quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Orthodox thing, a fair proportion of Orthodox priests in the UK are former Anglicans - but we are talking about small numbers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I remember Richard Hare concluding a CoE liturgy, ("now let the very gates of Hell tremble: in the name of Christ, Amen!"), and not just singing in tongues, but a spine-tingling Jubliate Deo, I think in a service led by Colin Urquhart, both at St Nick's Durham. I don't think it can all have been merely froth and bubble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's probably a matter for another thread but I'd also suggest that the 1994/96 period - the 'Toronto Blessing' and its aftermath - marked the high-water mark for a particular style of charismatic revivalism. Things have fragmented or gone in different directions since ... some going further down that route into loopy-doopy land whilst others have moderated their approach and started to engage more in social action or to draw from older traditions.

There was only so far you could take the charismatic dimension. Once you'd had everyone singing in tongues or 'slain in the Spirit' and so on there was nowhere really left to go - you either had to retrace your steps or else branch out in a different direction.

---

I would make similar observations re the American charismatic movement. I don't read that as negative (I don't think Gamaliel does either?) but simply a maturing/ balancing/ helpful engagement.

In the US, the Pentecostal movement begins in earnest with the Azusa St Revival in 1906. Mainstream churches wanted nothing to do with this (interestingly, recent scholarship suggests this disavowal had as much or more to do with racism-- Azusa St. was uniquely segregated, something still illegal in Southern states-- than with ecstatic experiences). I would suggest that ecclesiastical segregation was what sent American Pentecostalism off on some wild trajectories, by cutting us loose from historic Christianity. IMHO, the primary benefit of the 1970s charismatic movement was the re-engagement-- the opportunity for Pentecostals to speak with mainstream Christianity and vice-versa. All of which led to the current situation which is much like Gamaliel described in the UK.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I encountered his stuff in the mid 90's when my cult came in from the cold and some of us went down that cul-de-sac. One senior pastor I respected recommended him. I bought his works. Four of us got swept up at the Happy Clappy Thrappy Bappies. Mooing, swooning, clucking damnationists. I got THE laughter. That WAS awesome. Best laugh I EVER had. I got in to correspondence with the reformed cult leader enthusing about it all and he burst my bubble with material which resonated with my study of brainwashing decades before. Hank Hanegraaff's APES amongst other things. Altered States of Awareness, Peer Pressure, Enhanced Expectation, Suggestibility. My then wife was completely away with fairies, visions and shall we say visceral catharsis.

It IS all froth and bubble. ALL.

After mine was burst I asked her permission to say one thing. She gave it. I said two words. They burst her bubble instantly.

The words were 'Parallel play'. We never went again. The fellowship was riven with multiple sex scandals from the top shortly after.

The parallel play was epitomized by an old married couple who both attended, full on, every week. They never interacted with each other. You had to be told they were married.

I only ever read one paragraph of Urquhart in all of this. It described his little child babbling in the back of the car. And him 'realising' it was Tongues.

Dross. All of it. All part of doing anything and everything apart from what Jesus would do. Us playing in the fields - which my wife saw for days on end until it turned nasty - of our own projection.
 

---

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
The history of the Charismatic Renewal/Movement is strewn with in-consequences.
It arose out of the desire to incorporate key elements from the Pentecostal Movement in the classical churches. In other words: Pentecostalism without the customary fundamentalism, in the church were you were born into, your church. It was never the intention to form new denominations. But they did form nevertheless.
An annoying obfuscation was caused by the appropriation of the label ¨Charismatic¨ by Pentecostal-ish communities that wanted to distance themselves from the sometimes unedifying fanaticism of certain old-fashioned Pentecostal churches.
As an active participant from 1975 onwards in the Charismatic Renewal, I have seen the protestant component slowly petering out, while the RC component has largely been rendered harmless by a return to an obedient traditionalistic attitude that some of us in the 70's were desperately trying to escape.

It was all very good while it lasted, but it was inevitable that a lot of the key-figures from the beginning, like Colin Urquhart, ended up in other places.

I myself, while still participating in the CR, have moved on to the Remonstranten. Who could have foreseen that 40 years ago
 

---

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by opaWim:
It arose out of the desire to incorporate key elements from the Pentecostal Movement in the classical churches. In other words: Pentecostalism without the customary fundamentalism, in the church were you were born into, your church. It was never the intention to form new denominations. But they did form nevertheless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
.

What is it that you want to know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Now that is very different from the way that a certain well-known church started operating locally when I lived in London - they made it perfectly clear that they wanted to "go it alone", with the inference that other churches "hadn't got the Spirit" as they had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And there was a lot of fuss in my present location when something similar happened. The "established" churches were most upset that the newcomer simply failed to acknowledge the local Body of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hedgerow Priest:
I am interested in the early years of Urquhart's ministry in Luton and even before; his formation as a Priest was not in an evangelical tradition - trained at Kings, and clearly he had a Catholic and sacramental background; the cover of his first book shows vestments, servers etc. At what point in the history of St Hugh's did these things disappear?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Now that is very different from the way that a certain well-known church started operating locally when I lived in London - they made it perfectly clear that they wanted to "go it alone", with the inference that other churches "hadn't got the Spirit" as they had.

---

I don't think Ichthus started out with such a charismatic/pentecostal ethos. It was more Open Brethren on evangelistic steroids and a chunk of Wesleyan holiness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, my particular take c.1998 was enshrined in a sermon about Elijah's changing experiences of God, from being fed supernaturally by the brook (there's a river, there's a river, there's a river flowing from the throne...) to going to the widow of Sarepta. I felt God was calling us to move on from Toronto-type experiences to social action.

---

quote:

---

Thank you....I am interested in the early years of Urquhart's ministry in Luton and even before; his formation as a Priest was not in an evangelical tradition - trained at Kings, and clearly he had a Catholic and sacramental background; the cover of his first book shows vestments, servers etc. At what point in the history of St Hugh's did these things disappear?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Now that is very different from the way that a certain well-known church started operating locally when I lived in London - they made it perfectly clear that they wanted to "go it alone", with the inference that other churches "hadn't got the Spirit" as they had.

And there was a lot of fuss in my present location when something similar happened. The "established" churches were most upset that the newcomer simply failed to acknowledge the local Body of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In the "place I was before" we had an average of one group a year coming to plant a church as apparently we're weren't doing church correctly.

---

You too? We're inundated with them. To add insult to injury, as they arrive in this "virgin territory" they expect us to help them with language training and childcare! I keep trying to point them to largeish rural towns with no installed protestant churches at all, but somehow the Spirit never seems to lead there
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Kingdom Faith Camp still runs, now led by Colin Urquhart's son and daughter-in-law. I know a small vociferous group of people who go every year to be "fed" to continue in their local Church of England church.

From what I've heard there is far too much prosperity gospel and accounts of healing that cannot be confirmed*. The 10% tithing and wealth that pours down is something I've heard a lot and been castigated for not trusting enough in God†. I have also heard accounts (from the ministers invited to attend) of the mooing and barking in services.

* They all came back one year with stars in their eyes talking about healings, including someone with breast cancer, that weren't on the Kingdom Faith camp website as part of the good news or anywhere else to be found. Cynical me wondered about someone giving thanks for recovery following lots of treatment.
† That particular group thanks God, not the people who have done the work, made pretty huge sacrifices to enable things, given their hard earned cash or whatever, for anything given.
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
I also re-read When the Spirit Comes last year. The impression I got was that Urquhart's spiritual renewal came with a Christian conversion.

I am still trying to get my head around the theological liberalism of the 1970's and the church and clergy that it produced. I went through a very Secular Theological period myself and even that doesn't seem to resonate. I am unsure what a lot of people coming out of theological college actually believed, or what confidence they had in the Christian faith. But dressing up was certainly involved!

In terms of Charismatic Renewal and the sacramental traditions Michael Ramsey was more than sympathetic. Walsingham was a centre of renewal. And back in the 60's in the US it was the High Church wing of the Episcopal Church that saw renewal. Theologically spiritual gifts and ecstatic experience have always been part of catholic thought.

There is I suppose also the link from Pentecostalism, back through Holiness and Revival teaching to the Wesleys who can be read as proto-'modern catholics' rather than as proto-evangelicals.

The common strand is an expectation of the supernatural beyond conversion and the scriptures. This does not always sit well with Reformed theology.

Roman Catholic Charismatic renewal is still huge. There are two Anglo-Catholic charismatic renewal groups in the CofE. Both are small.
 

---

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
In my years in Horsham, I knew folk at Kingdom Faith, but I wouldn't have described it as a prosperity gospel church. It was much more into mysticism and claims of the supernatural.

At the more wacky end, there were some who were heavily into John Crowder's version of christianity (see here for a critical take).

Under that influence, some broke off from the nearby CLC (an Elim Pentecostal church) and formed....well.... this - this last link comes with a severe health warning!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It might be huge, but the RC charismatic renewal in the UK is all but invisible to evangelical charismatics here and to Protestants more generally - for all the ecumenism of recent decades.

I've heard from an RC priest of my acquaintance that RC renewalists sing the same worship songs as the evangelical charismatic constituency and act in a similar way - only with a more Catholic eucharistic theology.

I have to say, I wasn't impressed by the so-called 'tongues' on the programme - a bunch of RC yoof sat round gabbling in tongues in a way that anyone could do after two minutes instruction in how to do it.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I've heard from an RC priest of my acquaintance that RC renewalists sing the same worship songs as the evangelical charismatic constituency

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

On one level, I think it's to do with the way that the 'means of production' in evangelical charismatic circles in the UK - the books, conferences, music etc are dominated by a small number of publishing houses and so on - with a particular background historically and theologically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... then we're talking about the early to mid-60s perhaps when he was training.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't 'prove' this scientically, but my impression is that there are more liberal, Anglo-Catholic or MoR Anglican clergy who are former evangelicals than t'other way around ...

---

quote:

---

I've visited high up the candle parishes which have exuded a sense of mystery and the numinous. I've visited others that seem to be run by anally-retentive obsessives who marshal everybody with military precision and within an inch of their lives - so that it's like a liturgical Changing of The Guard at Buckingham Palace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

On a wider point, we know from the history of the Catholic Apostolics that it is possible to conjoin ritualistic worship with a measure of charismatic fervour. But does the rationality of the Reformed tradition effectively preclude that? Does anyone know of any charismatic Churches of Scotland, for instance?

---

quote:

---

Calling Catholics our brothers in Christ, that is an offence to the Gospel
- Justin Peters

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
Through the conference came the suggestion that the Charismatic movement is actually making Protestantism more Catholic again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I agree entirely. I was merely speculating as to whether the rationality of the Reformed tradition makes it one in which charismatic expression is inherently less likely to take root. (I'm not in any way thinking of a Calvinist/Arminian divide, more of an "intellectual"/"emotional" one).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
I am not sure RC Renewal is invisible at all levels. Certainly locally it is visible and acknowledged by local charismatic leaders. The Alpha Course videos speak of Pope Francis as a prophetic voice. Soul Survivor work with RC renewal groups.

In terms of music there is certainly overlap - just like Anglicans singing Methodist Hymns.

But some material is clearly theologically catholic:

Our God is Here

None of this explains why the charismatic movement is so evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think that's a helpful observation, Tubbs. We might not notice RC charismatics because most of the time they simply attend Mass and do what other RCs do ... they aren't hiving off into specially constituted groups for the most part ... or if they are they do this alongside, rather than instead of, what the rest get up to.

---

Which is exactly how the Charismatic Movement was intended to work from the beginning: Renewal of the religious community you are part of, through the working of the Holy Spirit/Ghost. Not the easiest road to travel, by the way. The majority of communities proved to be wary of, or downright hostile to, any renewal that wasn't either liberalizing or traditionalist. Today there are parishes were the CR is appreciated, but there are far more parishes were people don't even know it exists.
The result here in The Netherlands, 45 years onward, is that RC charismatics seem to become more traditionalist. Also the optimistic ecumenicism of the beginning is shifting more and more to the RC variant of "You are very welcome to return to the RCC.". A tell-tale sign of this was the popularity in the RC-CR of the Dutch translation of Rome Sweet Home some years ago.

Reflecting om what transpired in the last 45 years, I wonder if maybe movements in general shouldn't allow themselves to outlive their goals.
In the case of the CR, too much energy seems to go into the continued existence of the Movement itself, instead of realization of the original goals.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thanks - yes opaWim, that's another helpful observation.

In many ways, the charismatic renewal in the Anglican Communion - and also among the Presbyterians, Baptists and others - was meant to 'operate' in the same kind of way ... but also in reaction to opposition and also in response to the perennial Protestant impetus towards continual reform - 'semper reformada' - and indeed perhaps inherent schismatic tendencies - there was a pull towards separation and hiving off to form new communities ...

I mentioned the Renewal magazines ... you can trace the development of this tendency there. Initially, as I mentioned upthread, there were plenty of RC and Anglo-Catholic voices alongside evangelical Anglican ones and also renewalists from Baptist and other 'non-conformist' or Free Church backgrounds ... the late (great) Douglas McBain and so on.

Some of those who went on to form the 'restorationist' 'new churches' here in the UK were also regular contributors to Renewal magazine - notably Arthur Wallis who was a pivotal figure in the development of the 'new churches' ...

