Preface: Orthodoxy, Disagreement, and Conscience
This letter is written deliberately, and without hostility to the Pastor, DS, and Christians I love at Kingsgate Community Church. Its purpose is not to provoke controversy, but to state clearly the reasons I could no longer remain in fellowship at Kingsgate. These concerns were raised privately before being expressed publicly.
The decision to write openly is driven by the fact that the teachings addressed here are public, repeated, and central to the life of the church. They shape how Christian faith, assurance, and spiritual maturity are understood. Silence would imply agreement, and conscience does not allow that.
This letter is written from within the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy and with full awareness that faithful evangelicals differ on the continuation and nature of certain spiritual gifts. It does not claim that all alternative interpretations fall outside orthodoxy.
Scripture does, however, place clear priorities on order in gathered worship, assurance grounded in Christ rather than experience, and the fruit of the Spirit as the primary evidence of spiritual life. Where multiple interpretations exist, I have chosen the stream that I believe best preserves those priorities, both biblically and pastorally. That choice is deliberate and carries consequences.
What follows is therefore not a neutral survey of evangelical positions. It is an explanation of why, in conscience, I could no longer remain under the teaching and practice described below.
The Matter of Conscience That Required My Departure
My departure was not casual, emotional, or rooted in disagreement over secondary matters. It followed a growing conviction that I could no longer, in good conscience, participate in or submit to the practice and promotion of tongues as they are exercised and emphasised within the church.
What is presented as a work of the Holy Spirit is, in practice, unregulated, uninterpreted, and inconsistent with explicit apostolic instruction. Scripture is clear that God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, and Paul gives concrete direction regarding the use of tongues in the gathered church.
“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”
(1 Corinthians 14:33, NASB)
When tongues are exercised, they are to be limited in number, spoken in turn, and interpreted.
“If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret.”
(1 Corinthians 14:27, NASB)
What I consistently observed instead was collective, simultaneous vocalisation without interpretation, encouraged as normative worship rather than restrained as an occasional gift. This is not a question of style or preference. It is a question of obedience.
Paul does not commend such practice. He warns explicitly against it.
“Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?”
(1 Corinthians 14:23, NASB)
Remaining would have required either silence or participation. Neither was possible without violating conscience.
What Scripture Means by “Tongues”
The New Testament itself defines the nature of tongues. The first detailed occurrence is found in Acts 2, where the phenomenon is described concretely and without ambiguity.
In that passage, those present hear the apostles speaking in their own languages and declaring the mighty works of God. Tongues are therefore presented as known, earthly human languages, intelligible to real hearers, linguistic in nature, and directed outward rather than inward.
“And they were amazed and astonished, saying, ‘Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? … we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.’”
(Acts 2:7–8, 11, NASB)
This description is not incidental narrative detail; it establishes the biblical category of the gift.
When Paul later addresses tongues in the Corinthian church, he does not redefine that category. Instead, he regulates its use within the gathered assembly. The same assumptions remain in place: tongues involve meaningful speech, interpretation is required, and the governing purpose is the edification of others.
“One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church… greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.”
(1 Corinthians 14:4–5, NASB)
If tongues were inherently non-linguistic or purely private, interpretation would be unintelligible as a concept. Scripture never treats uninterpreted speech as spiritually beneficial in the gathered church.
Scripture describes tongues once in detail, as known human languages. Later apostolic regulation assumes that same category and does not introduce a new one. To propose a second, non-earthly form of tongues therefore requires moving beyond what Scripture explicitly teaches and treating inference as doctrine.
“Tongues of Angels” and the Use of Hyperbole
Appeal is frequently made to Paul’s statement, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,” as justification for a private or heavenly prayer language. This interpretation, however, fails to account for the rhetorical nature of the passage in which the statement occurs. First Corinthians 13 is not a chapter defining spiritual gifts, but one that deliberately employs exaggerated hypotheticals to exalt the supremacy of love over all spiritual endowments.
Paul writes:
“If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” (1 Corinthians 13:1, NASB)
The phrase “tongues of men and of angels” is part of a broader series of hyperbolic constructions. Paul continues:
“If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:2, NASB)
“And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:3, NASB)
These statements are not descriptions of normative Christian experience, nor are they intended to establish categories of spiritual practice. Paul does not claim to possess all knowledge, all faith, or to have surrendered his body to martyrdom. Rather, he piles up extreme, even unimaginable, hypotheticals to demonstrate that even the greatest conceivable spiritual attainments are rendered meaningless apart from love.
