Thread: Purgatory: Speaking in tongues Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023107
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
What is your interpretation of 'speaking in tongues'? I have always thought that at the coming of the Holy Spirit the crowd heard what was said in their own languages, not in some different special language such as most people use the term nowadays. The modern speaking in tongues is to me incomprehensible babble which always sounds indulgent and artificial. Some may then claim I haven't been touched by the Spirit and therefore am not open to speaking in and understanding tongues, but I ask where is the proof? Surely it is preferable to share the Gospel in language with which the listener is familiar. It was wonderful that the crowd heard Christ's message in their own translation and I feel that it is beholden on us to share the message in language that the listener understands.
[ 20. September 2012, 13:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I'm an ex-charismatic.
I still do it, in private. It's a great way to pray when you have no words.
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
What is your interpretation of 'speaking in tongues'? I have always thought that at the coming of the Holy Spirit the crowd heard what was said in their own languages, not in some different special language such as most people use the term nowadays. The modern speaking in tongues is to me incomprehensible babble which always sounds indulgent and artificial. Some may then claim I haven't been touched by the Spirit and therefore am not open to speaking in and understanding tongues, but I ask where is the proof? Surely it is preferable to share the Gospel in language with which the listener is familiar. It was wonderful that the crowd heard Christ's message in their own translation and I feel that it is beholden on us to share the message in language that the listener understands.
Quite. Modern tongues is anti-intellectual, semi-hysterical, self-indulgent showing-off - and I write as one who did it for 15 years or so, at a charismatic church, before I came to my senses and realised what a dangerous, self-indulgent perversion of Christianity charismaticism is.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
A straightforward reading of the text in Acts 2 indicates that as bib says, the miracle on the day of Pentecost was more of a gift of interpretations than of tongues. Everyone heard the praises of God in their own language.
An alternative explanation is that this was an example of xenoglossy, ie the ability to speak in a language unknown to the speaker.
Either of these is different again to the phenomena of glossolalia, ie making sounds that are unintelligible. It seems fairly clear, though, that this is what the Corinthians and perhaps the Ephesian disciples in Acts were up to.
I have witnessed something that looked like xenoglossy on two occasions, one involving two people I know and for which I have no adequate natural explanation, and one involving preacher David Carr, previously discussed here, who spoke what sounded very much like Old French or Québecois (which I understand). I'm not convinced now that this wasn't faked (ie he had learned bits of the language).
Glossolialia is present in other religions besides christianity and the question of whether NT christians would recognise what 21st century charismatics do is moot. If 1 Corinthians is anything to go by, though, I suspect that Paul would remind them that intelligible speech is to be preferred over unintelligible speech.
All of that said, I can't see any reason why glossolalia cannot at least be used in some supernatural way in private intercession or praise in much the way Paul decribes, also in 1 Corinthians and possibly Romans.
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on
:
It looks very much as if tongues in Acts 2 are speaking in a way that could be understood by the crowd as speaking in their own languages.
But it looks as if tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is something different.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I think that Paul had a rather sensible attitude towards it. IIRC, he said he was all for glossolalia for private devotions (he used it himself on his own time), but it was only good for public worship if the congregation had an interpreter so they could be involved.
Do most communities who encourage the speaking of tongues on a regular basis at worship have someone who interprets?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Do most communities who encourage the speaking of tongues on a regular basis at worship have someone who interprets?
In my experience yes, but bizzarely, the "interpretation" often (although not always) comes out as a "prophecy".
In other words, it sounds more like something God is supposed to be saying to the congregation than something somebody in the congregation is saying to God (hence the frequent and non-biblical use of the term "message in tongues").
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Do most communities who encourage the speaking of tongues on a regular basis at worship have someone who interprets?
In my experience yes, but bizzarely, the "interpretation" often (although not always) comes out as a "prophecy".
Yes, this is my experience too! I don't remember a message in tongues with accompanying interpretation in my current church but at a previous church it happened quite often; and the interpretation was almost always a message from God. But the Biblical description of speaking in tongues is indeed (ISTM) that it is addressed to God, not a message from God. I wonder where this seemingly clear misunderstanding came from...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I remember seeing an interview Melvyn Bragg conducted with the author Jeanette Winterson, author of 'Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit' - a largely autobiographical novel about her Pentecostal childhood in Lancashire which was turned into an impressive BBC drama back in the late 1980s.
In the course of the interview she said that as a teenager she was recognised in her Pentecostal assembly as someone who had the gift of interpretation and that she would regularly 'interpret' glossalalic utterances.
When asked whether she could really do this, she said, 'No, I was making it up ...'
That's the whole problem with the standard charismatic interpretation of the activity described in 1 Corinthians. Unless there is some objective test - 'That guy was speaking Portuguese ...' then who knows whether the 'tongue' is an actual language or simply gobbledegook?
It's more likely to be the latter, of course and even in the single instance where an example of xenoglossy is known to science - in an occult setting as it happens - the evidence is disputed.
The whole 'tongues of angels' thing which is the fall-back position adopted by glossolalists to account for the incomprehensibility of their utterances strikes me as a rather far-fetched gloss on some Pauline rhetoric: 'Though I speak with the tongues of angels ...'
Even IF I could speak in angelic languages, the Apostle says, but had not love ...
Even IF I gave my body to be burned ...
He's exaggerating to make a point, not saying that he can actually speak angelic languages, were such a thing possible.
I'm with Eutychus on this one. I have heard of instances where known languages were apparently used in glossalalic prayer - indeed, my own brother-in-law is supposed to have been overheard reciting parts of Psalm 23 in Afrikaans by a South African member of the congregation at a house-group meeting one evening.
I know one or two other people who would make similar claims.
I remain open to the possibility but highly sceptical as to whether what passes for 'tongues' among 21st century charismatics is exactly what the Apostle Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians.
Those are difficult passages to understand and rather like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We have to fill in the gaps and make exegetical leaps of faith. That's fine, because the same holds true for other parts of the NT. It isn't an issue as long as we realise that what we are doing is trying to make the best from tantalising but fairly limited NT evidence.
Personally, I don't think there's sufficient information there to build an entire edifice of regular practice on - certainly not enough to suggest that it's a blue-print for how we conduct church services.
But there is sufficient evidence to suggest that these things can happen.