So, all of a sudden, you got a plethora of articles and letters on the 'stay in or move out' debate ... which was something that had been live and current within evangelicalism for some time. Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones famously clashed with the Anglican evangelical, John Stott over the issue of whether evangelicals should leave the CofE as it had become far too liberal and 'apostate' and form their own independent evangelical churches ...

I found myself caught up in all of that and after some deliberation, threw in my lot with the restorationists despite considerable reservations.

I went through all of that and came out the other side, relatively unscathed ... even though I have bemoaned a lot of what went on here on the Ship.

Whatever does not kill us makes us stronger ...



On the wider charismatic issue, I think some of the wisest words ever written on it all came from Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist (Pentecostal turned agnostic turned Russian Orthodox), Nigel Wright the Baptist and Tom Smail (Church of Scotland) the veteran renewalist in their 1996 SPCK book, 'Charismatic Renewal: The search for a theology'.

I've often said that this book kept me sane 20 years ago. It's dated now, but in many respects I think it's conclusions hold good.

I do encounter a lot of disillusionment among those who were involved in the charismatic renewal back in the 1970s - both those who operated within the historic denominations and those who set up their own new churches, networks and 'streams'.

I get criticised for the use of the term 'over-egged' as I do for my 'both/and not either/or' mantra but I do wonder whether 'over-egged expectations' were partly to blame ... as the triumvirate of Walker, Wright and Smail observed, there can be a kind of 'over-realised eschatology' in charismatic circles.

I do wonder whether, by its very nature, the charismatic dimension is bound to disappoint ... it sets itself up for a prat-fall to some extent.

If vatic and intense spiritual experiences are set as the aim and bench-mark then it's hardly surprising that there's going to be disillusionment and burn-out ... after all, if you were involved in 'rave-culture' you'd need to build in some chill-time otherwise you'd boil over and burn yourself out pretty quickly ...

This has always been an issue for revivalist or enthusiastic movements ... Evan Roberts the Welsh Revivalist burned himself out after 18 months ... although he did have a bit of a second-wind years later ...

Slow and steady wins the race. Charismatic enthusiasm is always at its best, I think, when grounded within a liturgical or sacramental framework or else some form of systematic Reformed-style preaching and teaching approach.

Even then, there is no guarantee that it it's going to stay on track - and perhaps it's unrealistic to expect such a thing ... perhaps there is a natural and healthy tension at the heart of things between the institutional and the charismatic, the spontaneous and the ordered, the planned and scheduled and the immediate ...

What does tend to happen, though, is that any form of charismatic activity becomes 'routinised' over time ... so people then try to shake it all up a bit by pushing the boundaries or introducing new fads ...

It's the faddishness of the whole thing that is the Achille's Heel I think.
 

---

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
My experiences largely align with yours, Gamaliel. I was very much part of the Bryn and Kerry Jones' ministry scene in the 90s. I loved much of it and got swept along by it all. I do still remember attending the Builth Wells bible weeks with affection, there was much that was good about them. Even so, I found I couldn't totally buy into it all; the 'flirting' with the Word of Faith scene, touches of the prosperity teaching, the whole Kansas prophet thing, etc, etc. The church I was involved in at the time recognised Bryn as Apostle. It then broke away him and, in my opinion, things got even more weird and troubling and I left the whole church scene completely for years. Reading Prof. Walker's book at that time was really healing for me in a way, as it clarified in a very balanced way both the attractions and pitfalls of the restoration movement.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
To bring it back to the OP, it is worth noting that all of these figures (Bryn Jones etc) have - like Urquhart - ended up heading up their own networks, which have a certain degree of isolation from any other Christian group.

Often centred around an annual festival, with spin offs like own brand worship music, a particular set of authors that are well known inside their movement and so on. Usually the local churches that make up the network tend to have minimal contact with any other churches in their area - and so in some way retain a certain sense of exclusivity.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
That was certainly the case some years ago; but is it still as true today? (Others may be able to comment more accurately than I).
 

---

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Usually the local churches that make up the network tend to have minimal contact with any other churches in their area - and so in some way retain a certain sense of exclusivity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
With the "stay or move out" debate mentioned above, where churches were started having decided to move out, they tended to start by poaching members from more established congregations, which leaves a substantially bitter taste in those left behind in the older denominations, who are subsequently less keen on ecumenical relations with what the Monty Python team would term "splitters".

---

The older churches can also be very condescending, vaunting their tradition and "good order" over "those happy-clappy mindlss Evangelicals down the road".
 

---

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
Too true!
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I'm clearly "mindlss" - or just not very good at typing!
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm clearly "mindlss" - or just not very good at typing!

---

I assumed you were turning into Gollum ..
 

---

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The older churches can also be very condescending, vaunting their tradition and "good order" over "those happy-clappy mindlss Evangelicals down the road".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The older churches can also be very condescending, vaunting their tradition and "good order" over "those happy-clappy mindlss Evangelicals down the road".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I see ... but that is also true for some non-charismatic churches such as (e.g.) the Grace Baptists and some Christian Brethren.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, so have I, where - as Baptists - we were regarded by the local Rector (by not by his church members!) as well below the theological salt. Anyway, we're drifting off the point ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, so have I, where - as Baptists - we were regarded by the local Rector (by not by his church members!) as well below the theological salt. Anyway, we're drifting off the point ...

---

Still the case here, I'm afraid, with the added venom of members in the pew too.

---

I'm truly sorry to hear that too.

I don't doubt it happens but it's not something I've had direct experience of - either when I was a member of a Baptist church nor in any Anglican churches that I know or have frequented.

Our Baptist church used to go on church weekends-away to an Anglican retreat centre and the very High-Church priest who was chaplain to the nuns at the adjacent priory was nothing but courteous and eirenic.

I don't doubt ExclamationMark's experience though, but at the same time I have come across Baptists over the years who don't believe that Anglicans are 'sincere' because they use set prayers rather than extemporaneous ones (although many Anglicans use both, of course) ... as though written-prayers are somehow inherently less sincere than extemporary ones.

So there can be bad blood - unfortunately - on both sides of the equation.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, absolutely.
 

---

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
Yes, very depressing
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, but how common is it?

I'm not trying to minimise ExclamationMark's experience, but from what I've seen of liberal, MoR or even High Church Anglicans, there's rarely ill-will or anonomosity - let alone 'venom' - towards non-conformists in general or Baptists in particular.

They tend to reserve 'venom' or ill-feeling towards other Anglicans if anything ...

Yes, it's possible to come across supercillious vicars like the one in Wallace & Grommit but the harshest reaction one might usually encounter is one of bewilderment, misunderstanding or indifference - the latter probably being worse.

Perhaps I've been lucky but by and large, wherever I've lived, most churches of whatever stripe seem to roll along quite well together. If anything, where I am now, it's the evangelical Anglicans who tend to keep themselves aloof, not the liberal, MoR or more Catholic-y ones.
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
I think it depends on the area and the history. It goes every way. Tensions may be theological, or sometimes down to culture and ethics.

I am passionate about ecumenism. Because in my experience it changes the spiritual atmosphere of a town, city or place.
 

---

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
Is it partly a generational thing as well? In my somewhat limited experience, it's often the more elderly who tend to be suspicious of what they term the 'happy clappy lot'. I am in a rural area, though, where the local churches, mostly CofE and a few Methodist, are pretty traditional, with aging congregations, and there is little opportunity for first hand experience of different forms of worship. Ironically, of course, the most thriving (in terms of numbers and outreach programmes, etc) church within a 5 mile radius is Baptist and would be considered to be part of the 'happy clappy' scene.

[ 07. April 2016, 21:07: Message edited by: Doone ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Possibly, but the older I get the less tolerant I have become of certain charismatic emphases myself - but not, I hope, of charismatics as people.y

I didn't interpret ExclamationMark's comments about 'venom' emanating from his local Anglicans as directed towards charismatics specifically, but non-conformists in general.

For whatever reason, EM's Baptist church appears to have been on the receiving end of some hostility from his local Anglican church - which is disappointing and regretable.

I wasn't trying to mitigate that, simply wondering aloud how common this was.

From what EM has said in the past, I wouldn't have his church down as some outrageously 'out there' wild and woolly charismatic outfit.

I wouldn't have blamed anyone for being somewhat suspicious of an outfit like Covenant Ministries, for instance - for all the good stuff there they would have had good grounds for concern.

What I don't 'get' - even from those with a highly sacramental position - is why there should be antipathy or 'venom' towards churches like EM's or Baptist Trainfan's.

You can disagree with people theologically or ecclesiologically without being nasty about it.
 

---

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
/tangent

We attend a MOTR Methodist church, and our kids are at an RC primary school attached to a charismatic RC church. Points up-thread characterising RC charismatics seem to fairly describe things here.

Our 10 yr-old was recently asking me a lot of questions about speaking-in-tongues - not having experienced this at our church or school masses, but on hearing that it sometimes happens at Fr P's wed-night sessions.

When, after me giving some background around pentecost, she innocently started asking 'so, are there people around who can interpret what these people are saying?' I felt I had to get a little stern and add this to questions about holy communion and the sinlessness of Mary which are very welcome, but not at school or in front of Fr P.



I'm not a 'knocker' in all this, though. I'm not a spirit-singer, but when needed I sometimes play in their praise band, and I particularly enjoyed (and enthusiastically signed) a permission slip which came home from school saying that 'I ________ (parent / guardian) would like my baptised child _____ to be prayed with, for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit'

In the main, they're good people. We talk a lot about the tree and its fruit with our kids.

[ 07. April 2016, 22:03: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I didn't interpret ExclamationMark's comments about 'venom' emanating from his local Anglicans as directed towards charismatics specifically, but non-conformists in general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
mark_in_manchester:

But not all speaking in tongues is about prophecy, is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I didn't interpret ExclamationMark's comments about 'venom' emanating from his local Anglicans as directed towards charismatics specifically, but non-conformists in general.

For whatever reason, EM's Baptist church appears to have been on the receiving end of some hostility from his local Anglican church - which is disappointing and regretable.

I wasn't trying to mitigate that, simply wondering aloud how common this was.

From what EM has said in the past, I wouldn't have his church down as some outrageously 'out there' wild and woolly charismatic outfit.

---

Thanks everyone. The church I serve here is by no means wild and wacky: our theological stance is bog standard conservative evangelical with an emphasis on teaching, preaching and missional expression. We have no issues with women in leadership and currently have able women in such positions.

Yes, we use worship songs, some raise their hands as they sing, we have heard tongues once or twice but we also use an organ! We are also multi racial/cultural and broadly representative of our local community. Our building is used by another church several nights a week who worship in their own language. Several people groups in our church hold services in their own language once a month in the church, attracting others who come from the same background across a wider area.

Why do we find, in a place, held up as an example of ecumenism that the churches together is driven by one theological agenda at the expense of others? I wouldn't want to suggest we are the only ones who are marginalised - there are some who are looked askance at by their own denominations as others here have pointed out can happen. It reflects their theological position.

The upshot of it is that in a growing town we don't see much joined up thinking to meet the changing needs with some groupings spending longer of arguing about boundaries rather do anything. When they do get off that particular fence it can be very frustrating to be told what "they" are going to do now and be expected to join in. We get too busy talking about the ship even before we start to rearrange the deck chairs. There's lots more I could say but that's best kept for anyone who wants to PM me.

As for charismatic renewal,the impact of that here was a mass exodus from the mainstream churches 20 + years ago to new church outfits of various hues from the very ok to the downright bizarre (e.g Prosperity). Like our place some others are open to it but not a lot of it goes on in the established churches. There are lots of them too, most under severe pressure from lack of numbers needed to keep the show running.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
At the risk of personal tangents, this thread is causing me to reflect on what it means to be 'charismatic' or even 'post-charismatic' ...

As John Holding helpfully reminds us, most of the people who were in the first flush of the charismatic renewal in the mainstream denominations in the 1960s and '70s are now getting on a bit ...

And as SvitlanaV2 says, there are age, demographic and socio-economic influences underneath a lot of this stuff - as well as particular 'churchmanships' and theological positions.

Am I still charismatic?

I'm not sure I'd self-identify that way, but in many ways I'd say I was as 'charismatic' as I've always been only with the focus shifted in a broader - and hopefully deeper - direction.

I have absolutely no interest whatsoever these days in attending services where people 'sing in the Spirit', speak in tongues and prophesy.

But that doesn't mean I'm not 'aware' of the presence of God or don't find a sense of the numinous ... but I'd be more likely, I think, to find that in a 'sacred site', an inspiring landscape or in some kind of contemplative or eucharistic / sacramental setting ... but that's more down to where I'm currently 'at' in terms of aesthetic preferences and so on ...

I've 'done' all the other stuff ...

I'm a lot more comfortable with the Orthodox 'panentheist' idea these days - God is present everywhere and fills all things.

Consequently, I'd be inclined to say that there was something 'charismatic' or 'prophetic' about the way EM's church is tackling various social issues in the way it interacts with its community, that there was equally something 'charismatic' about the way that a Church Meeting, say, at Baptist Trainfan's church might resolve an issue or come to some kind of consensus on a decision ...

That there was something 'charismatic' going on when Edward Green and his 'High Church' congregation gain a sense of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (and even when that sense of presence is 'absent' as it were and not apprehended as fully as at other times) ...

I'd even concede ( ) that could well be something genuinely charismatic going on when Mr Cliffdweller does his glossolalia and interpretation stuff ...