Within this rhetorical framework, the reference to “tongues of angels” functions as an intensification of speech to its highest conceivable degree—not as a doctrinal assertion that believers can or should speak in an angelic language. Scripture nowhere defines tongues as angelic speech, records an instance of humans speaking such a language, or provides instruction for its use in prayer or worship. Where Scripture intends to describe heavenly or angelic speech, it does so clearly and directly (cf. Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 5:11–12), never ambiguously or incidentally.
To derive a doctrine of a private or heavenly prayer language from 1 Corinthians 13:1 therefore, presses Paul’s rhetoric beyond its intent. Such an interpretation imports theological content into a passage whose purpose is not to define spiritual gifts, but to relativise them in light of love. The conclusion is thus exegetically unwarranted and textually unsupported.
Order, Edification, and Chrsitian Corporate Worship
Paul’s overriding concern in 1 Corinthians 14 is not the suppression of spiritual enthusiasm, but the regulation of worship according to God’s revealed will. His governing principle is stated plainly:
“Let all things be done for edification.” (1 Corinthians 14:26, NASB)
Throughout the chapter, Paul contrasts intelligible speech, which builds up the church, with uninterpreted tongues, which do not. While tongues may edify the speaker privately, they do not benefit the gathered body unless accompanied by interpretation:
“One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:4, NASB)
Paul makes his priority unmistakable:
“I would rather speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (1 Corinthians 14:19, NASB)
The issue, then, is not the sincerity of the speaker, but the obedience of the church. Uninterpreted tongues in corporate worship are not treated as a neutral preference. Paul explicitly commands restraint:
“If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:27–28, NASB)
This is not mere pastoral advice but apostolic instruction. Paul grounds these commands in the character of God Himself:
“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” (1 Corinthians 14:33, NASB)
Disorder, therefore, is not evidence of the Spirit’s presence. Submission to God’s Word is. The Spirit who inspires worship is the same Spirit who inspired Scripture, and He does not contradict Himself. True spirituality is marked not by unregulated expression, but by obedience that seeks the edification of Christ’s body.
Tongues as Normative and Spiritual Confirmation
In some theological systems, including at Kingsgate, it is taught, either explicitly or by strong implication, that all Christians should expect to speak in tongues, and that such an experience functions as confirmation of authentic Christian faith, Spirit baptism, or spiritual vitality. This expectation, however, stands in direct contradiction to apostolic teaching. I have heard this preached not only by the KCC ‘teaching team’ there but also by guest preachers.
Paul explicitly denies that any spiritual gift is universal. In discussing the diversity of gifts within the body of Christ, he asks a series of rhetorical questions:
“All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?” (1 Corinthians 12:29–30, NASB)
The grammatical construction of these questions in Greek demands a negative answer. Paul’s meaning is unmistakable: tongues are not given to all believers. To insist that they should be is to deny the very point Paul is making.
The reason for this diversity lies in the sovereign will of the Holy Spirit:
“But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” (1 Corinthians 12:11, NASB)
Spiritual gifts are not marks of spiritual status, nor are they distributed according to human expectation or uniform patterns. They are sovereignly bestowed according to God’s purpose for the edification of the church.
Making tongues normative, therefore, does more than elevate a particular gift; it functionally denies the Spirit’s sovereignty and redefines spiritual maturity. Scripture consistently locates maturity not in the possession of a specific gift, but in Christlike character, love, and obedience (cf. 1 Corinthians 13; Galatians 5:22–23). When tongues are treated as a universal sign of spiritual authenticity, the biblical standard of maturity is replaced with an experiential criterion that Scripture itself does not endorse.
Healing and the Nature of Spiritual Gifts
For many years prior to leaving, I carried a related concern regarding the repeated emphasis on the gift of healing alongside the absence of anyone who could be clearly identified as exercising such a gift.
Over time, it appears that the explanation has shifted. No one truly has ‘the gift of healing’ consistently; rather, it occurs only when the Holy Spirit sovereignly chooses to heal in a given moment. That explanation raises serious biblical questions.
Scripture consistently describes spiritual gifts as given to persons for the common good, not as free-floating events without identifiable stewardship.
“But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.”
(1 Corinthians 12:7, NASB)
Even when Paul speaks of “gifts of healings,” the language still places the gift within the framework of distribution, recognition, and use within the body.
“For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healings by the one Spirit.”
(1 Corinthians 12:8–9, NASB)
Scripture does not describe a category of gift that no one actually possesses but which is invoked only to explain why nothing observable occurs.
When healing appears in the New Testament, particularly in apostolic ministry, it is immediate, complete, public, and undeniable. Furthermore, there were limited times of supernatural manifestations in scripture.
“But seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say in reply.”
(Acts 4:14, NASB)
Modern appeals are often accompanied by qualifications that would have been unnecessary in the apostolic context. This concern does not deny God’s freedom and willingness to heal; He absolutely heals today. It questions whether the language of “gift” is being used consistently with Scripture. And consequently, how do we see this ‘gift’ operating today?
