Questioning Things Pentecostal

As I have made clear previously, I am at this moment the pastor of a traditional Pentecostal (not Charismatic) Church. Having said that, however, I must admit that there are some things that I have questions about—I mean some specifically Pentecostal things at that.

Before I go any farther, I must ask the reader to be patient with me. Do not for one moment think that I am denigrating Pentes nor their experience with God—not the case at all. I am being open and honest about questions that have occurred to me, that have come to my mind after being in a Pente church for almost my whole life.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Holy Spirit can move people to speak in languages that they have never learned. I have no qualms about the experiences of the Spirit as related in the Book of Acts. My questions deal with Pente experience that I have seen and heard.

I will now list some questions that have come to my mind about the glossalalia (speaking in tongues):

1. If those who speak in tongues are actually speaking languages, why are there so many that are just repeated syllables? Why do most of them bear little to no resemblance to a language at all? One man I heard “giving out a message” only said one word (one letter, actually) and many only repeat similar phrases.
2. Why do the interpretations vary so greatly in length and tone from the messages they are supposed to be interpreting?
3. How can very ungodly people speak in tongues and interpret and their gifts be considered genuine by a whole church full of “Holy Ghost filled” people?
4. If tongues and interpretations are God speaking (“thus saith the Lord”) then why are the utterances considered fallible? How trustworthy are they? Are parts fallible and parts not? If so, how does one differentiate between the two?
5. How much if any of modern tongues speaking is psychologically induced?
6. How were tongues actually manifested in the First Century Church?
7. Is praying in the Spirit praying in tongues? Or is it to be identified more with the “groanings which cannot be uttered"? (And why do people identify tongues which are uttered with “groanings which cannot be uttered”?
8. If tongues and interpretation are God speaking, why do they always reflect the theology (and often the idiosyncrasies and misinterpretations of Scripture and doctrine) of the one giving the interpretation?
9. Since a person can change their interpretation style (for instance, one decided to quit saying “saith the Lord” and changed to “says the Lord”—I know this has been done), how much of the “interpretation” can be changed or altered according to the taste or belief of the person giving it? And if it can be altered in this way, can it be altered in other ways that would change the meaning or intent?
10. Why has no linguist who studied the glossalalia ever been convinced that the tongues were a real language regardless of the group studied?
11. How do we reconcile Paul’s question (“Do all speak with tongues” which is manifestly to be answered in the negative) with the Pentes’ decidedly affirmative answer to it (according to them not only do all speak with tongues but also everyone must speak in tongues)?

My biggest questions stem from the idea that tongues are the “initial evidence” of the baptism in the Holy Ghost. This novel theory was first promulgated in the early 20th Century. Thus, it is immediately admitted that it is not of apostolic or early church origin (although there have been many attempts to give it such a basis). Here are some of my questionings on this subject:

1. Why would there be only one gift from God that came with “initial evidence?” Does one even need any immediate physical evidence that something has occurred?
2. Since Mormons, pagans, and witch doctors speak in tongues, how much evidentiary value can they possess?
3. How can something be quality evidence when it can be faked or emotionally induced (without the person “receiving” even realizing it)? [An example of someone faking tongues can be found here: http://www.pentecostalfreedom.org/faking_tongues.html]
4. If this doctrine of initial evidence is true, why was it never mentioned in the Bible or in the history of the Christian Church until the early 20th Century?
5. Why does no one in the Bible accounts of people being baptized in the Spirit (Acts 10 and 19) seem to expect that the believers would speak in tongues? Why were they not told, “You will know you have received when you speak in tongues” or something like that?

Don't judge me because of my questions. I am not at this point (or maybe ever) offering answers. But the questions have been with me for several years and they do make me wonder.