But equally, contra most tongues-speakers, I would suggest that much of what passes for 'tongues' is itself pretty artificial - the product of learned behaviour, subtle (or not so subtle) coaching and cues and - dare I say - of dubious value other than as some kind of placebo effect thing or the reinforcement of a shared experience ...

I've mentioned a piece of work before that the sociologist Dr Andrew Walker carried out at a big Pentecostal rally. He interviewed participants afterwards and found that hardly anyone could remember the content of the so-called 'prophecies' decoded from the 'messages' in 'tongues'.

For them, it was sufficient that these things had taken place as they were seen as proof positive that God was really among them. The content was secondary at best - or even irrelevant.

I'm not a cessationist, nor even particularly 'reformed' (small r) or Reformed (big R) these days, nor do I trust a great deal that comes out of the particular stable represented in the video link below - but I can't help but agree with some of the points made:

https://youtu.be/E5wlJZGH1vI

Whatever the case, I still believe in a supernatural - or 'supranatural' dimension - but tend to regard these things are working out through 'normal' providences as it were - rather than in direct, dramatic interventions - although I wouldn't rule such things out necessarily.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
As for charismatic renewal,the impact of that here was a mass exodus from the mainstream churches 20 + years ago to new church outfits of various hues from the very ok to the downright bizarre (e.g Prosperity). Like our place some others are open to it but not a lot of it goes on in the established churches. There are lots of them too, most under severe pressure from lack of numbers needed to keep the show running.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Consequently, I'd be inclined to say that there was something ... equally something 'charismatic' about the way that a Church Meeting, say, at Baptist Trainfan's church might resolve an issue or come to some kind of consensus on a decision ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've mentioned a piece of work before that the sociologist Dr Andrew Walker carried out at a big Pentecostal rally. He interviewed participants afterwards and found that hardly anyone could remember the content of the so-called 'prophecies' decoded from the 'messages' in 'tongues'.

For them, it was sufficient that these things had taken place as they were seen as proof positive that God was really among them. The content was secondary at best - or even irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Age of charismatics is an interesting stereoptype issue. I, and most of the charismatics I have known over the years, are in our late 60s and 70s, and are still open to whatever happens though not likely to burst into prophecy in a standard church service.

<snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would suggest that much of what passes for 'tongues' is itself pretty artificial - the product of learned behaviour, subtle (or not so subtle) coaching and cues and - dare I say - of dubious value other than as some kind of placebo effect thing or the reinforcement of a shared experience ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would suggest that much of what passes for 'tongues' is itself pretty artificial - the product of learned behaviour, subtle (or not so subtle) coaching and cues and - dare I say - of dubious value other than as some kind of placebo effect thing or the reinforcement of a shared experience ...

---

I am very much on the same page as you as far as this goes - as we have discussed in the past (and I would add to the sentence above 'possible ASMR like response'). My only qualifier is that I'd probably equally substitute 'tongues with all those other examples of the 'numinous' - at least some of the time.

My own experience of the OPs topic - in my case attendance at various 'Faith' conferences, was that at the time they heavily stressed 'getting tongues' as part of their youth ministry, a whole lot of their evening teaching sessions danced at the edges of word-faith teaching, and that at the time wordless singing was heard late at night across the campsite and people attributed it to angelic choirs.

So I'm not hugely surprised at their subsequent direction. I do wonder also whether part of their plausibility structure consisted of the fact that their main speakers were reasonably well spoken and so this got over the natural UK middle-class prejudice against enthusiasm of any kind.

---

Mm, I tend to agree. I remember, years ago, being told to just switch my brain off and babble for a while and I would soon be speaking in tongues with the rest . Sadly, I went along with this for a good while, though I'm normally more discerning. I'm not suggesting that it's all nonsense, though, by any means.

[ 08. April 2016, 10:18: Message edited by: Doone ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The 'singing in the air' or angelic singing thing was a feature of earlier revivals ... and I experienced that myself - or thought I did (?) at the first Bible Week I attended - the Dales Bible Week in 1982.

Someone else heard the same thing. I was on a night-shift as I'd volunteered for the security team (despite being a short, little weedy guy) in order to get there on a subsidised rate.

It had a profound effect on me at the time but after all these years I'm no longer sure that whether what I heard was some kind of atmospheric effect - air-brakes in the distance? some kind of breeze effect? - or what I took it to be ... certainly heard something ... and something that sounded very ethereal and spine-tinglingly numinous ...

There had been reports of this from earlier years - both in the main meetings and late at night when people were asleep - so there could have been an element of suggestibility there - I don't know.

Whatever the case, I don't base my faith on whether it was real, imagined or some kind of combination of the two ...

Like Doone and others, I'm reluctant to write the whole thing off - I certainly saw some things happen that didn't admit of an immediately 'rational' explanation in terms of learned behaviour or responses to platform cues and suggestibility ...

But 9 times out of 10, I'd agree that much of this stuff was induced - with people willing to participate and lay their critical faculities to one side in order to obtain some kind of experience.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doone:
Sadly, I went along with this for a good while, though I'm normally more discerning. I'm not suggesting that it's all nonsense, though, by any means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I still speak in tongues occasionally, but only in private prayer.

---

quote:

---

Tongues, then, are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The idea that something has to happen in public or else it's pointless is rather strange to me, especially with regard to how we should pray - I've been told that there are so many different ways to pray, and that they're all valid if they're helpful to us!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The idea that something has to happen in public or else it's pointless is rather strange to me, especially with regard to how we should pray - I've been told that there are so many different ways to pray, and that they're all valid if they're helpful to us!

We don't all need justification from a (human) audience to the same extent.

---

This is certainly my experience. I have never prayed in tongues in public, and at this age doubt I ever will. for me it's too intimate and I would become self conscious in a way that's counter productive.

Chris, I'm really not following what you're referring to in your comment?

[ 08. April 2016, 22:18: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I still speak in tongues occasionally, but only in private prayer.

---

I've never quite understood this one, when considered in the light of probably the key passage most charismatic churches cite

---

quote:

---

Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves (v4) (...) if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding (v14-15)

---

quote:

---

Tongues, then, are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.

---

quote:

---

The only time I've been aware of a case xenolalia was when I gave directions to someone who asked me in the street and the person I was with looked at me extremely puzzled and thought I was speaking Danish or Swedish, though I thought I was speaking clear English. I don't know for certain what happened; it's something I doubt I'll ever know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Acts 2 thing and actual languages being employed - I'm not sure such stories 'abound'.

---

As on other occasions, you have referred to an apparent instance of xenoglossy in your immediate family. Sipech has too. On previous occasions I've reported my puzzled experience of David Carr speaking fluent Québecois or Old French (I lean towards a con trick, but cannot be sure), and I was party to another instance where a French person of Italian extraction started speaking in Kabyle to a Kabyle-speaker, which I have no reason to doubt was genuine.

More research is needed!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure - I'd forgotten the David Carr incident, you had mentioned that.

Yes, more research is needed as there's no smoke without fire, as they say.

Interestingly enough, FWIW I have come across similar stories among the Orthodox where monks on Mt Athos are said to have greeted visitors in their own languages - including Gaelic in one instance - and where (the details vary) other people apparently heard them speaking Greek or whatever ...



I s'pose my default position on these things nowadays is that there are more things in heaven and on earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy ... but there remains a certain amount of ambivalence or ambiguity around these things that behoves us to err on the side of caution.

I've not spoken to my brother-in-law for a while about the particular incident he recounts - but I may well raise it with him at some point.

He's moved to a more liberal position theologically - certainly on Dead Horse issues and so on - but would still probably retain some kind of openness towards the 'charismatic' even though he no longer attends charismatic churches.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think there are explanations of these phenomena. For example, we tend to pick out or interpret the words we hear in a way that makes sense to us - so if someone says a load of gobbledegook which contains words which sound a bit like something we recognise, then we fill in the gaps. Hence not a great surprise that people sometimes hear something they recognise.

I've been around a lot of this kind of thing (including the dog braying, horses, visions, prophecies, tongues (both the stuff which sounds like performance nonsense poetry and the stuff that sounds like it could be a real language)) and I now feel it is all bunkum.

Apart from anything else - it seems to me that it'd be amazingly useful to have people who could communicate to each other without learning a language, and so if the deity really invested people with that gift there would be no arguing about it and it would be highly praised. As it is, most of the time I hear second-hand reports (usually, it seems, actually third hand conspiracy-type stories) and the stuff I've experienced never seems to match the stories. Even when I've been there.

[ 09. April 2016, 10:54: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Acts 2 thing and actual languages being employed - I'm not sure such stories 'abound'. If anything, if all the millions of charismatics were actually speaking known languages in a miraculous fashion, then surely we'd have documentary or audio evidence by now? As far as I am aware no serious scientific study has found such a thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think there are explanations of these phenomena. For example, we tend to pick out or interpret the words we hear in a way that makes sense to us - so if someone says a load of gobbledegook which contains words which sound a bit like something we recognise, then we fill in the gaps. Hence not a great surprise that people sometimes hear something they recognise.

---

That certainly makes sense - as does subconsciously absorbing things we hear and then reiterating them. For instance, after living in Lisbon for a couple of months I had the classic dream in which everyone was speaking in Portuguese, yet I hardly understood a word. Clearly my mind had picked up stuff which I hadn't yet been taught.

(Mind you, presumably this couldn't be true of the Mt. Athos monks speaking Gaelic - although an less-than-credulous part of me suggests that they may just have learned some international greetings via Linguaphone ).

I have never claimed that my 'tongues' are xenoglossy, although I have heard real languages which sound similar. Having studied a bit of linguistics, I am pretty sure that they do include some phonemes which I don't normally use.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
What I heard from David Carr was very definitely some non-standard form of French. If it was a con, it was a good one.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Mmm. Would that be so hard to fake?

Also - why on earth would the deity want Mr Carr to speak in an old language? That's quite a stretch.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Actually, the Congo thing happened earlier than that - with the first US Pentecostal missionaries to India and China. They literally set out by ship fully expecting to come down the gang-plank the other side and to start preaching the Gospel to the Indians and Chinese in their own languages without having had to learn them ...

There were a few indications during the voyage that all was not quite as they expected when they tried to engage lascars, Chinese or Indian cooks and sailors in 'tongues' only to receive funny looks.

Indeed, the whole 'tongues of men and of angels' thing only came about as a form of Pentecostal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13 when the initial missionaries found they couldn't communicate in 'tongues' when they arrived on the mission-field.

Rather than abandon the practice they re-interpreted it as the ability to speak in some kind of unknown prayer-language - 'tongues of angels.'

Even as a fully-paid up tongues-speaking charismatic I was never entirely convinced of that particular interpretation - it's clear from the context that the Apostle Paul is writing hyperbolically - 'look, even if I could speak in angelic languages and could fathom all mysteries - even if I were to give my body over to be burned - and yet had not love ...'

It doesn't necessarily mean that the 'unknown tongues' were 'the tongues of angels'.

I don't pretend to understand what the heck the Apostle Paul is talking about or describing in 1 Corinthians 12 - 14 ... and I don't get overly prescriptive about it these days.

I'm prepared to accept Eutychus's 'take' to a certain extent because he's someone whose judgement I respect - given other things he's investigated and reported on these boards over the years.

And his account of someone speaking Kabyle to a native-Kabyle speaker sounds like a first-hand account. I'd like to know more about that.

On the Mt Athos thing, I don't necessarily give those stories any more credence than Pentecostal ones, say, simply because the Orthodox Church is older and more venerable ...

Nor do I necessarily take accounts of Anglo-Catholic nuns and a venerable university theology professor any more seriously than I would similar accounts I've heard among evangelical Anglicans or among the Brethren.

I'm prepared to hear anyone out on this sort of thing - irrespective of churchmanship.

On the phonemes thing, my comment there was that MOST studies have shown that the vast majority of tongues-speakers use phonemes and linguistic effects that they are used to in their normal speech.

That doesn't mean that there are exceptions to the rule.

For instance, when staying with relatives in Glasgow at one time, I watched a fascinating documentary on Scottish TV about the phenomenon. They'd filmed and recorded all sorts of instances in all sorts of churches around South West Scotland and only found one guy - a prominent pastor - who was actually using phonemes that weren't naturally found in Glaswegian accents ...

Indeed, on an audio level if you like, this guy's 'tongues' sounded most convincing - but they still couldn't match it up with any known language nor did it have the characteristics one would expect of a language used for conventional communication - but how do you work that out? How do you identify grammar, syntax and so on in an unintelligible language-like utterance?

I don't doubt that there are people around, Baptist Trainfan included, whose glossolalia sounds 'more convincing' than others ... back in the day, I was often told that mine did, for instance.

But this is where the 'practice makes perfect thing' comes in. If you are content to go 'angara-bangara-ganera-bangera' and pass that off as 'tongues' then that's what you'll keep doing. But if you start to vary the pattern, introduce new sounds or phonemes - on a subconscious level perhaps - then it will begin to 'fill out' and sound more like a 'proper' language than it might otherwise do.

That, in itself, doesn't 'prove' anything either.

So, what are we left with?

We have some intriguing and tantalising accounts - from Eutychus, from Sipech, from my brother-in-law - of claimed xenoglossy -- either overheard or spoken by themselves ...

We have some verses in 1 Corinthians 12 - 14 which are capable of being interpreted in different ways and where there is no universal agreement on what they actual refer to ...