As for Boogie's comment about wordless praise or prayer - well yes, in that sense I suspect 'tongues' are rather like 'scat' singing in jazz. You can improvise and freewheel and there's a sense of 'release' involved - but whether it actually amounts to anything beyond the harmless release of endorphins is a moot point.
Some tongues-speaking and tongues-singing (does that still happen these days?) can be mellifluous and hauntingly beautiful and does evoke a sense of the numinous. Not all 'tongues' I've heard have been along the 'angabangarabangara' lines - 'shecameonahonda', 'aveabacardi', 'untiemebowtie' and the usual suspects ...
But I don't reckon it's any big deal.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Boogie posted:
quote:
I'm an ex-charismatic.
I still do it, in private. It's a great way to pray when you have no words.
I'm totally with Boogie on this one. Having found prayer difficult for some long time, I'm finding that praying in tongues (as I used to many moons ago) is giving me a great deal of help.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Without wishing to rain on anyone's parade or deny the reality of anyone's experience, I'm interested to know how 'tongues' can 'help' in prayer.
I can still 'speak in tongues' but no longer find it particularly helpful. I'd rather use 'set' or liturgical prayers interspersed with my own extemporary prayers (which have inevitably taken on a more 'liturgical' flavour themselves to some extent).
Ok, so my mind wonders at times, but the same thing used to happen when I 'prayed' or spoke more regularly in 'tongues'.
You can freewheel in tongues, but whether you are actually conveying any meaning through them is a moot point. You can inject some expression and emotion into them, though, and I s'pose this could count as 'praying with my spirit' rather than 'with my mind' (ie. intelligibly).
There's also the 'groans that words can't express' thing that the Apostle Paul refers to and for which I've not heard any very convincing exegesis.
Perhaps I'm answering my own question here, if intelligible prayer or set forms are proving dry or difficult then it might help to switch over to a form of wordless babble - but is it any more than that? Wouldn't reciting the two times table or singing 'One man went to mow, went to mow a meadow ...' or a nonsense rhyme ('Far and few, far and few is the land where the Jumblies live ...') have a similar effect?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
As it's one of those phenomena that has been experienced to a greater of lesser degree throughout the history of the church I would suggest that at its core it is entirely genuine.
Of course we have seen its abuse - as with anything there are those who take it too far or who 'make it up' but that doesn't negate or nullify the genuine experience of those who have 'enjoyed' its use.
I would if anyone could point to its use by the catholic mystics or early church fathers...
As far as the difference between a prayer language and public utterance/messages/prophecy is concerned, I would simply say that Paul speaks about the person who speaks in an unknown tongue edifying himself whereas the one who prophecies edifies the church. He then says that there should be an interpreter of the unknown tongue so that the church may indeed by edified - which rather suggests that Paul is saying that an interpreted tongue is a message, a prophecy for the edification of the church.
I think it is right that no one despises any of the gifts - let the person who has practical gifts not despise the more 'ecstatic' gifts. Likewise, I would like those who enjoy the gifts of tongues, interpretation, discernment, healing and deliverance, to regard gifts of service, helps, administration(!) as just as 'spiritual' and God-inspired and 'evidence' of the Spirit's infilling as those more spectacular ones.
Instead of us firing shots at each other decrying this gift or that, maybe the church would succeed better in its unity if we stopped trying to tell others their gifts are not real, can be explained away 'because I knew someone who didn't do it right', and celebrated the fact that in the church there are different gifts, different ministries, different abilities, but the same Lord - one faith, one baptism.
Just because you don't speak in tongues, or just because they don't know how to be celibate, or she doesn't know how to be a good administrator or he doesn't know how to preach, doesn't mean that we are not part of the Body.
Let the tongues speakers do it in private and in church with an interpreter.
Let the preachers preach.
Let the administrators keep the doors open,
Let the servers serve others, let the givers be generous.
In fact, let us all be generous about the gifts of others and value what people bring to the table.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
Part of the issue, I think, is the shift in English from the time of the KJV. Then the word 'tongue' was equally the flappy thing in your mouth and 'language' (as the word 'langue' still does in French). However, the second meaning has largely been lost in English, so that "speaking in tongues" is not understood to be the same as "speaking in languages". So tongues has largely become something other than speaking in a language unknown to the speaker (and 'interpretation' has become something different from translation).
This is not to dismiss the private use of 'tongues'. I myself find it good at times. But I am always a bit unsure if it really corresponds to what the NT refers to. When hearing others, perhaps naughtily, I try to gauge if what is being said could be sentences in a real language. It rarely is.
On the 'tongues of angels', a friend related that the late Rev. Dr Henry Hart, of Queens' College Cambridge - a Hebrew scholar - when reading 1 Cor 13 in college chapel, interpolated "and the tongues of angels is, of course, Hebrew". So, that's settled.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Without wishing to rain on anyone's parade or deny the reality of anyone's experience, I'm interested to know how 'tongues' can 'help' in prayer.
You might as well ask "how does prayer help?". It defies rational explanation.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
It looks very much as if tongues in Acts 2 are speaking in a way that could be understood by the crowd as speaking in their own languages.
But it looks as if tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is something different.
Yes, when I was in a church where 'speaking in tongues' sometimes occurred, it was interpreted as meaning two different things in those different passages.
I have heard at least one report of a person speaking in a language unknown to them but known to the hearer, but don't recall witnessing such a thing. I was much more likely to witness the 'speaking in a totally unknown language' phenomenon.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think 'suggests' is the strongest term that can be used in relation to any of this, Mudfrog. The fact is, with this sort of thing we can't ever possibly know for sure - 'we know in part and we prophecy in part'.
I'm not sure I see people decrying genuine spiritual gifts nor firing shots at each other on this thread. Steve H might be, he's a 'recovering charismatic' with an axe to grind.
If it sounds as if I'm doing that, then it certainly isn't my intention.
I may differ in the way I think this stuff 'works' - but it's only on the level of my own personal opinion. I tend to think that if there were to be an interpretation of a tongue it would be more along the lines of a prayer than a 'message' to the church in the way that a prophecy might be ... but hey, I wouldn't go to the stake over it.
If people find glossolalia helpful in their own devotions, then that's fine. I certainly wouldn't be out to stop them. I am interested in how and why they find it useful and helpful though, as it is a practice I have largely abandoned myself.
