The Misuse of Self-Control: Charismatic Expression and Exegetical Fallacies

In some Charismatic streams of Christianity, we can frequently see people falling on the floor, shaking, convulsing, or spontaneously yelling out words or phrases, purportedly under the power of the Holy Spirit. In some cases, the individual falls into a trance-state or experiences a form of religious ecstasy. This behavior is variously referred to as being “slain in the Spirit,” “being overcome/overwhelmed,” or even being “drunk in the Spirit.”[1] Those who were part of some early Methodist and Holiness movements were known as “holy rollers” or “holy jumpers” because of their exuberant behavior and the Pentecostals of the 20th century and those in attendance at the Great Awakenings in the preceding centuries often reported similar ecstatic experiences.[2]

To outsiders (and some insiders), these manifestations seem disorderly, confusing, and unprofitable. For others, they see it as a way of drawing undue attention to the individual experiencing such phenomena. Still others see it all as a lack of self-control. This final criticism, a lack of apparent self-control, is one of the major arguments used against such Charismatic expressions. John MacArthur, for example, argues that:

“…perhaps most important, the New Testament presents Spirit-empowered behavior as being that which exhibits self-control (Gal. 5:22–23; 1 Cor. 14:32), maintains sober-minded alertness (1 Peter 1:13; 5:8), and promotes orderliness in the church (1 Cor. 14:40). Obviously, having bodies lying all over the floor in varying stages of catalepsy does not yield any of those God-honoring qualities, but rather the polar opposite.”[3]

The most common passage used as a proof-text against spontaneous physical movements supposedly brought on by the Holy Spirit is Galatians 5:22-23: “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” Based on this passage and others like it, critics of these Charismatic experiences conclude the Spirit would not cause someone to act in a way that appears incoherent or ecstatic.

Yet, is this what Paul was addressing?

Auto-Whatisms?

The technical term for the spontaneous movements of Christians in Charismatic churches is “automatism”.[4] When a doctor checks your reflexes and you spontaneously kick your leg forward, this is an example of motor automatism, an automatic physical response of which you have no (or little) control over. Another example includes sleepwalking, in which your unconscious mind moves your body without your direct knowledge. A distinct form, verbal automatism, includes spontaneous speech of differing kinds, such as praise or prophecy.

Automatism comes from the Greek word αὐτόματος / automatos. Naturally, our English word “automatic” comes from this word. The standard Greek Lexicon BDAG defines automatos as “pert[aining] to someth[ing] that happens without visible cause”.[5] The word is used in various contexts, such as plants growing (Mark 4:28)[6] and of doors opening by themselves (Acts 12:10). In the Greek version of Joshua 6:5 “the walls of the city will collapse spontaneously (automatos)”[7] and the author of the apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon talks about the Egyptian plague of darkness as follows: “Nothing was shining through to them except a dreadful, self-kindled (automatos) fire” (17:6). [8] The opposite of automatos is ἑκούσιος / hekousios, which is doing something of your own volition. Paul, for example, says in Philemon 14: “but I preferred to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary (hekousios) and not something forced.” Additionally, when the priests could not stand because “the house of the Lord, was filled with a cloud…for the glory of the Lord filled the house of God” (2 Chr 5:13-14) may be an example of motor automatism. Similarly, the demoniac in Mark 9:18, who is thrown into convulsions against his will, is another probable example of motor automatism. It is likewise possible to read Elisabeth’s outburst when she “was filled with the Holy Spirit” and “exclaimed with a loud cry” (Luke 1:41-42) as a form of verbal automatism. Automatisms occur throughout the Old and New Testaments and will be discussed in my upcoming book Drunk in the Spirit.

Automatism is a neutral academic term that says nothing of the origins of such motions or speech acts. Such manifestations could be the product of divine or demonic activity. The outward signs do not tell us anything about the moral and spiritual value of the manifestations.

But what about self-control?