We have some embarrassing 'angera-bangera-dangera-sondera-hondera' examples ('Untie-me-bow-tie', 'shecameonahonda', 'aveabicardi') ...

And we have, so far, no actual scientific evidence of xenoglossy whatsoever.

The most I've seen any scientific study concede is that some examples are 'language-like' and that 'disassociative' areas of the brain seem to be involved ... indeed, that the parts of the brain that seem to involved in 'speaking in tongues' are those which are associated with things like appreciation of music, with religious feelings or beliefs in general etc ... all of which is fascinating ...

But where does it get us?

I'm no longer sure.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Mmm. Would that be so hard to fake?

Also - why on earth would the deity want Mr Carr to speak in an old language? That's quite a stretch.

---

This was back in my NewFrontiers days.

As I recall, Carr claimed to have left school at 14 and to have spent his working life prior to entering ministry in local professional football.

He subscribed, I think, to a theological stable that held at least one category of tongues ("of men") to be human languages (I have heard others opine thus), and held his "tongue", claimed to be Old French, up as an example.

I studied Old French at university and knew enough about it to be convinced what he said in prayer was something like it, and understand bits (it was not till later that I discovered Québecois, which is not dissimilar, to French ears ), as did another attendee from France at the event, and what I understood was apposite.

Could he have mugged up on Québecois on the quiet? Quite possibly. Would it be uncharacteristic of him? From how I remember his larger-than-life talk and his current website, possibly not. But it would be pretty barefaced with respect to the direction of his ministry nonetheless.

[ 09. April 2016, 11:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry to double-post, but from fairly extensive reading of early Pentecostal history, I'd suggest that the Congolese missions of Willie Burton and others were pretty well-organised, planned and executed by Pentecostal standards.

Burton was no slouch. He made adequate provision for training - for medicine (rather than expecting to miraculously immune from tropical diseases) and so on.

He even took time out to relax by pursuing his hobby of painting water-colours - which attracted some criticism from more 'super-spiritual' colleagues.

To be fair to some of the old-time Pentecostals, they did combine practical nouse with their Pentecostalism ... and that's why I'm still - like Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist - prepared to cut them more slack than certain other charismatic developments.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

More research is needed!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Even as a fully-paid up tongues-speaking charismatic I was never entirely convinced of that particular interpretation - it's clear from the context that the Apostle Paul is writing hyperbolically - 'look, even if I could speak in angelic languages and could fathom all mysteries - even if I were to give my body

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair to some of the old-time Pentecostals, they did combine practical nouse with their Pentecostalism ... and that's why I'm still - like Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist - prepared to cut them more slack than certain other charismatic developments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And his account of someone speaking Kabyle to a native-Kabyle speaker sounds like a first-hand account. I'd like to know more about that.

---

quote:

---

We have some embarrassing 'angera-bangera-dangera-sondera-hondera' examples ('Untie-me-bow-tie', 'shecameonahonda', 'aveabicardi') ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But this is where the 'practice makes perfect thing' comes in. If you are content to go 'angara-bangara-ganera-bangera' and pass that off as 'tongues' then that's what you'll keep doing. But if you start to vary the pattern, introduce new sounds or phonemes - on a subconscious level perhaps - then it will begin to 'fill out' and sound more like a 'proper' language than it might otherwise do.

---

quote:

---

The most I've seen any scientific study concede is that some examples are 'language-like' and that 'disassociative' areas of the brain seem to be involved ... indeed, that the parts of the brain that seem to involved in 'speaking in tongues' are those which are associated with things like appreciation of music, with religious feelings or beliefs in general etc ... all of which is fascinating ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Growing up in South Wales I was familiar with stories of English visitors trying to 'interpret' prayers in Welsh-speaking chapels further west on the assumption that the speakers were 'speaking in tongues' and how they interpretations were invariably well-wide of the mark ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But this is where the 'practice makes perfect thing' comes in. If you are content to go 'angara-bangara-ganera-bangera' and pass that off as 'tongues' then that's what you'll keep doing. But if you start to vary the pattern, introduce new sounds or phonemes - on a subconscious level perhaps - then it will begin to 'fill out' and sound more like a 'proper' language than it might otherwise do.

---

I agree entirely.

quote:

---

The most I've seen any scientific study concede is that some examples are 'language-like' and that 'disassociative' areas of the brain seem to be involved ... indeed, that the parts of the brain that seem to involved in 'speaking in tongues' are those which are associated with things like appreciation of music, with religious feelings or beliefs in general etc ... all of which is fascinating ...

---

Which is an amplification of what I said in my post above.

---

Fair enough, Baptist Trainfan ... I was both trying to post complementary material and to 'challenge' you - mildly of course, at the same time.

Because to my way of thinking now, if 'tongues' is something that can be developed through practice, it's status as a 'spiritual gift' is somewhat diminished ...

Or is that rather binary of me?

The point is, I could make a rather impressive show of speaking in tongues if I wanted to - I'm loquacious enough - and as I've said to our local vicar who wants to move the parish in a full-on charismatic direction - if it's prophecies he wants then I could give him a fairly convincing-sounding one (sans trees and waterfalls, Eutychus ... ) every week for the next six months ...

But where would that get us?

The point being, of course, that in the general scheme of things the bar is set so low for these apparent manifestations of the Spirit that almost anything can pass muster.

Give me half an hour and I could come back with some very biblically-sounding 'prophecies' and apparent 'words' which might sound the part but which would simply be something I'd cooked up for the occasion ...

That said, there is the issue of 'unction' - or what some used to call 'the anointing' ... which generally seemed to be some kind of adrenalin rush or overflow of nervous energy.

I went through a phase where my right arm would start to tremble and flap almost uncontrollably during 'Toronto-style' meetings and I'd wave my hand over people and they'd fall over. I was quite taken by this, initially ... I'd arrived, I'd got the power ... I was operating under the anointing ...

But then I realised I was rather enjoying the whole thing - and also came to the conclusion that it was self-fulfilling to an extent - people took this behaviour as some kind of cue and responded accordingly.

So I stopped doing it.

Can God work in and through glossolalia and these other things? Yes, I believe he can ... but I'm not in a big hurry to go back to it ...
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Because to my way of thinking now, if 'tongues' is something that can be developed through practice, it's status as a 'spiritual gift' is somewhat diminished ...

Or is that rather binary of me?

---

quote:

---

But then I realised I was rather enjoying the whole thing - and also came to the conclusion that it was self-fulfilling to an extent - people took this behaviour as some kind of cue and responded accordingly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I always wondered if Toronto "falling" could happen in a church with hard floors and pews, as the cue of "taking away the chairs" was then absent (and you'd be afraid of bumpimg yur head!)

---

Well I can answer this one: I "fell over" Toronto-style in a Cathedral and bounced off the stone furniture.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Ouch!
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I was out for several minutes but no pain. I'm guessing I somehow managed to collapse in a way that lead to a bounce rather than hurting myself. Or something.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I think actually that people "crumpled" - i.e. fell in a very gentle and relaxed way.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It happened to me back in 1982 without ever having seen it before - but I had heard of it.

I've certainly known it happen to people who weren't expecting it or who weren't obviously 'primed' - but there might still have been an element of suggestibility ... who knows?

In my case, I wasn't unconscious but was in command of my faculties - but was speechless for a few moments. I also felt what I can only describe as a 'cleansing' sensation and a kind of 'holy euphoria'.

It was never really encouraged or approved of in the circles I moved in - but there were occasional outbreaks, in 1984 and 1987 - and then it became de-rigeur in 1994/95.

By then, there was very much a 'Toronto liturgy' which was very easy to set up and replicate.

As for whether charismata are if a different order to other 'gifts' such as musical ability, artistic or sporting talent etc ... well, I think there is a link and a continuum between them but I'd somehow expect something with a purported supernatural origin to consist of rather more than 'angara-bangera-shondera-hondera' with a few more trills and flourishes thrown in for added 'authenticity' surely?

Otherwise, aren't we in danger of debasing the coinage?

I mean, you don't even have to be a person of faith to be able to 'speak in tongues' if that's all there is to it.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It happened to me back in 1982 without ever having seen it before - but I had heard of it.

...

In my case, I wasn't unconscious but was in command of my faculties - but was speechless for a few moments. I also felt what I can only describe as a 'cleansing' sensation and a kind of 'holy euphoria'.

---

quote:

---

By then, there was very much a 'Toronto liturgy' which was very easy to set up and replicate.

---

quote:

---

As for whether charismata are if a different order to other 'gifts' such as musical ability, artistic or sporting talent etc ... well, I think there is a link and a continuum between them but I'd somehow expect something with a purported supernatural origin to consist of rather more than 'angara-bangera-shondera-hondera' with a few more trills and flourishes thrown in for added 'authenticity' surely?

...

I mean, you don't even have to be a person of faith to be able to 'speak in tongues' if that's all there is to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In my case, I wasn't unconscious but was in command of my faculties - but was speechless for a few moments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Because to my way of thinking now, if 'tongues' is something that can be developed through practice, it's status as a 'spiritual gift' is somewhat diminished ...

Or is that rather binary of me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The point is, I could make a rather impressive show of speaking in tongues if I wanted to - I'm loquacious enough - and as I've said to our local vicar who wants to move the parish in a full-on charismatic direction - if it's prophecies he wants then I could give him a fairly convincing-sounding one (sans trees and waterfalls, Eutychus ... ) every week for the next six months ...

But where would that get us?

The point being, of course, that in the general scheme of things the bar is set so low for these apparent manifestations of the Spirit that almost anything can pass muster.

But then I realised I was rather enjoying the whole thing - and also came to the conclusion that it was self-fulfilling to an extent - people took this behaviour as some kind of cue and responded accordingly.

So I stopped doing it.

Can God work in and through glossolalia and these other things? Yes, I believe he can ... but I'm not in a big hurry to go back to it ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The sceptic in me puts that down to the utterances being close enough, but not quite, to recognisable languages so that hearers concluded they were speaking older versions of whatever language it happened to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Cross-posted with Cliffdweller ...

Fair enough, but the things you've mentioned - acts of service, preaching, teaching and so on - are for other people's benefit.

How is a 'personal prayer language' of benefit to anybody else? Unless by 'building ourselves up we are in a better position to serve others ...

How do we 'improve' or ability to speak in dissociative and unintelligible utterances?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

How do we 'interpret' them abd to what purpose?

I'm sure people found it 'helpful' when I 'interpreted' that 'tongue' that time - but the result would have been the same if I'd given one of half a dozen stock responses about God's love and care.

How could I have 'improved' the quality of the interpretation as it were? ...What criteria is there for decoding or interpreting/evaluating prayers or 'messages' in tongues?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Pentecostalism has moved the goal-posts on this one since the early proponents realised that all was not as it seemed and they weren't actually speaking unlearned languages after all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Possibly.

If we think of it as substantially no different than the non-ecstatic gifts-- can't preaching and teaching be developed thru practice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Possibly.

If we think of it as substantially no different than the non-ecstatic gifts-- can't preaching and teaching be developed thru practice?

---

There are vanishingly few things where 'practice' consists of repeating what you do ad-naseuam (and probably none when you actually ask someone who is practiced in the field). It's far far more deliberate than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

I'm not really sure what you mean or are thinking of here. It seems to me that for MOST things-- including the ones I mentioned-- practice is beneficial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

I'm not really sure what you mean or are thinking of here. It seems to me that for MOST things-- including the ones I mentioned-- practice is beneficial.

---

I didn't claim that practice wasn't beneficial. However, practice is rarely - if ever - just a case of repeating a 'final product' over and over again.

---

Again, I'm not sure what you mean.

I've been preaching for 20 years. But right now I'm preparing for my sermon by doing precisely that-- repeating the 'final product' over and over again. To some degree I'm perfecting-- finding a phrase that doesn't work or is confusing. But mostly I'm just repeating it as is enough to feel more confident in it.

But again, otoh, I'm not sure repeating nonsense syllables over and over is helpful-- but again, not quite sure why I'm put off by the notion. I'm pretty sure that's all I'm doing when I pray in tongues (although I believe the Spirit is doing something in and thru those nonsense syllables). So why does the notion of someone coaching me to do that sound so off-putting? I'm really not sure why-- but it is.

[ 09. April 2016, 22:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
.. or to the Baptists as they have reverend gentlemen - and ladies - and the Methodists, and ...

---

You're saying that the Baptists have gentlemen?

Is outrage!
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

But right now I'm preparing for my sermon by doing precisely that-- repeating the 'final product' over and over again. To some degree I'm perfecting-- finding a phrase that doesn't work or is confusing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

But right now I'm preparing for my sermon by doing precisely that-- repeating the 'final product' over and over again. To some degree I'm perfecting-- finding a phrase that doesn't work or is confusing.

---

So in fact you are not repeating the 'final product' over and over again. S.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Besides, whilst you may not personally have experienced 'coaching' or inducements to speak in tongues, the practice is rife in the Pentecostal and charismatic worlds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Huh? You snipped off the part where I just said I am doing precisely that-- repeating the final product over and over again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Huh? You snipped off the part where I just said I am doing precisely that-- repeating the final product over and over again.

---

*sigh*

I doubt if when you are actually preaching the 'some degree' qualifier is actually present - besides you are presumably missing out an earlier stage when you were deliberately composing what you did, and all stages in between when you were presumably mentally rehearsing segments of it and rewording it.