That doesn't mean that others should also abandon it or allow it to slide into the background, but it does strike me as grounds for discussion.
And as for the importance of practical gifts alongside the more 'supernatural' endowments, then yes, absolutely ...
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for Boogie's comment about wordless praise or prayer - well yes, in that sense I suspect 'tongues' are rather like 'scat' singing in jazz. You can improvise and freewheel and there's a sense of 'release' involved - but whether it actually amounts to anything beyond the harmless release of endorphins is a moot point.
To be fair, it often doesn't even cheer me up - what it does do is give me focus, like any chant would do. I have a 100% distractable mind, so need some way of 'switching off' the noise. I have tried many things - and this is what works for me.
As far as singing goes I agree - it can be hellish. But when it's not so it is just beautiful. I can't sing a note in normal words - but when singing in tongues with a group I harmonise like a pro!
I still go to some CCR (Catholic Charismatic Renewal) services just to experience it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Eutychus - I don't often disagree with you, but I think you've got the wrong end of my stick on this one.
'You might as well ask "how does prayer help?". It defies rational explanation.'
Of course, I'm not suggesting that we can 'explain' prayer anymore than we can 'explain' music or art or the effect of a beautiful sunset or something transcendent in a spiritual or religious context.
All I was angling at is how 'tongues' might help when other forms of prayer apparently don't. Nicodemia says that she is finding prayer difficult (we all do to a greater or lesser extent, I'm sure) and that tongues helps her through this.
I'm interested in unpacking how and why ... that won't take the 'mystery' away from it or reduce it to a set of intellectual propositions - but these things are worked out on a human stage and are therefore, I submit, legitimate for us to lay open to human scrutiny ...
Am I making sense?
Or am I speaking in Gamalian tongues?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I have heard at least one report of a person speaking in a language unknown to them but known to the hearer, but don't recall witnessing such a thing.
Stanley Frodsham's classic With Signs Following, of which I have a copy somewhere, has an entire book of such stories.
Unfortunately, they are presented as just that: stories.
Recent experience with Bethel has helped confirm my strong conviction that a lot of what passes for the miraculous in contemporary christian circles is simply down to poor reporting standards.
Christians are not the only ones to suffer from this but they do seem to be especially prone as a group in which trust is automatic, enthusiasim frequent, and the prospect of divine judgement for stepping out of line often abused by those in authority.
People want testimonies that reinforce their beliefs. Add to that the idea that healthy doubt is somehow equivalent to the mortal sin of unbelief (or at the very least "letting the side down") and you have a climate in which, for every genuine story there might be, there are hundreds of badly distorted ones and perhaps not a few deliberately made up to mislead.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've cross posted with Boogie, but she's attempted to answer my question and in a way that I can follow and relate to.
I might be churlish and suggest that the ability to harmonise in a 'tongues' context rather than other contexts doesn't necessarily 'prove' anything. My wife is musical and can explain exactly what happens 'technically' when people start to extemporise around a set of notes or musical phrases when 'singing in tongues.'
It has a melding effect that is very evocative and beautiful but also very easy to achieve. She believes that you could achieve the same effect very quickly and just as convincingly in a context where there isn't any faith involved whatsoever.
That said - I would agree with Boogie that I have known occasions where 'singing in tongues' has lifted a congregation to a level of numinousity - if that's the right word! that I have rarely - if ever - encountered in any other context.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Wouldn't reciting the two times table or singing 'One man went to mow, went to mow a meadow ...' or a nonsense rhyme ('Far and few, far and few is the land where the Jumblies live ...') have a similar effect?
No, it doesn't.
I just tried.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My wife is musical and can explain exactly what happens 'technically' when people start to extemporise around a set of notes or musical phrases when 'singing in tongues.'
It has a melding effect that is very evocative and beautiful but also very easy to achieve. She believes that you could achieve the same effect very quickly and just as convincingly in a context where there isn't any faith involved whatsoever.
Yes, I agree with her 100%. My husband is musical and says the same. In the days when I was a full on charismatic he was very patient in waiting for me to get over it - I did!
quote:
That said - I would agree with Boogie that I have known occasions where 'singing in tongues' has lifted a congregation to a level of numinousity - if that's the right word! that I have rarely - if ever - encountered in any other context.
I would suggest that this is due to the focus and purpose of the singing - worship. So we are not, primarily, thinking of ourselves - but reaching out to worship.
So we sense 'God' through that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would suggest that this is due to the focus and purpose of the singing - worship. So we are not, primarily, thinking of ourselves - but reaching out to worship.
So we sense 'God' through that.
I think I agree with that.
My take on just about any physical thing that we do as christians, from prayer through to communion via falling on the floor or speaking in tongues, is that these practices themselves have no inherent moral or spiritual value in and of themselves. They are morally neutral. What counts is what one does with or during them and with what intent.
I guess that's what I think Jesus means by worshipping God "in Spirit and in truth".
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Boogie: No, it doesn't.
I just tried.
What if you'd repeat the same nonsense rhyme a hundred times?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
FWIW, I remember being advised, when revising for my GCSEs, to listen to ethnic radio stations. Allegedly, the music would help me concentrate, but because I wouldn't understand the words, I wouldn't be distracted by thinking about them.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H
Modern tongues is anti-intellectual, semi-hysterical, self-indulgent showing-off...
I am not quite sure exactly what you mean by "modern tongues", but I can't see how the use of tongues in private prayer and worship can be "showing off", unless one is showing off to God!
As for being "anti-intellectual", yes, it's true that speaking in a language that is not understood bypasses the faculty of comprehension, but then I suppose we could say the same about the "language" of sexual experience, or the "language" of the taste of strawberries and cream. Are these also "anti-intellectual"? And the same examples can be used to rebuff the charge of "self-indulgent". Is the experience of the Holy Spirit "self-indulgent", in that He comes with joy and peace and a deep sense of fulfilment and spiritual reality? These are all wonderful experiences. Are they also "self-indulgent"?
From my experience there is absolutely nothing hysterical or "semi-hysterical" about speaking in tongues. There is certainly the counterfeit (as there is for everything in the Christian life), which may involve trances and hysteria, but genuine tongues do not involve this at all. So don't reject the genuine because you have experienced and / or observed the fake.