Biblical Self-Control

Some argue automatisms cannot be from God based on passages in the New Testament concerned with self-control (e.g., Gal 5:23, Acts 24:25, Titus 1:8, 2 Peter 1:6). The assumption that critics make is that the self-control being spoken of deals with physical manifestations. Evidently, this is not what Paul is concerned with. The self-control being spoken of by Paul is not about automatisms at all. Rather, the issue concerns ethics.[9]

Paul’s list of spiritual fruits has to do with controlling our bodies in a holy way.[10] The Greek word translated “self-control” in English bibles is the word ἐγκράτεια / egkrateia. Paul uses the term when telling Felix about “righteousness and self-control (egkrateia)” (Acts 24:25). That self-control is paralleled with righteousness (δικαιοσύνη / dikaiosuné) suggests that ethical conduct is in view. The word egkrateia is often used in contexts of sexual ethics as well.[11] For example, egkrateia appears in the context of abstaining from sex in 1 Cor 7:5: “Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (egkrateia).” A few verses later, Paul states that “But if they cannot exercise self-control (egkrateia), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor 7:9).[12] Elsewhere, self-control is understood as not indulging one’s basic human urges,[13] rigorous training (Acts 9:25), and later to general ethical behavior.[14]

In none of these instances is the word used for controlling automatisms. Thus, the argument that self-control does not allow for such physical manifestations is simply incorrect. This error stems from a far-reaching application of the English term “self-control”, rather than a serious study of the underlying Greek text.

Self-Control & The Gifts

Select passages from 1 Corinthians 14 are also commonly used by critics of ecstatic experiences in the Church. In 1 Cor 14:23, for example, Paul warns that “If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?” The unspoken (but clearly inserted) interpretation of this passage by critics is that the individuals are all speaking in tongues sporadically and chaotically, thus interrupting the Church service and that Paul does not want this happening. If this is the true interpretation of the passage, it must also consistently follow that the prophesying spoken of in 1 Cor 14:24 must likewise be sporadic and chaotic. Yet, Paul does not discourage such activity. Evidently, this passage is often ignored when discussing Paul’s instructions.

The issue present in 1 Corinthians 14:23 is not about speaking sporadically or chaotically, but about clear communication. Because tongues requires interpretation to edify the Church, Paul insists that prophecy be more prevalent in the Church meeting because it both edifies the entire Church and convicts onlookers, unlike uninterpreted tongues. Automatisms are not the topic at hand.[15]

Paul, however, does address orderly conduct in 1 Cor 14:26-40. It is important to realize that Paul does not prohibit automatisms, only that such automatisms should not cause disorder during formal Church gatherings.[16] In the instance of tongues, for example, he states that “If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret” (1 Cor 14:27). In this instance, the tongue speaker seems to be addressing the congregation directly as a method for dispensing encouraging revelations or praise (cf. 1 Cor 14:6, 16). Yet, Paul does not say that the individual cannot pray in tongues in the congregation! Rather, “if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God” (1 Cor 14:28). The person speaking in tongues is “silent” insofar as they are not disrupting the formal Church service, but they are still speaking (quietly) in tongues to God, as per 1 Cor 14:2.

Conclusion

Automatisms are often a byproduct of religious ecstasy and trance. Individual experiences vary considerably, and people can control certain facets of these altered state of consciousness. Paradoxically, automatisms (which are sometimes perceived as a lack of self-control) can be controlled. I am not referring to the issue of inducing automatisms (a topic to be discussed in a future post), but that the experience of Holy Spirit activity can be ethically or unethically exercised. Prophetic inspiration, for example, may be genuine but spoken at an inopportune time. Speaking over another prophecy is not in line with Pauline ethics laid out in 1 Corinthians 14. It does not, however, mean that the prophecy is untrue, only that the prophet him/herself immaturely exercised their gifting (Cf. 1 Cor 14:32). Likewise, many who experience motor automatisms are able to contain their physical movements to a certain degree. While Paul envisions some boundaries within the Church gathering, his main concern has to do with clear communication. Motor automatisms, while not verbally expressing a message, can still act as a form of communication. Those who witness the individual in an altered state of consciousness can assess that God’s Spirit is at work (hence the language of “manifestations” of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12).