---

Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean-- specifically, what does "the 'some degree' qualifier is actually present" mean???

As I said before, in the early stages as I'm going thru the sermon I am polishing-- making tweaks, etc. But by Fri/Sat hopefully/usually the tweaking is done. At that point I go thru the sermon several times each day in as close to the way I will deliver it as possible-- i.e. "repeating the final product over and over again."

I'm not really sure if I am disagreeing with you or not, as I'm not really sure what you're trying to say or why...
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean-- specifically

---

quote:

---

At that point I go thru the sermon several times each day in as close to the way I will deliver it as possible-- i.e. "repeating the final product over and over again."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean-- specifically

---

The specific claim I was disputing was that repeatedly praying in tongues constituted 'practise' and thus that an argument could be made that this would improve one's faculty with tongues over time.

As I said, there are very few things that work this way.

Without isolating individual elements with the framework you outline and working on them in isolation, someone is unlikely to learn to preach in the first place. Without conscious reflection on them over time, someone is unlikely to improve.

This is very different from doing the same thing over and over again.

quote:

---

At that point I go thru the sermon several times each day in as close to the way I will deliver it as possible-- i.e. "repeating the final product over and over again."

---

At which point all you are actually practising is delivery (and even here there are numerous more granular skills people would/could work on if they wanted their delivery to improve - look at the sort of things debating teams/toastmasters etc work on), and presumably as you are going along you are thinking consciously and critically about your delivery.

---

But I am practicing my delivery-- repeating it over & over again-- precisely as I will do it on Sunday.

Again, I suspect I am with you that practicing speaking in tongues is "off" somehow-- but not for the reason you're citing. To the contrary of your statement " very few things work this way" I think most things work this way-- that we improve with practice, and at least part of that practice is "repeating it the same way over & over again". Choirs, musicians, actors-- all "repeat it the same way over & over again." The fact that we improve with each repetition is sorta the point.

If it is different with tongues-- and I suspect it is-- it is different because tongues is different, or because spiritual gifts are different.

Unless you mean something totally different by "practicing" or "repeating the same thing over and over" than what I (and I'm guessing most people) mean by it.

[ 09. April 2016, 23:37: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I have got quite good at cycling. Not just in terms of fitness but also in terms of keeping my balance, knowing the safer bits of road to use and being able to avoid trouble. I've done this not by any planned training course or graded exercises but by cycling the same route to and from work every day for several years. I could probably have made progress more rapidly if I'd taken instruction and done some specified and logical exercises but that doesn't mean I haven't made any progress by blind repetition.

I think the claim must be that there is something completely mindless and lacking in agency about babbling in tongues that makes the repetition pointless. I am agnostic as to what speaking in tongues actually signifies, but in my tongue-speaking-phase I think that practice enlarged the range of syllables and aesthetics of the patterns that I used.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Er ... I think that, entirely unwittingly, I seem to have taken us into a tangent that will only end in tears.

Might we return to something more akin to the original subject?
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I know I could do 'tongues' right now. I very much doubt I ever would. I might give it a try in my solitary walks. I'll report back. I certainly would NEVER ascribe an external agency to it. I HAVE sung in tongues, but it was entirely synthetic. I wasn't 'just' playing, it was in a sustained, high stress situation when I lived in a bedsit 7-5 years ago, surrounded by students. Bless them. One enforced insomniac pre-dawn I had to pray cognitively about the stress in no uncertain terms and that led to exploring comforting myself with Sigur Rós inspired humming and beyond. It helped my attitude in exhaustion.

I imagine I COULD apply this in hymn singing, could let myself go, but I just don't relate to so much of what is sung. The content. Icky. Grovelling. Don't get me wrong I LOVE the cathartic hyperbolic. 'Nought be all else to me save that thou art.' - Alison A Living Prayer Krauss right now - Amazing Grace, Facedown (King Crimson anyone?), My Jesus.

I had an intensely cathartic experience at a Taizé service in Royal Leamington Spa's parish church about 10 years ago, led by Anne Hibbert. I was feeling typically unclean and invalid, that I had no right to participate in such beauty with my raging intrusive thinking. I was outraged at the grace confronting the demon of condemnation who spoke with my inner voice.

If there was an agency at work - the Holy Spirit - in some ineffable way or actually warring over my Faustian soul, I can't know. I'm glad of the healing that happened in His provision.

[ 10. April 2016, 07:53: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't see why it has to 'end in tears' Baptist Trainfan.

Like others here,I certainly 'got better' at articulating nonsense syllables through practice - I was able to introduce tone, structure, inflection ... was this any different to what a scat-singer does? How does it differ substantially from the 'mouth-music' or wordless singing found in some folk music traditions - such as those of Ireland and Shetland?

Nobody has addressed my comment that it would be perfectly possible for someone without a smidgeon of Christian faith to give a passable approximation of speaking in tongues as it's currently practised in Pentecostal and charismatic circles.

I share Cliffdweller's unease at the 'coaching' and induction aspects ... and I can articulate my reasons for that - it can be manipulative, rely on suggestibility and lead to unhealthy levels of dependency on particular ostensibly 'gifted' authority figures or groups ...

Of course, this sort of thing can happen in other contexts too.

I've always been 'happier' or more comfortable with accounts of apparently more spontaneous instances of tongues-speaking ... in the same way as I am more comfortable with conversions that take place outside of high-pressure hot-house atmospheres.

I suppose I am agnostic about the purpose and value of the practice - it's essentially neutral, I think and only bears the weight and value we choose to place upon it.

I'm not sure my Christian life and experience is any the less for it - but it's impossible to 'prove' one way or another whether it's helped or hindered me in my discipleship and faith.

It's all down to context.

Some of this stuff only has value if participants agree to place value on it.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I meant that the discussion might "end in tears" - the tone seems to be getting a little bit tendentious. (How's that for a word? )
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The 'singing in the air' or angelic singing thing was a feature of earlier revivals ... and I experienced that myself - or thought I did (?) at the first Bible Week I attended - the Dales Bible Week in 1982.

Someone else heard the same thing. I was on a night-shift as I'd volunteered for the security team (despite being a short, little weedy guy) in order to get there on a subsidised rate.

It had a profound effect on me at the time but after all these years I'm no longer sure that whether what I heard was some kind of atmospheric effect - air-brakes in the distance? some kind of breeze effect? - or what I took it to be ... certainly heard something ... and something that sounded very ethereal and spine-tinglingly numinous ...

There had been reports of this from earlier years - both in the main meetings and late at night when people were asleep - so there could have been an element of suggestibility there - I don't know.

Whatever the case, I don't base my faith on whether it was real, imagined or some kind of combination of the two ...

Like Doone and others, I'm reluctant to write the whole thing off - I certainly saw some things happen that didn't admit of an immediately 'rational' explanation in terms of learned behaviour or responses to platform cues and suggestibility ...

But 9 times out of 10, I'd agree that much of this stuff was induced - with people willing to participate and lay their critical faculities to one side in order to obtain some kind of experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Why are you reluctant to write the whole thing off - including Paul's experiences - as entirely explicable as physical and psychological (...) Eutychus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Why are you reluctant to write the whole thing off - including Paul's experiences - as entirely explicable as physical and psychological (...) Eutychus?

---

For my part, first show me where I have.

Just because something is physical and psychological doesn't mean it's necessarily only that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus, on All Fool's Day upstream you said: "I don't think it can all have been merely froth and bubble.". And ... you just said it above. If something is physical and psychological, is entirely explicable as ALL 'charismatic' claims are since and including Paul, what else is left to explain only by supernatural means?

---

quote:

---

trying to scientifically prove God is like trying to find your car keys using Microsoft Bing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

To the contrary of your statement " very few things work this way" I think most things work this way-- that we improve with practice, and at least part of that practice is "repeating it the same way over & over again". Choirs, musicians, actors

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

FWIW, taken at face value, I'd say this was more convincing than other stories I've heard and would be one reason why I wouldn't be in a hurry to write all these things off - unless it could be demonstrated that the participants were mistaken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus, on All Fool's Day upstream you said: "I don't think it can all have been merely froth and bubble.". And ... you just said it above. If something is physical and psychological, is entirely explicable as ALL 'charismatic' claims are since and including Paul, what else is left to explain only by supernatural means?

---

Sorry, I misread you as saying I wanted to write it all off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Where did I say 10% of it was legit' or that 90% of it us baloney?

I may have used figures of speech on other threads on these issues but I'm not sure I've done so on this one ...

Just as no-one has got back to me on the thing about people with no faith being able to 'speak in tongues', Eutychus is right that no-one has got back to him either on the Kabyle incident.

FWIW, taken at face value, I'd say this was more convincing than other stories I've heard and would be one reason why I wouldn't be in a hurry to write all these things off - unless it could be demonstrated that the participants were mistaken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doone:
I really don't know, Martin60, except that we humans are experts at embroidering, exaggerating, limiting, marring, spoiling, denigrating, and a 1001 other negative words, when it comes to using God's great gifts in the ways and the uses for which He intended. That goes for the rest of the charismata as well. So, yes, there is a lot of 'stuff' that goes on that is manipulative, deluded or whatever or that can be explained physically or psychologically and I am cynical and don't seek these experiences now. But, I can't help believe, partly through some of my own experiences, that He can and does sometimes impart these gifts, even through our imperfect selves. And no, I cannot prove it. Sometimes all I can do is trust my Father.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OddJob:
Has anyone experienced a situation where two individuals both claiming interpretative ability have heard someone talking in tongues, gone away and independently given the same interpretation, unaware of any comments from the other interpreter? I haven’t personally, but in the late 1980s/early 1990s heyday of tongues knew a chap who claimed to have had an interpretation but wasn’t bold enough to announce it, then another person in the congregation said exactly what he had been too shy to say. The interpretation was however as nebulous as most of them tended to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
my syntax does take some parsing.

---

quote:

---

"Explaining something psychologically doesn't preclude a spiritual dimension to it.", I couldn't agree more. My psychology, my thinking, my experience, my narrative, my existenz and that of the utterly materially constructivistically apprehendable cosmos is inextricably S/spiritual.

---

quote:

---

reluctant to write the whole thing off - including Paul's experiences - as entirely explicable as physical and psychological

---

quote:

---

Are you also making a supernatural claim about the Kabyle speaking Italo-Gaul? Kabyle is spoken S of France and SSW of Italy and there will be plenty of Kabyle speakers in Italy, the nearest landfall north of Kabylia.

---

quote:

---

The infinite eternal cosmic multiverse, utterly devoid of magic, is no less magical, no less a manifestation of the transfinte, transeternal thinking out of Love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
I struggle to understand why if you believe God is real it is so difficult to believe that he answers prayer, heals people or speaks to people. I understand skepticism if coming from a Deist or atheist perspective but if you believe God is real and also intellectually ascent to the fact that he does this type of thing on occasion i don't see why you would almost want to disprove every specific example- or being looking for examples that you can 100% prove - it seems like trying to put God under the microscope in an attempt to prove him using scientific method.

Most instances of the supernatural in charismatic settings have alternative explanations if you are looking for alternative explanations, and aren't sufficient to "prove God" - but if you already believe in him it seems strange to try to find an alternative explanation every time you experience something where an obvious explanation is that its God, speaking or God acting. It's not really humility because we don't believe God acting among us is proof of our holiness or ability - it's proof of his grace and kindness, nothing else. I find it hard to be skeptical or put everything I have experienced or been told about down to confirmation bias because such a large proportion of the Christians I know have experienced God working in dramatic ways at times (as I have done). On the other hand I am aware that most stories can be explained away if you are devoted to a materialist world view. And if they come from an almost anonymous person on the internet if they are too easily explained they can be explained away and if they are too spectacular...well that person might be exaggerating or deluded because... well you don't really know them.

Where you have had significant experiences of God in the past I don't understand either the desire to explain these away now; even if they occurred in settings which are not how you would want to express your spirituality these days; it seems ungrateful to what God has done in you and for you in the past.

Gamaliel - you seem to take it as proof that something isn't real because you could quite easily fake it if you want to; which doesn't take into account the fact that most people are sincere and want the real and authentic (just as it is very clear you do) - they don't want fake.

More specifically with regards to tongues (and not connected so much to the above) I think it's perfectly plausible that they might be both a natural and spiritual phenomenon. What I mean by that is that it could be a completely naturally phenomenon to engage in pre-cognitive speech, something that anyone could learn to do but that the Holy spirit uses this to enable us to connect to God with our spirits. For me it is sufficient that Paul per 1 Corinthians regards the practice as helpful and is glad he does it more than all the tongues obsessed Corinthians in private. I think the testimony of Jackie Pullingers ministry to the effectiveness of praying in tongues is interesting here (and something that encourages me in using this gift) - and I know from someone who was involved in Hong Kong that this was a long way from ecstatic tongues; in fact praying with addicts coming off heroin this way was mundane and boring at times but it worked and it helped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
we nasty uncharysmed dwarfs weep breathlessly at galena geodes and the tiny yellow anthers of Californian lilac. And the unbelievable red, black male and tinier blue female flowers of the utterly ignorable Lawsonian cypress.