Coming back to the charge of "anti-intellectualism": given that our minds are finite, it follows logically that there are many aspects of life that defy analysis. God understands very many things that we do not, and indeed cannot. Anyone who denies this denies simple logic. How can finite minds possibly encompass the mind of God? They obviously cannot. So therefore it would seem very strange indeed that it is God's will that the entire spiritual life should be reduced to the merely intellectual. That speaks of a deeply impoverished life. There are times when the words of the vernacular fail, and we may need to express ourselves to God (usually privately) as the Holy Spirit leads in a way that goes beyond the intellect (but does not subvert the intellect). I am not suggesting that this is the only way to engage with mystery, and there are other ways of doing this, but I have found that it helps. But there is no hysteria, no trance, no weirdness about it at all.
Having said all this, I can thoroughly understand your concerns about the charismatic movement (if that phrase is not too "old hat" now). I have the same strong reservations, and there is indeed a huge amount of abuse, general crassness and conceited self-obsession within that form of churchmanship
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
Does it really matter if the gift of tongues experienced by the Pentematics is the same gift as was given to the disciples on the day of Pentecost.
Yes. It does matter to some, because they see the early church as a template to be copied. So they make explanations of what they do which explain how it fits in with the utopia of the early church. Everything was fine until Constantine.
But the early church was not a utopia. Many of the Epistles were written to combat heresies that were springing up. A literal reading of the Epistles and Acts shows a church which was every bit a screwed up as the modern one.
Are tongues, as practised in the modern church the same gift that was given to the Apostles at Pentecost? We have no way of telling.
But what if we do not take the early church as a template. If we don't limit the Holy Spirit to doing only those things mentioned in the Bible. If we believe that the Holy Spirit is God, and that God can do whatever he wills. If we believe that God is capable of doing a new thing, then what?
Then the question about tongues changes from, "Is this the same gift the Apostles experienced," to, " Is this God's gift to the Church now." If it is God's gift to the Church now, and I believe it is, then the matter of whether it is the same gift becomes less significant. I don't have any reason to believe that the list of gifts in the Bible is exhaustive, we are only told in the epistles of those which were being used badly. There could have been others.
Yes we have to be careful. The Spirit is God and has the nature of God. If he were to lead someone to do or say anything that was against God's nature as revealed in scripture we would do well to be at least highly sceptical. And if the Spirit should give a gift that is not mentioned in the Bible then the rules in the Bible on the use of gifts still apply.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I agree with both Eutychus and Boogie upthread ...
@EytemologicalEvangelical - how do you KNOW that the tongues you've experienced are the genuine article and not 'fake'? Because you haven't gone into a trance-like state and it feels normal and not wierd?
Well, it seems that from experiments into these things that even people with no faith whatsoever can 'speak in tongues' with a modicum of training. Heck, I could probably induce someone who was fairly susceptible to 'speak in tongues' in just five or ten minutes with a wee bit of counselling and suggestions as to how to make 'it' happen ... no trances, no goose-bumps, not altered states of consciousness ...
How do you KNOW that what you've experienced isn't the same as what I've just described?
As for the sense of peace, joy and so on - well, there are lots of ways that we can experience those things and they are by no means the sole province of ecstatics or charismatics (I'd suggest that most charismatics are not 'ecstatic' in the altered state sense).
In that respect, I don't see any difference between charismatic and non-charismatic Christians. You can find the same depth of spiritual contentment, joy and so on - and the reverse - in any of the Christian traditions. We can all think of people who exemplify the sense of having a particularly deep 'walk with God' - 'it is well with my soul' and so on - be they Anglicans, Baptists, Brethren Catholics, Pentecostals, Salvationists or whatever else ...
That's not to decry the use of spiritual gifts - far from it - but I often wonder what some of the more extravagant claims add to the party.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Boogie: No, it doesn't.
I just tried.
What if you'd repeat the same nonsense rhyme a hundred times?
That's my problem with things like Taize and other meditations - I can't, the repetition means my thoughts can begin to wander. Tongues helps because (in my case) it's not repetitive. So I can pray/meditate without getting distracted by my own thoughts. It gives me focus.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
how do you KNOW that the tongues you've experienced are the genuine article and not 'fake'? Because you haven't gone into a trance-like state and it feels normal and not wierd?
One could ask the same question about one's own relationship with God. How does any Christian "know" that he is in contact with God and not the devil or just some hallucination? Is God or the Holy Spirit only "safe" when He is a construct that can be fully explained in some entirely intellectual way? Is there no such thing as spiritual experience that we can actually come to recognise as genuine and therefore trust?
The experience of speaking in tongues cannot be isolated from one's whole experience of God through the Holy Spirit. And therefore it is through my own relationship with and experience of God that I judge the validity of particular spiritual gifts. I know that this may sound subjective (in one sense it is), but I have no need to convince anyone else that my experience of speaking in tongues is valid. It's an issue for me and me alone. I have resolved it within myself to my own satisfaction.
quote:
Well, it seems that from experiments into these things that even people with no faith whatsoever can 'speak in tongues' with a modicum of training. Heck, I could probably induce someone who was fairly susceptible to 'speak in tongues' in just five or ten minutes with a wee bit of counselling and suggestions as to how to make 'it' happen ... no trances, no goose-bumps, not altered states of consciousness ...
Of course that's true. But this goes back to the point I made above: you cannot isolate any spiritual gift from the general spiritual experience of the Holy Spirit, and therefore naturalistically fabricating the effects of the work of the Holy Spirit is irrelevant.
quote:
As for the sense of peace, joy and so on - well, there are lots of ways that we can experience those things and they are by no means the sole province of ecstatics or charismatics (I'd suggest that most charismatics are not 'ecstatic' in the altered state sense).
I quite agree. I can't see how that point contradicts anything I wrote earlier.
quote:
In that respect, I don't see any difference between charismatic and non-charismatic Christians. You can find the same depth of spiritual contentment, joy and so on - and the reverse - in any of the Christian traditions. We can all think of people who exemplify the sense of having a particularly deep 'walk with God' - 'it is well with my soul' and so on - be they Anglicans, Baptists, Brethren Catholics, Pentecostals, Salvationists or whatever else ...
