
Herder, 1976)
70 PNEUMA The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol 15, No 1, Spring 1993

"Protestantism has tended to neglect humanity's need for the visible

and the tangible, despite Calvin's warning that our humanity demanded
such means"31 Perhaps Calvin can help us all beyond the impasse
described by Tillich between visible means of grace and the sovereign
freedom of the Spirit After all, it has been the Zwinglian influence in
Reformed theology that made this theology most vulnerable to the
one-sided use of the "Protestant principle" lamented by Tillich32
This author believes that the Pentecostal sacramental spirituality
implied by initial evidence can help us to push beyond the impasse
described by Tillich Tongues implies a radical emphasis on the freedom
of the Spirit and the importance of the divine initiative in religious
experience, the typically Reformed emphasis, or what Tillich referred to
as the "Protestant principle " Yet, the experience of the Spirit for
Pentecostals includes a visible/audible human response that signifies the
divine presence in the sense of actually participating in making it
present Tongues as a sign is given in divine freedom but is also a
visible context in which the experience of God is received and
manifested It is both free and sacramental
It is unfortunate that most non-Pentecostal scholars have wrongly
characterized Pentecostal spirituality as a radical subjectivism33
Nothing can be further from the truth By stressing that Spirit baptism
and tongues is for the empowerment of the Church in its witness for
Christ, Pentecostals have parted significantly from the conservative
Evangelical preoccupation with subjective conversion When most
Pentecostals read Acts, they are as much, if not more, impressed by the
mediation of an empowered Church in the spread of the Gospel than
with the ordo salutis (order of salvation) of individual souls, although
this concern is also stressed Also relevant is Peter Hocken's
observation concerning the prominence given to the physical dimension
of worship among Pentecostals u Added to this is the stress of
31
James F White, Sacraments as God's Self Giving (Nashville Abingdon, 1983),
25
32
For example, Reformed theologian Ross Mackenzie regrets the vast Zwinglian
influence on the Reformed understanding of the euchanst as a mere memorial and
on its infrequent observance in many Reformed churches around the world He, as
with a number of other Reformed theologians, desires a rediscovery of Calvin's
view of the euchanst as conveying the spiritual presence of Christ Calvin also
advocated frequent observance of the meal "Reformed and Roman Catholic
Understandings of the Euchanst," in The Eucharist m Ecumenical Dialogue, ed L
Swindler (New York Pauhst, 1976), 70-75
This author has witnessed first hand the result of the Zwinglian influence upon
the Reformed churches in Switzerland, in which the euchanst is celebrated
infrequently and with httle-to-no sacramental significance
33
Kasper and Sauter, KircheOrt des Geistes, 24
34
Peter Hocken, "The Significance and Potential of Pentecostalism," in New
Heaven? New Earth? An Encounter with Pentecostalism, ed S Tugwell, et al
(Spnngfield, IL Templegate, 1976), 15-67 This author recalls nong a remark
made by Fr Hocken at the 1990 meeting of the Conference of
Tonguet as a Sign 71