We need no one in a billion 'miracle' when such are all around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I deny Him nothing. If that's the way He wants to play.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Good for you Doone. Believe what you must. We all do. God bless you in it. And above and beyond it. I'd rather have the gift of empathy and compassion and charity and understanding and patience and inclusion and social justice and courage than speak a word of Kabyle. But unfortunately the latter is more likely. Asrad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It strikes me that a lot of the egg can either get "hard-boiled" (i.e. routinized/institutionalised) or "scrambled" (i.e. go off into various degrees of loopiness).

---

yes!
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It IS interesting that no one picked up on Paul's unknown and angelic tongues for two thousand years. Common sense prevailed for that long!
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
It IS interesting that no one picked up on Paul's unknown and angelic tongues for two thousand years. Common sense prevailed for that long!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
It IS interesting that no one picked up on Paul's unknown and angelic tongues for two thousand years. Common sense prevailed for that long!

---

I'm pretty sure the Quakers were practising Glossolalia in the 17 century. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't evidence of it going back a long way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Trust me, I've done a lot of spade-work on this during my full-on charismatic days. There were certainly some instances of glossolalia around in the 17th century - and perhaps even earlier - but not a great deal ... and certainly nobody made a great deal about it until the Irvingites of the 19th century and the Pentecostals in the early 20th century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Trust me, I've done a lot of spade-work on this during my full-on charismatic days. There were certainly some instances of glossolalia around in the 17th century - and perhaps even earlier - but not a great deal ... and certainly nobody made a great deal about it until the Irvingites of the 19th century and the Pentecostals in the early 20th century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Baptist Trainfan has also kindly reminded us of the Montanists in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

---

Until he deleted the post and wrote something else!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yep, pretty much. The unifying factor in all these instances - the Montanists, early Quakers, Irvingites, early Pentecostals and the UK restorationists of the 1970s - 90s - seems to have been an emphasis on the imminent return of Christ.

Back in the day, of course, any form of phenomena tended to be seen as a portent of major change or upheaval ... in the months before the outbreak of the Civil War in the 1640s there were all sorts of accounts of prodigies and lambs and calves born with extra heads or limbs and so on as portents that something was amiss in the body-politick ...
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@mr cheesy, I didn't say the concept of speaking in tongues was 'invented last week' - so keep things in proportion. I gave examples from the 1600s and Baptist Trainfan has also kindly reminded us of the Montanists in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

If you are going to be snarky and play the hoary-old 'the established authorities obviously clamped down on everything' line then I'm afraid I am going to have to ask you to continue the conversation elsewhere - ie. somewhere hot and fiery.

---

That's ok, I was muddling your post with Martin's usual incomprehensible contributions. I accept what you've said above.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
On the Anglican dimension, I think I mentioned upthread that my wife's Grandmother had some particularly lurid material from the 1950s which purported to be based on visions and prophecies and so on - and this in the rather staid Anglicanism of that time ...

So there was a somewhat mystical strand within Anglicanism that Pentecostalism or neo-Pentecostalism could chime with ... and the late, great and much lamented Ken used to opine that the Kenyan and Rwandan Revivals of the 1950s fed into the development of Anglican charismaticism in the 1960s in ways that had largely been overlooked by most commentators and historians.

I think he was onto something. I've certainly read accounts of Anglican missionary work in Melanesia and elsewhere where there were elements of what might be termed 'charismatic' phenomena going back even further.

I wouldn't want to over-emphasise any of that - but it was there.

As for 'tongues' and the Welsh Revival (if you haven't deleted that post ... my understanding is that the Apostolic Church adopted tongues soon after the Revival is generally considered to have ended - they saw themselves as carrying on the flame ...

They formally constituted themselves in 1908 so I would imagine that the tongues started to happen around 1906/07 - more or less contemporary with the Azusa Street revival out in Los Angeles.

I've not been able to find evidence of tongues-speaking during the Revival itself - 1904/05 - but there were certainly some examples of intriguing vocal phenomena. For instance, the Yorkshire Post reported instances of young people who had spoken Welsh in infancy and then lapsed as they grew up, suddenly recovering a fervency and fluency in the Welsh language under the apparent influence of revivalist excitement.

So these things were on the tip of the tongue as it were ...

In a memorable phrase, Dr Andrew Walker has observed that tongues were 'only a breath away' from the various Holiness groups from the 1860s onwards. I'd suggest it was only going to be a matter of time before widespread tongues-speaking broke out - and by the time of the Welsh Revival and Azusa of course there was mass media, telegram and major strides in communications and international travel so it was easier for these things to be passed on.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Mr cheesy - thanks ... mind you, surely Martin's unintelligible posts act as proof positive that wonders have never ceased and that the ability to communicate in unintelligible syllables remains a very present reality ...


 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've long thought that the explanations as to why the deity works in this way seem pretty weak: if you are interested in getting an accurate message to someone, then I don't think you'd immediately think of (a) giving someone a message in a language they don't understand (b) giving a second person the ability to understand that message (c) providing a situation where the two people are present and receptive as to the message and (d) ensuring the person to whom the message is directed hears and appreciates that the message is for them rather than just a load of phooey.

I think it must just be easier to speak directly into the head of the person to whom you want to receive the message, to speak to someone else to tell them to speak to the recipient, to send a dream etc and so on.

Of course, I'm not God, but this kind of convoluted message transfer seems highly unlikely to be a reliable way to spread important information and much more likely to be group delusion, a scam etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It strikes me that a lot of the egg can either get "hard-boiled" (i.e. routinized/institutionalised) or "scrambled" (i.e. go off into various degrees of loopiness).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, the Montanists did it ... but they were mostly known for 'prophecy' and for apparently predicting the imminent end of the world and so on ...

I gave examples from the 1600s and Baptist Trainfan has also kindly reminded us of the Montanists in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In a memorable phrase, Dr Andrew Walker has observed that tongues were 'only a breath away' from the various Holiness groups from the 1860s onwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Just for the record: I'm not really very keen on eggs (the real ones, that is). And never poached or scrambled!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
It IS interesting that no one picked up on Paul's unknown and angelic tongues for two thousand years. Common sense prevailed for that long!

---

There may be a parallel with the issue of baptism on behalf of the dead. It's quite clearly there in Paul's letter first letter to the Corinthians, but it's rarely spoken about. The only church I'm aware of that practices it is the Mormon church, and they can hardly lay much of a claim of following in the footsteps of the apostles.

What other things may lurk in seemingly throwaway phrases in the bible that have by and large been forgotten, waiting to be rediscovered?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't think it was as clear cut as that, Baptist Trainfan.

As far as I am aware, the standard line within the Church of the Nazarene, at least here in the UK, was 'Do not forbid, do not promote.'

I think that was more the case with various smaller off-shoots of the 'mainstream' Holiness movement rather than some of the larger and more established groups - but from what I can gather from former Nazarenes I've known in the past, tongues-speaking was neither encouraged nor discouraged.

If it happened and people went to their pastors to tell them about it the usual line was that they should praise God if it proved to be a genuine gift but beware of being 'puffed up' and also to pretty much keep it to themselves ...

I've heard of a similar line being taken in Orthodox circles too - but equally of priests who have discouraged any parishioners who claim to have 'received' the 'gift of tongues' ...

I daresay the mileage varies across all manner of Christian groups and churches.

Meanwhile, @Cliffdweller - yes, I can see what you are saying about the way that scripture 'works' and don't dispute your overall point - we have parables, poetry, narrative rather than a set of instructions ...

FWIW, from my own experience/discussions with people across a range of traditions - Anglo-Catholic, RC, Orthodox, various evangelical traditions ... and my own reading around and investigations (by no means exhaustive but I trust well-informed) I remain open to the possibility of such things happening and being accepted as genuine - but with the caveat that Chris Stiles has provided that there is insufficient hard-and-fast material there on which to construct a template or model for recommended practice.

I've got to be honest, if I had only encountered tongues-speaking among traditional Pentecostals and among the more full-on kind of charismatics, I would never have been convinced of its veracity or validity in the first place ...

I only became open to the possibility when I heard examples that ostensibly sounded more 'convincing' than the standard 'angara-bangara-sondera-hondera' forms and testimonies from people who were clearly level-headed and, dare I say it, well-educated ...



I don't say that to disrespect the working-class Penties I encountered in my native South Wales but I'll be honest - hearing Anglicans and others singing in the Spirit did more to 'convince' me at the time than the yabbering and jabbering I heard at my local AoG ...

Now, I'm less convinced that the Anglican charismatics I encountered were really doing anything extraordinary or 'supernatural' ... but I remain open to the possibility that it can sometimes happen ... and to people who least expect it or who aren't out to induce or encourage such practices.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
The CMA was similar, Simpson himself moved in Holiness circles at one point. I think what happened to change that was that the charismatics hardened their stance, and the non-charos reacted against that.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Sipech



You are making some big assumptions there.

1. That what has been 'discovered' is the same thing as the Apostle Paul was talking about.

2. That discovering something in the scriptures and innovating around it is somehow laudable.

3. That somehow previous generations didn't notice what we have ...

All of which has to proven and demonstrated.

Ok, people might cite opposition to slavery, for instance, but there were voices within the RCC which were expressing concerns about that quite early on - even before the Quakers and other Protestant groups began to campaign against it.

The point is, as far as 'tongues' or any other apparent spiritual gift goes, how the heck do we know for sure that it is the same thing that the Apostle Paul was referring to?

The fact is, we can't. We have to make a hermeneutical leap or an educated guess according to what data we do have.

For all we know, if the Apostle Paul were able to come back in a time machine he might slap his thighs and laugh, saying, 'No, no, no, that's not what I meant at all - THIS is what I was talking about - not what you've taken it to mean ...'
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think it was as clear cut as that, Baptist Trainfan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I deny Him nothing. If that's the way He wants to play.

---

Cool. But that's not what it sounded like earlier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Have a little faith Eutychus.

---

Um, I'll go with the faith I trust he's imparted to me, and not what he's imparted the faith to you for, thank you very much.

[ 11. April 2016, 20:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
good for you. And your, like mine, unscratchable disposition.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Sorry, my.
 

---

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The point is, as far as 'tongues' or any other apparent spiritual gift goes, how the heck do we know for sure that it is the same thing that the Apostle Paul was referring to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The point is, as far as 'tongues' or any other apparent spiritual gift goes, how the heck do we know for sure that it is the same thing that the Apostle Paul was referring to?

---

THis looks like the wrong question to me.

The question is, Is this gift from God?

The gift of tongues as experienced in the 20th and 21st centuries does not need to be the same as that in the book of Acts or in Paul's letters to be from God.

---

Whether that is or isn't the case, Balaam, the point is that charismatics cite verses in Acts and the Pauline epistles in order to:

- Claim biblical precedence for their practices.

- Attempt to work out some kind of system for dealing with and regulating these practices.

In my experience, they are very aware that glossolalia and so on occurs in other contexts but are inclined to put that down to evil influences ie, 'it is of the devil ...'

Whatever the ins and outs and rights and wrongs, we are dealing with phenomena and claims that are being made in a Christian context and where people claim biblical backing.

That's the point.

Sure, many Christians are prepared to acknowledge that 'all good things come from God' and that where there is goodness, virtue and so on then God is ultimately the source of it - wherever it occurs.

But I knew very few charismatics who'd be prepared to accept that glossolalia happening among Sufis or Dervishes or other mystical Muslim groups or among occultists of various kinds or animists or proponents of other religions are 'a gift of God' in the same way that they believe their own manifestations of these 'gifts' to be ...

The point is that in a Christian charismatic context, most glossolalists would claim to be doing what was described in the Book of Acts and referred to in 1 Corinthians.

They see those references as the basis for their claims. They wouldn't be interested in them otherwise.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Martin60

I don't have the right to contribute much to this discussion (though I find it interesting for various reasons) but I must jump in here. You seem to be implying that people who speak in tongues don't do enough loving, or aren't sufficiently interested in 'universal justice with peace', to use your earlier phrase.

However, one of the reasons why the Azusa Street revival fascinates me is that in its earliest days (and I accept that things changed) it incorporated social and racial equality in a way that few of the sensible, moderate churches were doing at the time.

My related concern about condemning tongues-speakers as uncaring, or somehow irrational, is that it feeds into rather problematic racial attitudes about very many of the world's Pentecostals and charismatics, the majority of whom are not white. When we argue that this form of Christianity is unbiblical we're actually marginalising a spirituality which, it has been argued, is strongly influenced by non-Western impulses and perspectives. If we're keen on 'peace' and 'justice' we need to think carefully before we do that.

Of course, I accept that most commentators here are speaking from a long experience of charismaticism in its mostly indigenous British and mostly middle class form.

Finally, as someone who has mostly belonged to moderate, MOTR, non-tongues churches, let me tell you that despite official enthusiasm for social justice, etc., the MOTR faction, even here in the UK, has had its own internal problems with the issues that you deem to be important. Some of these, for example regarding racism in churches, have now been fairly well documented. Turning one's own congregation into a beacon of justice and equality is often more difficult than promoting 'social justice' far away, if I may put it like that. But I suppose we have to live in hope.

[ 12. April 2016, 11:23: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Anyone read Professor Canon Sarah Coakley, who links charismatic and contemplative prayer, and relates them to the theology of the Trinity?

Svitlana is on to something about the non-European frequency of tongues, etc.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Venbede, that sounds interesting ... I do think that charismatics and contemplatives can be closer to one another than might appear at first sight - and there can be contemplative charismatics and vice-versa ...



On SvitlanaV2's point about social-justice and MoTR churches - that's one for Martin to answer really ... it's addressed to him, but FWIW here's a two-happ'orth ...