Fruit of the Spirit as the True Evidence of Christian Life
The New Testament does not point believers to manifestations as the primary evidence of genuine Christian life. Instead, it consistently points to fruit.
The fruit of the Spirit is presented as the normal and expected evidence of the Spirit’s work in every believer. It is not selective, episodic, or dependent on personality or temperament, but grows steadily over time in those who belong to Christ.
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.”
(Galatians 5:22–23, NASB)
Unlike manifestations, fruit is observable in character and conduct rather than momentary experience. It develops through obedience, endurance, repentance, and sanctification, and it cannot be manufactured through emotional intensity or imitation.
Jesus Himself taught that the true measure of spiritual authenticity is fruit, not giftedness.
“You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?”
(Matthew 7:16, NASB)
Scripture also warns explicitly that spiritual gifts and outward spiritual activity can exist where saving faith is absent. Extraordinary experiences, even when performed in religious language, are not reliable indicators of genuine relationship with Christ.
“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
(Matthew 7:22-23, NASB)
Christian Assurance Grounded in Christ, Not Experience
Last year, I decided to listen to a sermon from a regular speaker at Kingsgate (online). I was, and am, deeply grieved when I heard him say that a few weeks after he had believed in Christ for His salvation, he experienced a warm feeling during Worship and therefore decided, “this Christianity is real”.
Scripture locates Christian assurance in Christ’s finished work and in God’s written promises, not in fluctuating internal experience or spiritual manifestations. Faith is grounded in what God has spoken and accomplished, through His Word, not in what an individual feels or experiences at a given moment.
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”
(Romans 10:17, NASB)
The New Testament consistently directs believers to the objective truth rather than subjective experience when seeking confidence before God. Assurance is anchored in the Gospel itself and in the trustworthiness of God’s promises, not in emotional intensity or extraordinary encounters.
“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.”
(1 John 5:13, NASB)
When experience becomes the measure of faith, the result is predictable. Believers are left uncertain when experiences wane, pressured to reproduce moments of intensity, and confused about the difference between emotional response and spiritual reality. This framework often shifts attention inward rather than upward, away from Christ and toward the self.
Scripture does not deny that experiences may encourage or accompany faith, but it never presents them as the basis of assurance. Confidence before God rests on Christ’s sufficiency, not on personal manifestations.
“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
(Romans 5:1, NASB)
This peace is grounded in justification accomplished once for all, not in ongoing experiential confirmation. That distinction is essential to preserving the liberty of the Gospel.
Why This Letter Is Public
This letter is written publicly because the teaching it addresses is public, repeated, and central to the life of the church. Silence in such a context would imply agreement, and conscience does not allow that.
Scripture calls believers not only to personal discernment, but also to responsible testing of teaching that shapes the faith and practice of others.
“But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.”
(1 Thessalonians 5:21, NASB)
Private concerns were raised first. I am unsure if they were considered and weighed, but the teaching and practice remain unchanged.
If in reading this and you bring forth questions to leaders; if you are directed to read ‘spiritual books’ by Charismatic authors, it should raise further questions. Why are you not being directed to scripture? In scripture, there are moments where God may do something unique. Those are often not things which were intended to be normative.
Public clarity is not sought for the sake of controversy, but for the sake of truth and pastoral responsibility. When teaching affects how faith is understood, how assurance is grounded, and how spiritual maturity is measured, it must be evaluated in the light of Scripture.
The New Testament recognizes that separation may at times be necessary when conscience is bound by the Word of God.
“But if your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you…”
(Matthew 18:15–16, NASB)
This letter does not claim final judgment over individuals. It explains why continued participation was no longer possible without compromising conviction.
Final Word
This letter is written without malice and without exaggeration. It is not an attempt to win an argument, assign motives, or diminish the sincerity of those involved. Its purpose is to speak truthfully and clearly where conscience required it.
The Gospel does not require experiential confirmation. Christ is sufficient. Scripture is sufficient. Any teaching or practice that subtly shifts assurance away from Christ and toward experience, manifestation, or spiritual performance must be examined in the light of God’s Word.
“For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.”
(1 Corinthians 2:2, NASB)
When doctrine and practice are weighed, Scripture must remain the final authority. Where Scripture binds the conscience, faithfulness requires obedience, even when that obedience is costly or misunderstood.
This letter is written in grief rather than anger, and with concern rather than distance. The decision to leave was not made lightly, and it does not erase love for the people involved. Separation, when it occurs, should be marked by sorrow and humility, not triumph.
The final word belongs to Christ Himself, whose lament over His people captures both truth and longing:
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks.”
What Makes a Song Fit For Corporate Worship