Denominations and individual Churches have divergent views on what is a “distraction” or not. For some, spotlights, fog machines, and other factors contribute to distraction, while for others they help absorb the member into a state of worship. Thus, the presence of verbal and motor automatisms may be a distraction only to some sectors of the Christian faith. Yet, in many instances, those experiencing verbal and motor automatisms are still able to preach and teach coherent and edifying content.

Based on the following analysis, I suggest that there is biblical space for automatisms. Automatisms are meant to be manifestations of the Holy Spirit and thus act as a form of edification either for the individual or the Church. Like other Spirit-empowered activities, they require wisdom in execution. The unique nature of automatisms (that they are brought on spontaneously) requires sensitivity and biblical congregational teaching that has sometimes been ignored in some streams of the Christian faith. In the same way someone might mock a denomination for incorporating dancing into their worship, we should not be so quick to ignore the biblical evidence for trance and ecstasy and the physiological features that may accompany such states.

 Blessings,
Merrill G. Greene

Notes

[1] Margaret M. Poloma, Main Street Mystics: The Toronto Blessing and Reviving Pentecostalism (Oxford: AltaMira, 2003), 5.

[2] Thus Jonathan Edwards, in his work Distinguishing Marks of the Work of the Spirit of God (1744) states: “It is no argument that a work is not of the Spirit of God, that some who are the subjects of it have been in a kind of ecstasy, wherein they have been carried beyond themselves, and have had their minds transported into a train of strong and pleasing imaginations, and a kind of visions, as though they were rapt up even to heaven, and there saw glorious sights…It is no wonder, when the thoughts are so fixed, and the affections so strong—and the whole soul so engaged, ravished, and swallowed up—that all other parts of the body are so affected, as to be deprived of their strength, and the whole frame ready to dissolve.”

[3] John MacArthur, Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship (Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2013), 200.

[4] Not to be confused with the concept of “automatism” developed from Epicureanism. See Mark Edwards (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Early Christian Philosophy (New York, NY: Routledge, 2020), 233-236.

[5] BDAG is an acronym formed from the surnames of the four primary scholars responsible for this Greek Lexicon: Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich. The actual title is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

[6] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.2.54, 12.7.317; Life of Flavius Josephus 11.

[7] Compare the use of the term in Xenephon, Hellenica 6.4.7: “Besides this, they were also somewhat encouraged by the oracle which was reported—that the Lacedaemonians were destined to be defeated at the spot where stood the monument of the virgins, who are said to have killed themselves because they had been violated by certain Lacedaemonians. The Thebans accordingly decorated this monument before the battle. Furthermore, reports were brought to them from the city that all the temples were opening of themselves (automatos), and that the priestesses said that the gods revealed victory.”

[8] Compare the use of fire also in Herodotus, Histories 2.180.1: “It happened in the reign of Amasis that the temple of Delphi had been accidentally (automatos) burnt…”.

[9] See F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982), 255; Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 288.

[10] Cf. Prov 25:28; Acts 24:25; 1 Cor 7:5-9, 1 Tim 2:9, 15, 3:2; 2 Tim 1:7, 3:3; Titus 1:8, 2:2, 5-6, 12; 1 Pet 4:7; 2 Pet 1:6.

[11] The word also had a rich history in earlier Greek philosophical schools. See Walter Grundmann, “Ἐγκράτεια (ἀκρασία), Ἐγκρατής (ἀκρατής), Ἐγκρατεύομαι,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:339-342.

[12] Likewise, in the Jewish-Christian work Testament of Naphtali, we read: “For there is a season for a man to embrace his wife, and a season to abstain (egkrateias) therefrom for his prayer” (8:8).

[13] Sirach 18:30; 4 Maccabees 5:34; Wisdom 8:21.

[14] Cf. 1 Clement 30:3, 35:2, 62:2; 64; Epistle of Barnabas 2:2; Shepherd of Hermas, Mandates 8.1-12.

[15] See Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1138-1139.

[16] W. R. Baker, Personal Speech-Ethics in the Epistle of James (WUNT 2:68; Tübingen: Mohr, 1995) discusses the issue of self-controlled speech as an ethical issue. Again, however, the issue is not automatisms, but the content of the speech.