Azusa Street is interesting - for all manner of reasons - however, we have to tread carefully with some of the accounts ... the writers tended to be promoting particular agendas or 'takes' ... but then, that's always the case ...

I only found out recently that racial segregation was illegal within Methodist and other churches in Los Angeles and other parts of the US at that time. So, officially at least, there had been moves to integrate congregations rather than divide them on racial lines ...

So the idea that Azusa Street had somehow initiated or kick-started integration is not entirely the case. Of course, the reality may have been very different on the ground - just because various churches and denominations had a policy to work towards greater integration didn't mean it was actually happening in practice.

That said, there was certainly some very ugly racist elements in the early newspaper accounts and the fledgeling Pentecostal movement itself split largely along racial lines very early on.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

My related concern about condemning tongues-speakers as uncaring, or somehow irrational, is that it feeds into rather problematic racial attitudes about very many of the world's Pentecostals and charismatics, the majority of whom are not white. When we argue that this form of Christianity is unbiblical we're actually marginalising a spirituality which, it has been argued, is strongly influenced by non-Western impulses and perspectives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

On SvitlanaV2's point about social-justice and MoTR churches - that's one for Martin to answer really ... it's addressed to him, but FWIW here's a two-happ'orth ...

Azusa Street is interesting - for all manner of reasons - however, we have to tread carefully with some of the accounts ... the writers tended to be promoting particular agendas or 'takes' ... but then, that's always the case ...

I only found out recently that racial segregation was illegal within Methodist and other churches in Los Angeles and other parts of the US at that time. So, officially at least, there had been moves to integrate congregations rather than divide them on racial lines ...

So the idea that Azusa Street had somehow initiated or kick-started integration is not entirely the case. Of course, the reality may have been very different on the ground - just because various churches and denominations had a policy to work towards greater integration didn't mean it was actually happening in practice.

That said, there was certainly some very ugly racist elements in the early newspaper accounts and the fledgeling Pentecostal movement itself split largely along racial lines very early on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Any comments on Lou Engle and Bill Johnson/Bethel's attempt to capitalise on this last Saturday at the LA Coliseum? (another link).

---

Just this. Well, it made me smile.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Well, I was really looking for cliffdweller's contribution, as she owns to being just down the road and is from the pentecostal stable...
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, I was really looking for cliffdweller's contribution, as she owns to being just down the road and is from the pentecostal stable...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Any comments on Lou Engle and Bill Johnson/Bethel's attempt to capitalise on this last Saturday at the LA Coliseum? (another link).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, I was really looking for cliffdweller's contribution, as she owns to being just down the road and is from the pentecostal stable...

---

Ton of friends from my church were there-- some were even leading worship-- but I haven't heard any after the fact feedback from them. I'll check my facebook feed and get back to you.

---

Although perhaps I can hypothesize that if the initial evidence of the indwelling of the Spirit is (according to Seymour) inclusive love, and (according to other Penties) the 2nd is miraculous signs and wonders... then perhaps the 3rd evidence of the outpouring of the Spirit (or the apocalypse) is when Southern Californians come out to sit in an outdoor stadium in the rain !

[ 12. April 2016, 15:13: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think you misunderstand the point I was making, Cliffdweller. I wasn't saying that Azusa Street wasn't radical in terms of racial integration - and yes, I'm very aware that this was the main aspect that troubled Parham.

All I was saying - and this came from a Pentecostal source - was that racial segregation within the Methodist and other churches was illegal in Los Angeles in 1906 - in a way it wouldn't have been elsewhere in the US. The picture varied from region to region, State to State of course.

I know enough about it to know that there were pro-Seymour accounts and anti-Seymour accounts and the whole thing was factionalised from very early on.

FWIW, I agree with the consensus that Seymour was radical in his very commendable multi-racial and integrated approach ... and that this brought opposition from some quarters.

However, without in any way diminishing that, I was simply pointing out that the somewhat sweeping narrative that can sometimes come across - everything was segregated until the Pentecostals came along -- isn't the whole story.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
On the issue of what 'kills' revivals ...

I'm sorry, but the older I get, the more I'm of the view that these things tend to fizzle out when the participants exhaust themselves. There's been all sorts of speculation - some of it very silly indeed - as to why the Welsh Revival of 1904/05 apparently fizzled out after 18 months ...

Well, for a kick-off poor old Evan Roberts wore himself out through constant touring/preaching and also, sooner or later, you have to get on with your normal life rather than standing through late-night chapel meetings singing 'Here is love, vast as the ocean ...' over and over and over again ...



Also, religious heat and enthusiasm does tend to boil over and is naturally fissaporous ... so you get tensions between leaders, people pulling in different directions ...

It can all boil over very quickly.

In the case of Azusa Street there was the added issue of racism and opposition to Seymour's integrated approach - which, as I've said, was perfectly in keeping with the statute-books and the polity of most - if not all - churches in LA at that time ... but which didn't necessarily mean that everyone was happy about that. Parham certainly wasn't. The press might not have been either - the way they describe the meetings at Azusa Street is very racist and politically-incorrect by today's standards ...

Whilst I'd applaud what Seymour and the revivalists were trying to do - although they were also under the misapprehension that the end of the world was imminent - hence the fuss when Seymour married ... there's only so long you can sustain that level of revivalist fervour.

That's not to say that revivalist forms of Christianity need lack longevity - the Pentecostal thing has been going for 110 years now after all - but what you find are periods of relative quiet - as it were - punctuated by times of fire and fervour.

All revivalist groups experience some kind of cyclical process ... the Wesley and other figures of the 18th century Awakening noticed that.

So, I'm afraid I don't buy this, 'If only they'd left Seymour alone then the revival would have continued ...' or 'If only if so-and-so hadn't bad-mouthed Evan Roberts then the fire would not have gone out ...'

And so on and so forth ...
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
[QUOTE]Well, it made me smile.

---

Dear God, no. I thought we'd seen the last of his chicanery.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Whatever revival you look at, there's always hype around it. The question is simply one of fruit - is it lasting, did it impact/change people to the extent that it changed communities?

As for the Welsh Revival, you also have to see it alongside Azuza Street in its historical context (non church, non religious). It was a time of uncertainty across the world - in Wales the mines were on short time. What else to do apart from to look for God? In a couple of years the economy turns and hey presto, the revival peters out.

Like Gamaliel I don't go for the "if only you'd left it alone ..." idea.

Sad to see Azuza Street being treated like it was with the Bethel Programme. Lou Engle (?) is definitely challenging Toronto c. 1995 and as for Paul Cain well .. words fail me.

Do we never ever learn?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, and with Azusa Street it was the aftermath of the Californian earthquake and a time of social change - the western USA was a seething hot-bed of millenarian expectations, fervent Holiness religion and snake-oil quackery ...

In Wales, the language was under threat, the old non-conformist chapel certainties were being eroded, there were rising tides of nationalism and also radical politics. The revival was largely a young people's movenent among people experiencing a crisis of identity and already - if only nominally - connected with church and chapel.

It's not insignificant that many of the fervent converts later channelled their energies into the Eisteddfod or Labour Party politics ...

Some of the early participants at Azusa Street felt that the movement very quickly 'apostosised'. One wonders what they'd have made of the shenanigans in Californian stadia - raining or otherwise.

Whatever we think of the early Pentecostal movement they deserve a better legacy than Bethel ...
 

---

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
It seems, judging from the tone of the discussion (correct me if I'm wrong), that there's disagreement over what extent the social/economic/demographic/etc factors play in any kind of new expression or shift in emphasis.

At one extreme, one might argue that all external factors are a distraction and that it is a community responding to God. At the other extreme, one could something akin to a social-deterministic viewpoint and try to identify the particular factors at play and then (hey presto!) there's no need to consider the possibility of God actually acting in the world.

With several shades of beige in between.

I wouldn't deny the value and use of a good sociological understanding in the history of different church movements, though it does seem that it's overstated sometimes (particularly by sociologists! ), effectively, if not explicitly, denying the je ne sais quoi of the work of the Holy Spirit.

If I may venture a hypothesis: movements like Asuza Street, Toronto, Pentecost, Quakerism, John Wesley's strange warming, etc. may often start with a spark from God, but that the direction they subsequently take is heavily influenced, though not dictated, by the situation in which they may be found.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Any comments on Lou Engle and Bill Johnson/Bethel's attempt to capitalise on this last Saturday at the LA Coliseum? (another link).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
]As a simple matter of curiosity, are these two men being interviewed on that link (or at least the first few minutes of the twelve hours, famous people that I'm supposed to have heard of and would have done if I lived in the US? Are they names I ought to know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Also, religious heat and enthusiasm does tend to boil over and is naturally fissaporous ... so you get tensions between leaders, people pulling in different directions ...

It can all boil over very quickly ...

Whilst I'd applaud what Seymour and the revivalists were trying to do - although they were also under the misapprehension that the end of the world was imminent - hence the fuss when Seymour married ... there's only so long you can sustain that level of revivalist fervour.

So, I'm afraid I don't buy this, 'If only they'd left Seymour alone then the revival would have continued ...' or 'If only if so-and-so hadn't bad-mouthed Evan Roberts then the fire would not have gone out ...'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

In the case of Azusa Street there was the added issue of racism and opposition to Seymour's integrated approach - which, as I've said, was perfectly in keeping with the statute-books and the polity of most - if not all - churches in LA at that time ... but which didn't necessarily mean that everyone was happy about that. Parham certainly wasn't. The press might not have been either - the way they describe the meetings at Azusa Street is very racist and politically-incorrect by today's standards ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Here in the UK, as Baptist Trainfan notes, early adopters included the Anglican cleric Akexander Boddy and the very well-heeled Cecil Polhill, one of the 'Cambridge Seven'. However, they were soon side-lined by working-class revivalists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Martin60

I don't have the right to contribute much to this discussion (though I find it interesting for various reasons) but I must jump in here. You seem to be implying that people who speak in tongues don't do enough loving, or aren't sufficiently interested in 'universal justice with peace', to use your earlier phrase.

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2, you have EVERY right, as much as anyone, we don't own it. I'd have to say that you have understated my position! As a helplessly privileged hypocrite. Me.

---

However, one of the reasons why the Azusa Street revival fascinates me is that in its earliest days (and I accept that things changed) it incorporated social and racial equality in a way that few of the sensible, moderate churches were doing at the time.

quote:

---

That I find moving and chastening. The impulse was there. Charismania was obviously a vehicle, a handmaiden of that.

---

My related concern about condemning tongues-speakers as uncaring, or somehow irrational, is that it feeds into rather problematic racial attitudes about very many of the world's Pentecostals and charismatics, the majority of whom are not white. When we argue that this form of Christianity is unbiblical we're actually marginalising a spirituality which, it has been argued, is strongly influenced by non-Western impulses and perspectives. If we're keen on 'peace' and 'justice' we need to think carefully before we do that.

quote:

---

Having devoured Brian McLaren and Ryszard Kapuściński, I am again smote.

---

Of course, I accept that most commentators here are speaking from a long experience of charismaticism in its mostly indigenous British and mostly middle class form.

quote:

---

Exactly, whew, a let out, I'm talking from my parochial experience.

---

Finally, as someone who has mostly belonged to moderate, MOTR, non-tongues churches, let me tell you that despite official enthusiasm for social justice, etc., the MOTR faction, even here in the UK, has had its own internal problems with the issues that you deem to be important. Some of these, for example regarding racism in churches, have now been fairly well documented. Turning one's own congregation into a beacon of justice and equality is often more difficult than promoting 'social justice' far away, if I may put it like that. But I suppose we have to live in hope.

quote:

---

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whatever we think of the early Pentecostal movement they deserve a better legacy than Bethel ...

---

I'm with you there.

As for Johnson not frightening the horses, isn't Bethel where they try and teach people how to raise the dead?

He's hardly mainstream (even mainstream charismatic) IMHO and I rather feel that New Wine are gradually edging away from him.

As for Lou Engle or whatever his name is, that whole jerking thing is a sign of some deeper issues - perhaps spiritual, perhaps psychological. Anyone tuning in for the first time would be either alarmed or burst our laughing. What do theses people think they look like?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I do hope New Wine are edging away from Johnson and Bethel. I was rather alarmed when I heard they'd had him to speak there a few years ago - and rather pleased when I found that not all the participants I knew were particularly impressed ...

Meanwhile, hopefully without overly labouring the point about disputes about xenoglossy/glossolalia in early Pentecostalism, here is an interesting Orthodox 'take' on the historical background:

http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2016/04/12/early-pentecostal-speaking-tongues-foreign-languages/
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
Lots to catch up on.

My own take on tongues is that in fulness the gift is speaking in unknown human languages. That this gift has been recorded through church history in the lives of the saints, but it is relatively rare. The problem with many of the overviews of historic charismatic experience is that they refuse to engage with Roman Catholicism.

The gift of tongues as popularly practiced is something that human beings seem to be innately capable of, but can be quickend by the Spirit. It is the spiritual benefit rather than the sounds themselves that constitutes the charismata. I see no difference between tongues, the Jesus Prayer or the Hail Mary in this regard and in prayer I will often use the three together.

