If the Church of the Nazarene says that Scripture is the primary source of spiritual truth, then perhaps the fairest way to examine its teaching on speaking in tongues is to ask Scripture what it actually says. That sounds obvious, but it changes the tone of the conversation. The question is no longer, ‘What does my church say?
It becomes, ‘What does the whole New Testament require us to believe?’
The first thing Scripture makes clear is that tongues are not an invention of modern Christianity. Acts 2:4 records the disciples speaking in other tongues when they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:44–46 records Gentiles speaking in tongues when the Holy Spirit came upon them.
Acts 19:6 records another group speaking in tongues and prophesying after receiving the Spirit.
Those passages deserve to be taken seriously, especially by someone like me who belongs to the Nazarene tradition. We cannot examine a Nazarene doctrine honestly by quietly removing the passages that make our position uncomfortable.
But Scripture also gives us another set of questions. First Corinthians 12:7 describes manifestations of the Spirit as being given for the common good. First Corinthians 12:11 says the Spirit distributes gifts individually as he wills.
Then, in 1 Corinthians 12:29–30, Paul asks whether all are apostles, whether all are prophets, whether all work miracles, whether all possess gifts of healing, and whether all speak in tongues.
So which question are we actually trying to answer?
If someone asks, ‘Is speaking in tongues biblical? the New Testament answer begins with yes. If someone asks, ‘Does the New Testament teach that every Spirit-filled Christian must speak in tongues?
the question becomes much more demanding. We have to consider the Acts narratives, Paul’s teaching about gifts, the purpose of tongues in public worship, and the different ways Christians understand Spirit baptism.
That is also why I am not satisfied with the common statement that the Church of the Nazarene simply does not believe in tongues. It does not describe the issue carefully enough. The real question is whether something the Bible records as a genuine work of the Spirit should become the required evidence of that work in every believer.
When does a sign become a standard? I think Scripture is where we need to begin.
What I find most helpful about the Nazarene position is not the sentence saying what tongues are not. It is the larger question of what the Spirit is doing in the believer. The Church of the Nazarene currently places baptism with or infilling of the Holy Spirit within entire sanctification, connecting that work with cleansing from sin, wholehearted love, the presence of the Spirit, and empowerment for life and service. That gives the Nazarene argument a positive centre. It is not simply, ‘We do not believe in tongues.
That sentence is too broad. The more precise position is that speaking in tongues is not made the necessary evidence of Spirit baptism or Spirit infilling. I think that distinction matters because Scripture itself gives us a wider picture of the Spirit’s work.
Let me come back to Paul’s question in 1 Corinthians 12:29–30 because it keeps this whole discussion from becoming simpler than Scripture allows. Paul asks whether all are apostles, whether all are prophets, whether all perform miracles, whether all possess gifts of healing, and whether all speak in tongues. His questions sit inside a chapter where the Spirit gives different gifts to different members of Christ’s body.
That does not make Acts 2:4, Acts 10:44–46, or Acts 19:6 disappear. Those passages remain part of the biblical evidence. Speaking in tongues is genuinely present in the New Testament, and I do not think a Nazarene reading of Scripture should try to make those passages uncomfortable enough to ignore.
But neither should we take those narratives and turn them into a command that the passages themselves never state.
This is where the distinction matters. The question is not whether the Spirit can give tongues. Scripture gives us no reason to deny that biblical reality.
The question is whether tongues are the necessary evidence by which we identify Spirit baptism in every believer.
The Assemblies of God has a clearly different answer. Its teaching identifies tongues as the initial physical evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit while distinguishing that role from the gift of tongues discussed in 1 Corinthians 12. I think that argument deserves to be heard in its strongest form.
Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 19 do provide a recurring pattern that Pentecostal readers have taken seriously.
Yet when I place those passages beside 1 Corinthians 12:4–11 and 1 Corinthians 12:29–30, I still find myself asking where Scripture makes the leap from recurring sign to universal standard. I can see the biblical sign. I can see why Christians have attached theological importance to it.
What I do not see is an explicit command making it the test of every Spirit-filled believer.
For me, that leaves the title question standing in the right place. A sign becomes a standard when we ask it to prove more than Scripture asks it to prove. That is the distinction I want to carry forward: respect the sign, take Scripture seriously, but be careful about turning a biblical manifestation into a universal measurement of the Spirit’s work.