Again I agree. I have never said otherwise. In fact, I am quite critical of much that goes by the name of "charismatic", and I don't think I would like to identify myself with charismatics, to be honest. But something does not become invalid just because there are many people who can happily and joyfully live without it. I am sure there are many very fulfilled celibates. Does that mean that.... (I think you can guess how to complete this sentence) ...?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
But what if we do not take the early church as a template. If we don't limit the Holy Spirit to doing only those things mentioned in the Bible. If we believe that the Holy Spirit is God, and that God can do whatever he wills. If we believe that God is capable of doing a new thing, then what?
That might be ok, except that I think it can be a disingenuous line of reasoning.
In my experience many of those arguing for newfangled phenomena such as gold teeth and angel feathers also attempt to attach legitimacy to these things by appeal to the Bible as an authority.
If people don't in practice actually view the Bible as having much authority "in matters of faith and conduct" (and when all's said and done, I think many contemporary charismatics don't) then it would be more honest to stop pretending they do.
To put that another way, if it is argued that "tongues" experienced today do not need to be compared to the NT record in any way, then there's no scriptural basis for claiming they are inspired by the Spirit at all.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Boogie: That's my problem with things like Taize and other meditations - I can't, the repetition means my thoughts can begin to wander.
I thought that this was the point?
To me, these things are basically about achieving some of the preliminary stages of a trance state.
When you repeat the same text or chant over and over again, your mind drifts away from the actual text of the chant. But in my case, it doesn't go to "Do I have to buy potatoes this afternoon?" either. It goes into some kind of meditative state.
I haven't done it, but it seems to me that speaking in tongues is a lot like playing an improvised jazz solo. In the first seconds, you have to think consciously about choosing the syllables or the notes, but after a while it becomes a self sustaining process, and your mind starts to wander in the same meditative way.
So to me, repetition and speaking in tongues are quite similar in their effects. But I guess it depends on the person.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
I'm dubious of the claim that 'tongues' has been a regular part of the Church for 2000 years. I really doubt it. I know a bit about the 16th through 18th-century church in much of Europe and can't think of a single example—let alone a congregation going 'shama-shama-kawai', as you hear these days.
I don't get it. Is 'speaking in tongues' a Spiritual gift as Paul writes? In other words, from the Holy Spirit? In which case the whole idea of practicing it or 'trying it out', as Nicky and Sandy regularly encouraged at HTB, seems preposterous. I guarantee that Derren Brown could officiate a service at one of these kinds of churches (HTB, Vineyard, etc.) and get them to bark like dogs and go 'lippy, scooby, shabba, shabba, ker-ding' and convince them they were 'speaking in tongues'. They've left little or no room for discernent.
As with so many of these things emerging from Charismania, they create a new paradigm to deflect scepticism.
K.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
It looks very much as if tongues in Acts 2 are speaking in a way that could be understood by the crowd as speaking in their own languages.
But it looks as if tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is something different.
Acts 2 says that all of the 120 disciples spoke in tongues. Luke tells us that at least some of those 120 utterances were xenolalia but that does not discount the possible presence of glossolalia amongst the 120 also. In this respect it is possible to see perfect continuity between Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 13:1 where the Apostle Paul identifies two broad categories of tongues: those of men (xenolalia) anne those of angels (glossolalia).
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Without wishing to rain on anyone's parade or deny the reality of anyone's experience, I'm interested to know how 'tongues' can 'help' in prayer.
....There's also the 'groans that words can't express' thing that the Apostle Paul refers to and for which I've not heard any very convincing exegesis.
IMO you might have answered your own question there with that Rom 8 ref. One certainly can exegete it that way...
[Although my hermeneutic might equally be along the lines of "Shiiiiit, Lord!!! Faaaarrk!" (Which I hope will be viewed as sincere rather than blasphemous! )]
[ 30. May 2012, 11:57: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
When you repeat the same text or chant over and over again, your mind drifts away from the actual text of the chant. But in my case, it doesn't go to "Do I have to buy potatoes this afternoon?" either. It goes into some kind of meditative state.
Painting does that for me - but it's meditation/relaxation - so it doesn't matter what my mind does!
If I want to keep focussed on God in prayer then tongues works for me.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
@Gamaliel The Apostle Paul said this: quote:
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.
If an Apostle as great as Paul was grateful to God for this charism then I would suggest that gratitude is the appropriate response.
It seems to me that expressing gratitude to God tongues are closely linked in Paul's thinking. quote:
Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.
Tongues therefore is something to be grateful for because it enables one to privately give supernatural thanks to God. There is a circularity there, I think.
[ 30. May 2012, 12:06: Message edited by: Daron ]
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
It looks very much as if tongues in Acts 2 are speaking in a way that could be understood by the crowd as speaking in their own languages.
But it looks as if tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is something different.
Acts 2 says that all of the 120 disciples spoke in tongues. Luke tells us that at least some of those 120 utterances were xenolalia but that does not discount the possible presence of glossolalia amongst the 120 also. In this respect it is possible to see perfect continuity between Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 13:1 where the Apostle Paul identifies two broad categories of tongues: those of men (xenolalia) anne those of angels (glossolalia).
You seem to be overlooking one very important word in 1 Corinthians 13:1: If I speak in the tongues…
K.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Boogie: Painting does that for me - but it's meditation/relaxation - so it doesn't matter what my mind does!
If I want to keep focussed on God in prayer then tongues works for me.
I guess it depends on your theology. To me, whenever we humans transcend ourselves, in love, in art, in caring, in music... then God is there, and we manage to get a little bit closer to Him.
Of course, this doesn't mean that I can do my religion by watching art or playing music alone. I need the intellectual, communal etc. sides as well. But personally, art and music form one of the ways in which I can try to experience God.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
What type of conditional 'if' do you think is in view in 1 Cor 13:1?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
To me, these things are basically about achieving some of the preliminary stages of a trance state.
...
So to me, repetition and speaking in tongues are quite similar in their effects. But I guess it depends on the person.
But speaking in tongues does not necessarily cause a trance like state. That is certainly not my experience (in fact, the very opposite - the mind is not subverted in any way at all). The focus in worship and prayer is God, and there comes a point where the words of the vernacular fail. This is understandable, unless we really want our worship of God to be entirely limited to the verbal constructs that we can devise. I think sometimes it's good to be reminded that God is much bigger than "Christianity" with all its formulations, caveats and provisos. I find tongues helps me in this regard.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't get it. Is 'speaking in tongues' a Spiritual gift as Paul writes? In other words, from the Holy Spirit? In which case the whole idea of practicing it or 'trying it out', as Nicky and Sandy regularly encouraged at HTB, seems preposterous.