In regards to charismatic experience in general I went very anti charismatic at one point for all the reasons discussed here. Although I continued to have profound experiences of God. I re-engaged with the charismatic after experiencing it out of context of the big meetings. And that remains a mark of my experience. It is one thing to be suspicious of toronto like 'hysteria' in a big hyped meeting. It is another when someone you pray for with no knowledge of that experience after a very 'normal' liturgical service falls to the floor and weeps.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I suppose that's pretty much where I'd be at, Edward Green, except that my local parish church is exceedingly 'low' ... and the nearest relatively 'High' parish is probably be more liberal theologically than I would be happy to be ...

I do find myself doubting the 'efficacy' of 'tongues', as you've described it, alongside things like the Jesus Prayer - or Hail Mary's or whatever else we might adopt in a more formally liturgical fashion ... but then, that also begs a few questions.

I use the Jesus Prayer from time to time and yes, when nobody's looking, I will engage in more avowedly 'Catholic' or 'Orthodox' style practices - invoking Mary and the Saints and so on.

The thing is, I have absolutely no idea how we go about evaluating the efficacy or otherwise of any of these practices ...

I mean, the first time I used more Orthodox formularies in prayer or used RC or Anglo-Catholic prayers in my devotional times, I thought the ceiling would open and I'd be struck by lightning ...

When that didn't happen, I continued ...

But does how we 'feel' about particular practices determine how beneficial, efficacious or otherwise they are?

I used to feel pretty comfortable about 'speaking in tongues'. I don't feel particularly comfortable about it any more so don't do it. I can do it if I want to but don't particular 'feel' or experience any 'benefit' from the practice.

The conservative evangelical answer would obviously be that the invocation of Mary and the Saints or praying the rosary (I've not done that ... yet ... ) doesn't have any NT warrant whereas praying in tongues - however it's understood - does. So therefore, if you are going to do either, it'd better be the tongues as they are more 'biblical' ...

All that is still work in progress for me ...

I'm prepared to accept the 'validity' of tongues and so on - particularly in those instances where it appears to happen spontaneously and without priming or particular coaching, instruction, hype or suggestibility ...

But in terms of my own day-to-day devotions I must admit, I'd struggle to find a 'place' for it these days ...

Perhaps that will change. Who knows?

Or perhaps I'll continue on a trajectory into high-octane bells and smells or to a gentler, more contemplative approach ... or a more quietist, Quaker-like one ... I dunno.

I'm not 'against' traditional hymn-prayer-sandwich type non-conformist worship but it is no longer my 'bag' - I quite like the sermons you get in such settings and some of the hymns but it can feel like a lecture with a few hymns and prayers attached ...

I don't particularly object to lively, 'contemporary' style worship either - provided it's going on somewhere else and I no longer have to feel under pressure to be involved ...

Some ultra-'High' stuff would send me rushing for the door and down to the nearest Brethren assembly shouting, 'Let me in ... let me in ... all is forgiven ...'

I don't really know where that leaves me ... but then, that's not the focus of this thread ... it's supposed to be about Colin Urquhart and the charismatic renewal in general ...

About which I'd say:

- Some of it good, some of it bad, some of it indifferent.

And ...

- Been, there, done that, no longer feel the need to get involved personally.

And finally ...

- Yes, I do believe in the vatic, the numinous and in the charismatic dimension in its broad sense. How I work that out in terms of my current position ... I don't know. Answers on a postcard please.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Er ... that's a completely different thread in The Circus.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 

 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

My own take on tongues is that in fulness the gift is speaking in unknown human languages. That this gift has been recorded through church history in the lives of the saints, but it is relatively rare. The problem with many of the overviews of historic charismatic experience is that they refuse to engage with Roman Catholicism.

The gift of tongues as popularly practiced is something that human beings seem to be innately capable of, but can be quickend by the Spirit. It is the spiritual benefit rather than the sounds themselves that constitutes the charismata.

---

quote:

---

It is one thing to be suspicious of toronto like 'hysteria' in a big hyped meeting. It is another when someone you pray for with no knowledge of that experience after a very 'normal' liturgical service falls to the floor and weeps.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I didn't say integration was common in 1906, Cliffdweller - I made that clear in my postings on the subject - references to Paeham's racisn, the racist coverage in the press ...

I suspect we are posting at cross-purposes to an extent.

The multi-racial aspect was a significant feature at Azusa Street, but it wasn't the only one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Overall, sadly, Pentecostal and charismatic congregatulions these days seem to be no more demographically diverse than any other form of church. Pentecostal and charismatic churches can be relatively diverse in my experience - but certainly not as much as some would like to make out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The reason Azusa Street left a legacy and influenced other revivalists worldwide - initially across the US but also Britain, Scandinavia, Germany and various Protestant mission stations in India, Africa and the Far East - was because of the telegraph, mass media and the steam ship.

There's a fascinating history of transatlantic influences in both directions throughout 18th and 19th century revivalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...The 'shape' that Pentecostalism took - at least initially - was determined by the existing forms and structures of Wesleyan Holiness, Nazarene and Methodist revivalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

My own take on tongues is that in fulness the gift is speaking in unknown human languages. That this gift has been recorded through church history in the lives of the saints, but it is relatively rare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
The problem with many of the overviews of historic charismatic experience is that they refuse to engage with Roman Catholicism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

The gift of tongues as popularly practiced is something that human beings seem to be innately capable of, but can be quickend by the Spirit. It is the spiritual benefit rather than the sounds themselves that constitutes the charismata. I see no difference between tongues, the Jesus Prayer or the Hail Mary in this regard and in prayer I will often use the three together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Whatever revival you look at, there's always hype around it. The question is simply one of fruit - is it lasting, did it impact/change people to the extent that it changed communities?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The reason Azusa Street left a legacy and influenced other revivalists worldwide - initially across the US but also Britain, Scandinavia, Germany and various Protestant mission stations in India, Africa and the Far East - was because of the telegraph, mass media and the steam ship.

---

Agreed. Hearst in particular took a great interest in the revival (for reasons know only to him) and directly ordered reporters to give it significant coverage.

The revival coming at a fortuitous time for mass communication might be compared to Pentecost happening at a time when you had thousands of the faithful Jewish diaspora present in Jerusalem... a similar factor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

If it had been a few years later it would have been predicated on email, Skype and social media.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Overall, sadly, Pentecostal and charismatic congregatulions these days seem to be no more demographically diverse than any other form of church. Pentecostal and charismatic churches can be relatively diverse in my experience - but certainly not as much as some would like to make out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

- Azusa's 'melting-pot' approach to integration was certainly radical, but, welcome though this was we should be careful not to overstate the case. There were moves - at an official level - towards making segregation illegal so sooner or later someone was going to put integration into practice. It happened to be Seymour, so yes, he is to be applauded for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Overall, though, I'm afraid that my view of the charismatic thing in general is that it is largely dumbing-down into feel-good factor triumphalism with minimal theological content.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The 'revolving door' syndrome is very apparent in charismatic and Pentecostal churches and many new converts lapse very quickly or people often move on ... either to other forms of church or to a kind of churchless faith - or to unbelief ...

It's been estimated that there are almost as many - if not as many - former Pentecostals and charismatics in Latin America than there are practising ones.

---

quote:

---

I'm afraid that my view of the charismatic thing in general is that it is largely dumbing-down into feel-good factor triumphalism with minimal theological content.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

London's formerly majority white charismatic churches are now increasingly multi-racial, so I understand, as is the case for all kinds of churches in towns and regions where diversity is a growing reality. Where it isn't a significant growing reality, I expect that most of the local churches will be largely white, charismatic and traditional congregations alike.

---

quote:

---

And may this not be a good thing (up to a point) in a situation where many churches have tended to appeal to the educated middle-classes rather than the "masses"? (I find it amazing that I should be suggesting this, as I greatly value an intelligent and thoughtful approach to the complexities of our Faith!)

---

quote:

---

I'm prepared to accept the 'validity' of tongues and so on - particularly in those instances where it appears to happen spontaneously and without priming or particular coaching, instruction, hype or suggestibility ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well, whilst agreeing with most of what you say, my reading is that this was a form of "folk religion" practice which has a long pedigree. The fact that records are hard to come by or confirm just shows what the attitude of established (in both senses) religious authorities had to this kind of thing.

But I'm not really willing to get into a detailed historical argument with you; if you think the phenomena of "speaking in tongues" was invented last week, that's fine. I just don't think that this view has much to support it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

London's formerly majority white charismatic churches are now increasingly multi-racial, so I understand, as is the case for all kinds of churches in towns and regions where diversity is a growing reality. Where it isn't a significant growing reality, I expect that most of the local churches will be largely white, charismatic and traditional congregations alike.

---

That seems to be simply a case of 'churches are diverse when they are in areas that are diverse, and less so when they aren't'. Which is presumably a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

However, problems may still arise where churches want to broaden their membership but don't realise that they have to reflect on their attitudes, or develop their worship style.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

My point was that I was surprised to hear - from a Pentecostal source - that racial segregation was actually illegal in Methodist churches in LA at the time. I'd assumed it would have been otherwise.

...I don't know whether it was 'illegal' on a denominational level or on a Californian statute-book level.

---

I'm still struggling to figure out what this means and what the source for this info is.

If you mean that Methodist polity said you can't bar someone from church for their race, that was probably the case. But if your source is suggesting that Methodist churches in the early 1900s in LA were racially integrated, I'm quite certain that was not the case. That wasn't even the case in the 1960s and 70s when I was growing up in LA. It's not the case for the majority of Methodist or mainline churches in LA today.

To some degree it may depend on what you mean by "Methodist". I'm assuming in my above paragraph that your source was talking about the United Methodist church or the Free Methodist churches. I suppose they could have been talking about the AME churches, which were primarily mono-racial (black) as well, but may have had a greater openness to diversity than the UMC and free Methodist churches.

In terms of government regulations-- we never had the sorts of Jim Crow laws that you had in the south, but we still had all sorts of legal "housing covenants" and other ways of enforcing segregation on a local level well into the middle of the 20th c, even if it wasn't sanctioned on the state level. De facto segregation was present in most parts of L.A. up until the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

I'm not sure what point your Pentecostal source was trying to make, but unless I'm totally misunderstanding what s/he was saying, or they were talking about the AME, I think the historical record does not support his/her assertion.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, I'm not saying that churches were integrated in LA in 1906. I'm not even suggesting they are integrated now, although I am sure the situation has markedly improved in some quarters.

The source I was quoting wasn't trying to make any particular point other than to say that even though racial segregation was officially illegal in the Methodist churches in LA at that time, there had been little attempt to work that out on the ground.

That's all. It was an observation and simply an attempt to bring in some context.

As far as the Azusa Street Mission goes, the congregation Seymour gathered came from a variety of Methodist and Holiness backgrounds and they met in a private dwelling initially until such time as they acquired a redundant African Methodist church building. So, there was a denomination that had segregation embedded in its title - this is a church for African-Americans. I daresay it had aspirations to be more diverse, but given the barriers to that at the time, that was always going to be difficult.

At any rate, my point was a minor aside and not intended to be a big deal.

One might argue that the integration element was a far more positive development than the perceived ability to 'speak in tongues' - and that the focus and legacy shifted onto the wrong things ...

I wouldn't go that far - I'm not a cessationist. But I do think that Seymour and the others deserve a better memorial than a bunch of self-indulgent Californians gathering in a stadium in the rain to quake abd jerk and strut their stuff ...

But then, similar things could be said of any movement in Christian history or the Christian Church as a whole in all its facets.
 

---

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :
 
Had a quick gander through this. Reckon CE was influential in bringing some good literature to charismatics. His "Listen and Live"' was my first intro to any kind of lectio divina. Roffey Place gave us John Mackay's excellent Way of the Spirit Bible reading course which is basically a simplified version of his university lecture notes.

Noticeable that each stage of CE's spiritual journey has been connected with founding communities with their stress on living with integrity. He's always had a very strong emphasis on personal spirituality and morality and has been much more effective working across denominational boundaries than some other movements and leaders I could mention.

Overall, last time I looked, I'd say the boyz done good.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Depends on your perspective.

I've always associated the later Colin Urquhart with some untenable and extreme positions but your mileage may vary.
 

---

Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :
 
Trueman White:- I found "listen and live" helpful to.

I also appreciated the way CE seemed to anchor his way of seeing the gospel with John (gospel and letters) more than Paul's letters as his starting point. Not that this is better but I appreciated it because it is different (to the norm that I had been exposed to) and provides an alternative viewpoint than viewing the NT through the lens of Paul's letters.
 

---

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :
 
Had a quick gander through this. Reckon CE was influential in bringing some good literature to charismatics. His "Listen and Live"' was my first intro to any kind of lectio divina. Roffey Place gave us John Mackay's excellent Way of the Spirit Bible reading course which is basically a simplified version of his university lecture notes.

Noticeable that each stage of CE's spiritual journey has been connected with founding communities with their stress on living with integrity. He's always had a very strong emphasis on personal spirituality and morality and has been much more effective working across denominational boundaries than some other movements and leaders I could mention.

Overall, last time I looked, I'd say the boyz done good.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Depends on your perspective ...


 

---

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Depends on your perspective ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
Roffey Place gave us John Mackay's excellent Way of the Spirit Bible reading course which is basically a simplified version of his university lecture notes.

---

quote:

---

As for Johnson not frightening the horses, isn't Bethel where they try and teach people how to raise the dead?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I'm just catching up here...it struck me that as far as s.m.a.rt. objectives go, this has s. and m. in spades.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0