Preface: Orthodoxy, Disagreement, and Conscience

This letter is written deliberately, and without hostility, not only to those in leadership of the charismatic movement but to anyone connected to it. Its purpose is not to provoke controversy, but to state clearly the reasons I could no longer remain in fellowship. 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 not 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 the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (1 Corinthians 14:33, KJV)

When tongues are exercised, they are to be limited in number, spoken in turn, and interpreted.

“If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.” (1 Corinthians 14:27, KJV)

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.

“If all speak in tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?” (1 Corinthians 14:23, KJV)

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 all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? … we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.” (Acts 2:7–8, 11, KJV)

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.

“He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church… greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.” (1 Corinthians 14:4–5, KJV)

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:

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” (1 Corinthians 13:1, KJV)

The phrase “tongues of men and of angels” is part of a broader series of hyperbolic constructions. Paul continues:

“And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:2, KJV)

“And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:3, KJV)

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 Christian 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 unto edifying.” (1 Corinthians 14:26, KJV)

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:

“He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:4, KJV)

Paul makes his priority unmistakable:

“Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” (1 Corinthians 14:19, KJV)

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 any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” (1 Corinthians 14:27–28, KJV)

This is not mere pastoral advice but apostolic instruction. Paul grounds these commands in the character of God Himself:

“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (1 Corinthians 14:33, KJV)

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 many charismatic churches, including at where I attended, 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 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:

“Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” (1 Corinthians 12:29–30, KJV)

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 all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” (1 Corinthians 12:11, KJV)

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. Yet regarding the Apostles:

There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.”

Acts 5:16

Scripture consistently describes spiritual gifts as given to persons for the common good, not as free‑floating events without identifiable stewardship.

“Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” (1 Corinthians 12:4–7, KJV)

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 by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:8–9, KJV)

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.

“And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.” (Acts 4:14, KJV)

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 how do we see this ‘gift’ operating today?

For what it’s worth, there is rarely a day I pray without healing for someone. However, in terms of miracles, there are only three periods in biblical history where healing appeared as gifts. Jesus and the Apostles’ acts of physical healing were strongly linked to forgiveness and restoration. Furthermore, they obviously did not have the fullness of scripture which we have today, containing within it the words of God Himself. Healing as a ‘gift’ if it indeed was permanent and by individual application, certainly does not exist in the same way it once did with the Apostles. Again, God will do as He pleases.

And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. (Exodus 33:19, KJV)

Fruit of the Spirit as the True Evidence of Christian Life

But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. (Matthew 12:39, KJV)

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, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22–23, KJV)

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.

“Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” (Matthew 7:16, KJV)

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.

“And many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:22–23, KJV)

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 then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17, KJV)

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 have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13, KJV)

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 being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 5:1, KJV)

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.

Experiences I cannot forget, but wish to

There are very serious, Holy Spirit‑grieving issues in these ‘churches’. I have seen it firsthand. I have seen a visiting ‘Healer’ pretend to heal by ‘extending’ an old woman’s leg, which was fully endorsed by the Pastor in my opinion, since he also sat next to him, and as he did it he applauded this man. The whole point of this false healing was to increase expectancy. This person has a “ministry of healing”, teaching others to heal. He prayed for many on that day, and none were healed. What’s shocking is that Peterborough Church continues to support this person/ministry.

I was due to complete their prayer ministry training at the same church, but I didn’t go back after the first session. Trying to manifest some sort of prophecy to others was the order of the day. I’m not talking about speaking God’s word from scripture here; I’m talking about being coerced into what I can only describe as conjuring a spirit to give you some kind of revelation. Let me tell you with absolute certainty that there is no such ministry found in scripture.

It was evident that some people in the most senior leadership positions do not lead with either the love of Jesus Christ or biblical discernment. They are greatly deceived. And regrettably deceiving many others.

We left the church carefully and gracefully, handing over our leadership responsibilities over a three‑month period. We loved both the people we cared for and those around us in leadership, and we still do. I left social media a few years ago, although my wife has continued using it. About a week after our leaving the church, a group of 6/7 women ‘defriended’ my wife, all on the same day. Is this love that Jesus Christ sheds abroad in our hearts, really?

With respect to these experiences, my final word on this is relevant. God has revealed Himself through scripture, the closure of the canon. God does not require prophets, nor prophecy. You cannot, and should not, claim the authority of God by some kind of private revelation. You honestly cannot expect the Lord Jesus Christ to embrace that. Instead, read the bible, ideally the King James Version, and meditate on it day and night, seeking help from the Holy Spirit. Find some highly respected reformed theologians, whether current teachers, or from past decades or centuries, and listen to them and read their commentaries.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:8–9, KJV)

Lastly, here I will say that the church has a responsibility to the public reading of scripture, and to preach the Gospel. Both of which I heard at bare minimum levels. Yet, having visited independent Baptist churches and listened to reformed preaching online, I found the Word of God preached wonderfully and taught with great skill.

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.

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV)

Private concerns were raised first, but it’s unlikely they were shared with the senior pastor. Irrespective, 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.

“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” (Matthew 18:15–16, KJV)

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.

If this type of church-worship is the only one(s) you have known, please know that this movement has only been a ‘type’ of Christianity for barely 100 years.

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.

“And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:1–2, KJV)

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, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matthew 23:37, KJV)

What Makes a Song Fit For Corporate Worship

Lord, please help us all, and anyone who reads this post, in Jesus name – Amen.