They are operating according to the idea that the Father gives good gifts to those who ask, and that if the Father chooses to grant such requests then an utterance in tongues becomes a distinct possibility.
It's the same with my children. If my child asked for a painting set for his birthday, I would likely give it to him. Upon receipt of that gift he would have the choice to try it out or not. The same principle applies with charismata.
He would be a peculiar kid if upon receipt of the gift that he'd asked for he simply shoved it to the back of the cupboard and carried on as before.
[ 30. May 2012, 12:19: Message edited by: Daron ]
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on
:
Ditto with preaching. Clearly a spiritual gift. Clearly meant to be tested, practised and so on.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
What type of conditional 'if' do you think is in view in 1 Cor 13:1?
I suspect, to judge from the rest of the sentence, that it is the first conditional. But in the larger context, the possibility of it being realised isn't clear. Shortly after this Paul admonishes them for speaking in tongues (of what sort, I don't know) in 1 Corinthians 14:15-16. So I suspect that Paul is telling them that love should be a bigger concern and that their 'speaking in tongues' isn't helping anyone.
K.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't get it. Is 'speaking in tongues' a Spiritual gift as Paul writes? In other words, from the Holy Spirit? In which case the whole idea of practicing it or 'trying it out', as Nicky and Sandy regularly encouraged at HTB, seems preposterous.
They are operating according to the idea that the Father gives good gifts to those who ask, and that if the Father chooses to grant such requests then an utterance in tongues becomes a distinct possibility.
It's the same with my children. If my child asked for a painting set for his birthday, I would likely give it to him. Upon receipt of that gift he would have the choice to try it out or not. The same principle applies with charismata.
He would be a peculiar kid if upon receipt of the gift that he'd asked for he simply shoved it to the back of the cupboard and carried on as before.
Right. So learning to paint and speaking in tongues are learned in the same way? Receiving a gift from God (whether you asked for it or not) has little or nothing to do with you ('you'/'me' the obsession of the charismatics). If it is supernatural, then you don't need to learn it—that's the point. What is (mostly) happening is that people make up (though conditioning) their own gobbledygook and then declare it a 'gift of God'. In that sense, you are dead right about comparing it with learning to paint.
K.
Posted by Cedd (# 8436) on
:
I once helped on an Alpha Course "Holy Spirit weekend" and I witnessed a terrible abuse of 'speaking in tongues'.
One of the leaders was of the view that you were simply not a Christian in any meaningful sense unless you could produce meaningless babble (without interpretation) on demand and she got people to do this by holding their shoulders and making them copy her babble. It was bad theology and spiritual abuse and I fell out with the leaders of that course shortly thereafter.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Daron, I've always thought of you as a fairly competent exegete on these boards, but you've displayed a fair few hermeneutical leaps in your posts above.
There is a conditional in the Pauline declaration - 'IF I speak in the tongues of angels ...'
It's a rhetorical flourish. He's saying 'Look folks, even IF I could speak in the tongues of angels and have not love ...'
Same as the thing about giving up his body to be burned.
Sure, the Apostle also says that he DOES speak in tongues - but does that mean it's the 'tongues of angels'? I'm not sure it does.
Where in the Bible does it say that glossolalia = 'the tongues of angels'?
We have an instance of xenoglossy in Acts 2 but we don't know whether the other occurrences in Acts were xenoglossy or glossolalia.
In fact, we know very little about the Biblical phenomena at all. Which is why I'm suggesting that we aren't in a position to create an elaborate interpretative framework upon it.
As for the father giving good gifts thing, I've heard that a million times as though that in and of itself is proof positive that the ability to speak in tongues is something God given in some kind of unmediated way rather than, as appears so often to be the case, a form of 'learned behaviour' that people are socialised into.
Sure, I've heard of instances where people have apparently spontaneously spoken in tongues without any peer-pressure or instruction - or even being aware that there is such a thing.
But by and large these things are 'taught' rather than simply 'caught' and it's this which gives me pause.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'm dubious of the claim that 'tongues' has been a regular part of the Church for 2000 years. I really doubt it. I know a bit about the 16th through 18th-century church in much of Europe and can't think of a single example
You're quite right that an unbroken tradition of tongues-speaking throughout church history cannot be demonstrated.
As regards the specific era to which you refer, there is some evidence of the phenomenon amongst the Huguenot "Camisards" in the Cevennes region between the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) and the first decade of the eighteenth century.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
We had "tongues" and "interpretation" in our church a couple of weeks ago.
The "tongue" was russian, the speaker was our Archbishop who isn't that fluent in english, and the "interpreter" was one of the congregation who spoke both russian and english.
All in all it was very edifying!
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
*sigh* there are actually some non-charismatic evangelicals that explain the NT phenomena in precisely that way: a straightforward interpretation of someone speaking their native language that is unknown to the listeners.
It obviously wasn't this going on in Acts otherwise there would have been nothing to report.
Mind you in my pre-charismatic (as opposed to post-charismatic) days I once got very worried by what sounded like a "message in tongues" in our little French church. It took some while for me to realise it was a prayer in English with a heavy Geordie accent.
[ 30. May 2012, 13:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
What type of conditional 'if' do you think is in view in 1 Cor 13:1?
I suspect, to judge from the rest of the sentence, that it is the first conditional. But in the larger context, the possibility of it being realised isn't clear. Shortly after this Paul admonishes them for speaking in tongues (of what sort, I don't know) in 1 Corinthians 14:15-16. So I suspect that Paul is telling them that love should be a bigger concern and that their 'speaking in tongues' isn't helping anyone.
K.
But he isn't rubbishing the gift of tongues any more than he is rubbishing the situation 'IF I have the gift of prophecy' or 'IF I have a faith that can move mountains.' or 'IF I give all I possess to the poor.'
He isn't saying that we should forget tongues, prophecy, faith and generosity/charity (and even martyrdom) in favour of some amorphous 'love'. He is surely saying that these things should all, and equally, be done in the context of love that is patient, kind, etc...
