My objection to the P/C movement, to the brass tacks:
What I find wrong with the Pentecostal/Charismatic (P/C) movement (that is, the modern 'tongues' movement) is evidenced by two things: (1) the obvious difference between modern tongues and Biblical tongues, and (2) the misinterpretation of scripture for the purpose of justifying their practice.
(1) Biblical tongues is described in Acts 2, and there is absolutely nothing in scripture to indicate that the nature of tongues changed from that day to what Paul describes in 1 Cor. 14. Paul's description fits well in the Acts 2 narrative, but modern tongues doesn't. The Acts 2 narrative makes it very obvious that what happened then was a miraculous act of God. But in contrast, modern tongues is not proving to be miraculous. Instead, it is shrouded in mystery by those people who have a vested interest in keeping it mysterious, as if that was some proof it was miraculous. To any well-thinking person, this is an obvious difference in behavior between the Acts 2 narrative and the modern narrative.
(2) Just because people cannot explain modern tongues, it is assumed to be the same thing as Acts 2, but it's not. Even many P/Cs acknowledge a difference by trying to work around the problem by reinterpreting scripture the way they want it to read. Some claim that the nature of tongues changed after Acts 2, while others claim that Acts 2 was a hearing miracle rather than a speaking miracle. But the fact that the text clearly shows it was a speaking miracle proves that people do acknowledge the difference, but are unwilling to conform themselves to the Biblical narrative.
Concerning the idea that the Acts 2 narrative was a hearing miracle and not a speaking miracle is ludicrous to anyone who has a clear enough mind to read the original intent of what is actually written. Yet, the M.O. of many in the P/C movement is to disregard the original intent and natural flow of the text, and instead to impose their own subjective idea onto the text to make it read how they want it to read.
Therefore, the reason why the movement continues is because of religious sentiment. Such sentiment may be based on fear, superstition, deception, or even more sinister motives (such as a desire to gain a following, for example). There is nothing wrong with religious sentiment in and of itself, just like there is nothing wrong with eating in and of itself. But when eating becomes gluttony, then it is sinful. When sex becomes an addiction, then it is sinful, the same as drinking alcohol, or any other sin listed in scripture, including gossip, slander, and "things like these." If religious sentiment becomes the thing by which I judge everything and everyone, including how the Bible is to be read, then it is sinful.
So if I use the scripture to judge myself in order to conform my thoughts and behavior to what it says, isn't this the right way to use scripture? And doesn't it require that I read it the same way it was written, by understanding the original intent of it?
But if I use the scripture to justify my religious sentiment, then am I not judging scripture based on my religious sentiment? Yet, this is the M.O. of modern tongue-talkers. Based on their belief (religious feeling) that their tongues has to be the same thing as the Biblical narrative, they impose their idea onto scripture by reading their experience into the scripture, in order to justify their practice.
But just because someone practices something they deem religious, and it makes them feel better, doesn't justify what they are doing. Every religion in the world does the same thing. Every cult does the same thing. And this is what makes the P/C movement cult-like in behavior. They prey on peoples' ignorance (or their own) to gain followers (or whatever other motive may be in play). This is why the P/C movement is so far reaching and rapidly growing among the poor and uneducated.
Such is evidenced by the fact that most tongues activists get very upset when someone speaks ill (in their assessment) of their religious sentiment. It is somewhat like a young child with a vanity ballon. When some sharp object pokes the balloon, it bursts - goes BANG - and then the child crys "wah, wah." But in the case of religous sentiment, it becomes more sinister than merely "my feeling is hurt." There are outbursts of anger, cries of "blasphemy," "you're spiritually dead," and other such things. Those kinds of behavior prove that the religious sentiment has become idolatry, known as a "sacred cow."
It ends up very much like the modern social media culture. When someone's feelings (religious sentiment) is hurt, they complain to the moderator, and if the moderator conforms to the social media culture, they ban the person speaking ill (in their assessment) of another's religious sentiment.
Furthermore, if my religious sentiment is the basis on which I interpret scripture, then isn't my faith more in my religious sentiment than in the text of scripture? Of course it is! Yet, this is the M.O. of people in the modern 'tongues' movement.
This is what is wrong with the picture. This is why I say that someone who stands up and speaks their modern tongues (pseudo-language) in an assembly is, by their action, saying, "listen to what God has to say." And in doing so, they are taking the name of the Lord in vain, because they aren't speaking what God says, because their 'tongues' is not the obviously miraculous tongues of the NT. It's a human phenomenon that people stumbled upon in almost every religion of the world.
Furthermore, anyone who stands in an assembly and speaks an 'interpretation' of that 'tongue' is speaking not what God says, but speaks out of their imagination. Just because they quote scripture or say the same thing as scripture doesn't mean God is speaking. What they said may be true, but their action is a claim "thus saith the Lord" in this whole modern P/C narrative, when the Lord is not speaking in that narrative. In such a way they also take the name of the Lord in vain.
There are many other things wrong with the P/C movement, such as speaking the same kind of hype that people want to hear, just like the false prophets of the OT did. Prophets in the P/C movement are a dime a dozen. They say things people like to hear, but there is no accountability when their 'prophecies' don't come true. But still, the debate rages on.
It seems to me that people who are seeking God by seeking the truth, if coming to understand the things I am talking about here, will say to themselves "could it be that I have been deceived by the tongue-talking phenomenon? Has my faith been misplaced in a phenomenon rather than in the real Christ who sits on His Father's throne in heaven? Rather than in the true meaning of scripture, which is its original intent?"