Pentecostals on physical healing as an essential element of the full

gospel This emphasis on the physical does not preclude the radical
freedom of the divine/human encounter implied in tongues,35 but it does
question the interpretation of Pentecostal spirituality as subjectivistic It
now seems clear to this author that the Pentecostal distinctive includes
both emphases on the physical dimension of worship and the freedom
of the Spirit in a unique kind of sacramental spirituality Set in an
eschatological context, tongues signifies the radically free power "of
the age to come" (Hebrews 6 4), liberating us to respond to God in
new and unforeseen ways But the radically free Spirit is not hidden nor
without present, visible fulfillment Tongues signify the new
relationships and communities transformed and empowered to witness
of the Gospel to the world Speaking in tongues as initial evidence, or
better as a "sign," of Spirit baptism in the context of worship finds
fulfillment in a liberating witness in the whole of life How to bridge
tongues with a liberating witness in the midst of routine programs and
fixed structures of social life is a major problem for Pentecostals, one
which a new focus on the ecclesial sacraments may aid Pentecostals in
solving
Tongues and Ecclesial Sacraments
This author has been using the term "sacrament" in the broad or
analogical sense, beyond the individual "principal" sacraments of the
eucharist and baptism Tillich used the term "sacrament" in a broad
sense to refer to both the preaching and ritual aspects of the church
service There are recent trends in Catholic theology that advocate a
broad sacramental spirituality based on Christ as the primary sacrament
of God's presence and the Church as a sacrament in a derivative sense
There is also a renewed Catholic interest in the connections between
the principal sacraments and every day life in the world Behind this
connection is the effort to avoid an ecclesiocentric theology and to
open the sacraments to the liberating work of the kingdom of God in
the new creation The new stress on eschatology in the sacraments has
led to a more dynamic and personalistic, as opposed to a metaphysical,
understanding of sacramental worship The sacraments are not
understood in this newer Catholic sacramental thought as objects
containing the divine presence as a static substance The sacraments are
understood now as contexts for a dynamic and personal divine/human
encounter36 Such trends have opened the door to greater
Catholic/Protestant agreement on the sacraments One can find such an
atmosphere of agreement, for example, in the Lima document (BEM)
Yet, there are those who find a broad sacramental spirituality to be

Pentecostal/Chansmatic Research in Europe concerning the need for Pentecostals to

seek a theology of signs In one sense, this article is a response to this challenge
35
This theme is developed in Macchia, "Sighs too Deep for Words "
36
Note the references cited in footnote 7
72 PNEUMA The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol 15, No 1, Spring 1993

inconsistent with the Protestant principle Eberhard Jungel, for

example, views Christ as the sacrament of God but would not extend
this to the Church nor to its worship, which he views as a celebration
and interpretation of Christ the sacrament37 In this debate, Pentecostal
theologians may find themselves agreeing as much with the newer
Catholic sacramental theology as with the Reformed stress on the
radical freedom of the Spirit
Pentecostal dialogue with Catholic sacramental theology may be
aided by the extensive research on tongues over the past few decades,
which has exposed the human, even ritualistic, quality of the gift
Though tongues are in a real sense spontaneous and unforeseen,
various group mechanisms have been discovered for inspiring their use,
though these mechanisms are often unintentional and unnoticed by
participants This group stimulus means that tongues are not radically
different from the liturgical sacraments valued so highly among
Catholics In fact, Richard Baer has noted that both tongues and
Catholic liturgy represent encounters with God in worship in which we
participate actively but which exceed the capacities of human thought
or language 38
Yet, there are important differences between the kind of sacramental
worship implied in tongues as initial sign and that which is embraced in
Catholic sacramental theology As we have noted, tongues represent a
spontaneous charismatic sign that accents the free and unforeseen
aspects of the divine/human encounter On the other hand, liturgical
worship is planned and orchestrated according to well developed
guidelines Historically, spontaneous charismatic signs of the Spirit
such as tongues have tended to flourish among fringe communities not
wholly satisfied with the formal liturgies of dominant church
institutions, as a kind of countercultural sacramental worship within the
Church In such a free-spirited sacramental worship, the distinctions
between clergy and laity, male and female, and between the races have
tended to become less important The proliferation of charismatic signs
in mainline liturgical traditions and the creation of formal liturgies in
various free church movements complicate the picture and involve us in
the whole complex issue of the relationship between charism (or
ecstasy) and institution This author believes that a thorough
37
Eberhard Jungel, "The Church as Sacrament?" in Theological Essays, trans J
Webster (Edinburgh & Clark, 1989), 189-213 Jungel rightly applies the
Reformed critique to the assumption that the Church is to be equated with the
sacrament which is Christ But he maintains that the only other alternative is to
view the Church as a "sacramental sign" only m the sense of celebrating and
witnessing of Christ the sacrament A more intimate connection between Christ the
sacrament and the sacramental quality of the Church is possible without equating
the two Rahner and Tilhch have struggled with such a third alternative
38
Richard Baer, "Quaker Silence, Catholic Liturgy, and Pentecostal Glossolalia
Some Functional Similarities," in Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism, ed R
Spittler (Grand Rapids, MI Baker Book House, 1976), 150-164
Tongues as a Sign 73