Nowhere does Paul say do not speak in tongues, just love each other. He says, speak in tongues, have faith, prophesy and give to the poor and do it lovingly.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
According to this interesting article, the Apostolic Fathers understood 'tongues' to be a real language with interpretation. They never spoke of the two kinds of 'tongues' that we are here, they only understood it as a human language with interpretation.
FWIW.
K.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But speaking in tongues does not necessarily cause a trance like state. That is certainly not my experience (in fact, the very opposite - the mind is not subverted in any way at all). The focus in worship and prayer is God, and there comes a point where the words of the vernacular fail. This is understandable, unless we really want our worship of God to be entirely limited to the verbal constructs that we can devise. I think sometimes it's good to be reminded that God is much bigger than "Christianity" with all its formulations, caveats and provisos. I find tongues helps me in this regard.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Daron, I've always thought of you as a fairly competent exegete on these boards, but you've displayed a fair few hermeneutical leaps in your posts above.
There is a conditional in the Pauline declaration - 'IF I speak in the tongues of angels ...'
It's a rhetorical flourish. He's saying 'Look folks, even IF I could speak in the tongues of angels and have not love ...'
Is he?
I can easily say to my wife: 'If I walk down to Tescos I have to make sure I put my good shoes on or else my feet hurt.'
It means the same as 'when' because I often walk down to Tesco - but I will still say 'IF'.
Likewise, she might say to me, 'Will you go and buy a loaf of bread?' and I will reply, 'If I'm going to Tesco you'll need to give me some money.'
The intention is that I WILL go but there is a requirement.
Surely Paul is saying If in the sense of whenever I speak, whenever I have faith, whenever I use the gift of prophecy, whenever I give to the poor.
Of course, he isn't saying that everyone - or he himself - has all these gifts, but he is saying that 'when' they are exercised, they should all (tongues included) be used and received and accepted lovingly.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've come across that particular 'take' on tongues before, Komensky. Some Orthodox hold to it - I think Josephine does on these boards - but others don't and take an approach which is similar to that outlined by Eutychus - that what the Apostle Paul was referring to was unlearned languages or glossolalia rather than simply someone speaking their own learned language with an interpreter present. An exegesis which suggest the latter misses out some of the detail.
I'm with Mudfrog. The Apostle Paul wasn't telling people NOT to speak in tongues - whatever they were or are - but to do everything in the context of love.
I tend to think that the old Wesleyan Holiness types, exemplified by the Church of the Nazarene, had the right approach - 'Do not forbid, do not promote.'
Some posters are getting quite touchy here - as though I'm daring to question their 'gift' or the Giver of all gifts. I'm certainly not trying to 'forbid speaking in tongues' but I am suggesting that we assess these things in the clear light of day.
The fact that people are apparently able to 'learn' how to speak in tongues charismatic fashion suggests - to me at least - that it may not be supernatural in origin (at least not most of the time).
If it were supernatural in origin then people wouldn't be exhorted to practice it or adopt particular processes to make it more likely to happen. The worst I heard of was someone being instructed to 'say Coca-Cola backwards ...'
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Ok - that sort of thing doesn't happen so obviously in nice Anglican charismatic circles but these things are still 'induced' to a large extent it seems to me. I know of a woman who started speaking in tongues one morning as she was peeling the spuds. I have less difficulty with that than I do with the lengths that the Sandy Millars, Nicky Gumbels and other assorted charismatics of this world go about trying to get their congregations to do this stuff.
Incidentally, linguists who've studied glossolalia have found that most people seem to copy - however unintentionally - the sounds and 'phrases' used by their church leaders or other dominant figures in the congregation - yet another indication that these things may be induced to a large extent.
A lot of it is about group bonding and response to peer behaviour it appears to me - various levels of suggestibility.
What strikes me about Daron and EytemologicalEvangelical is that they are quite prepared to accept that it might be phoney for other people but not for them - as if somehow they are above all of that. 'That person over there might be making it up but I'm not ...'
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
What type of conditional 'if' do you think is in view in 1 Cor 13:1?
I suspect, to judge from the rest of the sentence, that it is the first conditional. But in the larger context, the possibility of it being realised isn't clear. Shortly after this Paul admonishes them for speaking in tongues (of what sort, I don't know) in 1 Corinthians 14:15-16. So I suspect that Paul is telling them that love should be a bigger concern and that their 'speaking in tongues' isn't helping anyone.
K.
To get a bit literally Orwellian, surely it's not a matter of "tongues bad, love good" but, rather, "tongues good, love better"?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Daron, I've always thought of you as a fairly competent exegete on these boards, but you've displayed a fair few hermeneutical leaps in your posts above.
There is a conditional in the Pauline declaration - 'IF I speak in the tongues of angels ...'
It's a rhetorical flourish. He's saying 'Look folks, even IF I could speak in the tongues of angels and have not love ...'
Same as the thing about giving up his body to be burned.
Where is the conclusive evidence that this is merely a "rhetorical flourish"?
Let's look at the passage:
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. (NKJV)
It's clear that Paul is referring to activities which are possible within the Christian life, but taken to the point of either greatest commitment or to an unrealistic extreme. So there certainly is an element of hyperbole, hence "though I understand all mysteries and all knowledge", which is clearly impossible for any human being, but it certainly includes the possibility of understanding many mysteries. "Though I give my body to be burnt" is possible, but an example of extreme commitment to some ideal.
Now the question is: what about the idea of "speaking in the tongues of angels"? Is this an unusual though possible activity for a Christian, or an impossibility? The only way we can decide is on the basis of corroborating evidence.
Certainly we cannot build a theology of glossolalia from this passage alone, but there is evidence (especially in the context of the general argument in 1 Corinthians 12-14) that supports the view that tongues may include languages unknown to man.
Clearly the whole argument in 1 Corinthians 12:1-25 indicates that tongues that are not interpreted will be incomprehensible to other people - which contradicts the scenario of Acts 2. The tongues of Acts 2 were not interpreted in another human language but were understood directly. This is strong evidence that supports the view that tongues may sometimes be "the tongues of angels" referred to in 1 Corinthians 13:1.