exploration of this issue will be extremely important for the future of

Pentecostal theology. Nevertheless, Pentecostalism represents a kind of
"protest" or "inchoate" sacramentality that is critical of, yet, ironically,
bears significant similarity with sacramental traditions.
There are also important theological differences to consider between
Catholic and Pentecostal sacramentality. For example, Catholic
sacramental theology is still developed in the context of the Church as
the institutional embodiment of the risen Christ, and, as such, as the
extension in history of the incarnate Word. There are admirable efforts
among Catholic theologians at making this divine presence in the
institution of the Church a dynamic and open presence. But the
dominant accent on the institutional and ecclesial aspects of
sacramental worship makes the Church vulnerable to the danger of
restricting the free move of the Spirit to predictable and manipulatable
institutionalized forms that are confined to narrow confessional
boundaries and orchestrated to function in ways rarely surprising or
disturbing.
The kind of Pentecostal sacramental spirituality implied in tongues as
initial sign arises from a theology that seems more "theophanic" than
incarnational. The dramatic descent of the Spirit on the Day of
Pentecost was a kind of theophany, accompanied by the sound of a
mighty wind and tongues of fire. This divine self-disclosure at
Pentecost has its roots in the Old Testament theophany of God at Sinai
and in the dramatic and active presence of God in the ministry, death,
and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The theophany of Pentecost also
pointed ahead to the final theophany of God in the parousia with signs
on the earth of "blood," "fire," and "smoke" (Acts 2:19).39 Pentecostal
spirituality has tended to highlight this theophanic theme in Scripture,
developing a church life characterized by a fervent expectation for the
signs and wonders of God's Spirit. In this framework, the Church finds
its Christological determination, not primarily in the incarnate Word,
but in the pneumatic Christ, who is still active in signs and wonders
conquering evil and establishing God's eternal kingdom. Consistent
with Pentecostal theology would be a dynamic notion of the incarnation
that portrays Christ as the primary locus of God's active presence, a
view espoused by Hans Kung.40 The Church may be viewed here, not
as a permanent embodiment of the incarnate Word, but as an "event"
that must continually be renewed in the context of our obedient
participation in God's redemptive activity.
There is, of course, much to discuss concerning ways in which
various trends in Catholic sacramental theology can illuminate or be
contrasted with a yet developing Pentecostal theology. Pentecostals can
affirm those trends in Catholic theology that promote the presence of

39
Macchia, "Sighs too Deep for Words."
40
Hans Kung, Menschwerdung Gottes (Basel: Verlag Herder, 1970).
74 PNEUMA The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol 15, No 1, Spring 1993

Christ through the Spirit as dynamic, open, and never to be taken for
granted We can give a hearty "amen" to Yves Congar's appeal to the
necessary "struggle" for the Spirit in the Church 41 There can be little
doubt that Pentecostalism is a movement within the Church that takes
such a struggle with utmost seriousness Behind this struggle is the
assumption that our liturgies and sacraments are petitionary or, better,
epicletic through and through We are not driven to deny here that the
sacramental elements do indeed form an integral part of the
divine/human encounter, so that they do have "objective" significance
But we must not conceive of this objectivity apart from the freedom of
the divine initiative and the nature of the "sacramentum" as an
experienced reality This author has found Tillich's and Rahner's
understandings of the sacramental element of worship very helpful in
arriving at a notion of sacramental experience of the Spirit that would
include all of these aspects
Spontaneous signs and wonders of the Spirit, based primarily in
tongues as sign, bring to the forefront the freedom and transcendence
of the divine/human encounter that is only implied in formal liturgies
Karl Rahner argues that such manifestations of enthusiasm "shock" the
liturgical system, making the institutional Church seem for a moment
"provisional and questionable, incommensurate with the meaning it is
supposed to signify" We are suddenly "thrown back" upon an
encounter with God that is ultimately beyond our capacities to
understand, express or manipulate Such a process is necessary for
liturgical renewal, and for our understanding of the limited significance
of the institutional dimension of the Church According to Rahner,
manifestations of enthusiasm show that the whole institutional structure
of the Church, including rational language, sacraments and law,
although needed to an extent in this life, "is nevertheless in itself a sign
which is destined to destroy itself and disappear at the appearance of
God "42 The eschatological significance of tongues finds particular
meaning in this context Tongues not only signify God's new creation
and liberation in the here and now, tongues also remind us of the
temporal and limited nature of our institutional boundaries, theologies,
and cultic expressions There are significant implications here for
ecumenical worship and discussion
Rahner, on the other hand, locates the significance of the ecclesial
sacraments in their continuity with the whole of life The seven
sacraments represent the symbols and rituals that refer one to the grace
of God implied in the whole of life, especially as one seeks to be a
liberating influence in the world The eschatological presence of God
encountering the believer in the liturgical sacrament only makes explicit

41
Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, V2 (New York Seabury, 1983), 57
42
Rahner, "Religious Enthusiasm "
Tongues as a Sign 75

what is implicit in the routines and programs of our lives in relation to

others.43
What Rahner has argued concerning both charismatic manifestations
and ecclesial sacraments is highly significant for our discussion. If
tongues call our church institutions and formalized liturgies into
question and accent a free and unpredictable encounter with the Spirit
of God, the ecclesial sacraments refer us to the fact that our
ecclesiastical routines, structures, and programs may also be vehicles of
God's liberating and healing grace. Similarly, if tongues point to
spontaneous and unforeseen turns toward liberation and healing in the
midst of the Church's witness in the world, the ecclesial sacraments
may put us in touch with the liberating grace of God as it emerges
through programed and structured attempts at interpersonal and social
transformation.
It appears that the accent of charismatic signs is on the eschatological
and free move of the Spiritus Redemptor. It is a sacramentality from
"above." The ecclesial sacraments, especially in their continuity with
everyday life, tend to accent the Spiritus Creator working from within
our structured responses to God. We may characterize this
sacramentality as from "below." Of course, we are dealing merely with
a difference of emphasis.
Could it be that these theological accents are more complementary
than contradictory? Do not Pentecostals so stress the miraculous that
they often detach the work of the Spirit from human efforts to create a
better world? Can not our institutions, liturgies, and social programs
become sanctified means of grace to a graceless world? Can a new
appreciation for the ecclesial sacraments not form a bridge for
Pentecostals between their charismatic spirituality and efforts at social
liberation through programs and institutional structures? On the other
hand, can not the "protest" or "inchoate" sacramentality of
Pentecostalism serve a critical function in relation to a Catholic
sacramentality, reminding us that both worship and social renewal
require spontaneous and unpredictable turns toward liberation and
healing, and calling for the need to question and renew our programs
and institutional structures? We Pentecostals will undoubtedly find
irreconcilable differences in dialogue with Catholics over the
sacraments. But we must remain open to bless and be blessed in the
dialogue. The same holds true with regard to our needed dialogue with
the various Reformed traditions.
In short, Pentecostal spirituality does not advocate an unmediated
encounter with God, nor a subjectivistic emotionalism unrelated to an
objective means of grace. These stereotypical characterizations have
been nourished by certain tendencies in Pentecostal worship. But these
43
Karl Rahner, "Considerations on the Active Role of the Person in the
Sacramental Event," Theological Investigations, V. XIV (New York: Seabury,
1976), 161-184.
76 PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1, Spring 1993

characterizations cannot account for the dominant emphasis of

Pentecostals on visible/audible signs and wonders that make God's
free, eschatological presence "here and now" to empower, liberate, and
heal. Tongues as initial evidence of Spirit baptism, along with healing,
function in this way among Pentecostals and serve to call the
above-mentioned stereotypical characterizations into question. Should
we be surprised by Simon Tugwell's discovery of a sacramental
element in the Pentecostal use of tongues? The term "sacrament," if
defined carefully, can shed new light on the heart of Pentecostal
spirituality and open the door for fruitful ecumenical dialogue with
other Church traditions. Veni, Spiritus unitatis!
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.