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 1 Corinthians 14:14. Could this be any clearer? This is an unknown tongue. Now, of course, it could be argued that this was a human tongue unknown to the speaker, but not necessarily some of the hearers. But the context states that such a gift of tongues should be private and not shared publicly without interpretation. But why would interpretation be needed, if the hearers could understand the language? And if someone were to argue that interpretation was needed because not everyone in the assembly could understand the language (though some could), then one would have to ask why Paul made clear that tongues without interpretation were to be kept completely private, given that such tongues would indeed be useful for those in the assembly who could understand them?
The style of Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 13 along with the reasoning in chapter 14 indicates that Daron is quite right to state...
quote:
In this respect it is possible to see perfect continuity between Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 13:1 where the Apostle Paul identifies two broad categories of tongues: those of men (xenolalia) anne those of angels (glossolalia).
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Sorry to post again - I was just ruminating on tongue speaking in the middle ages and came to the conclusion that if I were a 15th century monk who suddenly started babbling away I would probably do all in my power to keep it a total and utter secret. Wouldn't want to burned at the stake for being in league with Satan, would I?
I would wager that there were some very 'quiet' tongues speakers in those days!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, so the Apostle Paul was also saying that he was definitely going to give his body to be burned (whatever that means) was he, Mudfrog?
I'm agreeing with you on the central thrust - which is that whatever is done should be done in a context of love - but it doesn't necessarily follow that the Apostle Paul is saying that glossolalia = 'the tongues of angels.'
I find that a hermeneutical leap too far.
There's nothing in the context that suggests that Paul believes that the Corinthians were speaking in angelic languages.
That begs the question as to what the 'languages' he is talking about were. I suggest that we pays our money and we makes our choice because it ain't always clear ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry to double-post - but I have come across accounts of Orthodox monks apparently speaking in tongues and being advised by their spiritual director to keep it to themselves.
That's generally the advice contemporary Orthodox would give, I suspect.
There are also accounts in medieval hagiographies of apparent xenoglossy - St David of Wales was supposed to have spoken in unlearned languages for practical purposes on a pilgrimage to Rome I seem to remember from one account.
I'm sure you're right that people have spontaneously spoken in tongues at various eras and not known what it was etc. I know of instances in Anglican convents today where that has apparently happened.
But I'm still not completely convinced that either the pro-tongues lobby nor the anti-tongues lobby have got their exegesis right on this one.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: But speaking in tongues does not necessarily cause a trance like state. That is certainly not my experience (in fact, the very opposite - the mind is not subverted in any way at all). The focus in worship and prayer is God, and there comes a point where the words of the vernacular fail. This is understandable, unless we really want our worship of God to be entirely limited to the verbal constructs that we can devise. I think sometimes it's good to be reminded that God is much bigger than "Christianity" with all its formulations, caveats and provisos. I find tongues helps me in this regard.
I definitely agree that we can't fully understand god through words, logic and formulations. So, if praying in tongues can be reminder of that... I guess I can get that.
(But I'm also guessing that we have different definitions of what constitutes a 'trance' state.)
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog
Sorry to post again - I was just ruminating on tongue speaking in the middle ages and came to the conclusion that if I were a 15th century monk who suddenly started babbling away I would probably do all in my power to keep it a total and utter secret. Wouldn't want to burned at the stake for being in league with Satan, would I?
I would wager that there were some very 'quiet' tongues speakers in those days!
A very good point indeed.
As the cliche goes: history is the story of the winners. While we can't argue from silence, it is absurd to assume that the only beliefs and practices of the Church were those recorded for posterity.
That is why arguments based on church history are extremely dodgy, IMHO.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
[QUOTE]EtymologicalEvangelical:[qb] But speaking in tongues does not necessarily cause a trance like state. ... (But I'm also guessing that we have different definitions of what constitutes a 'trance' state.)
I agree, too. I can pray in tongues while I'm driving, for instance, with my mind fully alert yet dissociated from my actual words. Of course I am thinking of God too, it's not mere babbling.
IME tongues are very useful when I am in a fix about how to pray and words have failed me - I can ask the Spirit to pray "through" me.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
That is why arguments based on church history are extremely dodgy, IMHO.
No dodgier than arguments from silence.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
What type of conditional 'if' do you think is in view in 1 Cor 13:1?
I suspect, to judge from the rest of the sentence, that it is the first conditional. But in the larger context, the possibility of it being realised isn't clear. Shortly after this Paul admonishes them for speaking in tongues (of what sort, I don't know) in 1 Corinthians 14:15-16. So I suspect that Paul is telling them that love should be a bigger concern and that their 'speaking in tongues' isn't helping anyone.
That's a perfectly acceptable reading but it doesn't change the fact that the Apostle Paul mentions two categories of tongues: those of men and those of angels. Precisely what those categories are is debatable, but at the very least it suggests that the existence of different kinds, categories or 'species' of tongues are discussed in Scripture.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
That is why arguments based on church history are extremely dodgy, IMHO.
No dodgier than arguments from silence.
I absolutely agree. That is why I said (in my last post, in the bit you didn't quote) that we cannot argue from silence.
But claiming that something is somehow invalid because it was not a feature of church life for hundreds of years, is not really much of an argument, because we would need to establish that such a practice was the kind that would have been recorded.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
What strikes me about Daron and EytemologicalEvangelical is that they are quite prepared to accept that it might be phoney for other people but not for them - as if somehow they are above all of that. 'That person over there might be making it up but I'm not ...'
And where is your evidence for this rather insulting assertion?
Explain yourself.
If you can't, then an apology might be appropriate.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't get it. Is 'speaking in tongues' a Spiritual gift as Paul writes? In other words, from the Holy Spirit? In which case the whole idea of practicing it or 'trying it out', as Nicky and Sandy regularly encouraged at HTB, seems preposterous.
They are operating according to the idea that the Father gives good gifts to those who ask, and that if the Father chooses to grant such requests then an utterance in tongues becomes a distinct possibility.
It's the same with my children. If my child asked for a painting set for his birthday, I would likely give it to him. Upon receipt of that gift he would have the choice to try it out or not. The same principle applies with charismata.
He would be a peculiar kid if upon receipt of the gift that he'd asked for he simply shoved it to the back of the cupboard and carried on as before.
Right. So learning to paint and speaking in tongues are learned in the same way?K.
No, one might learn to paint after having received the gift of a paintbox. One might learn to speak in tongues after having received the gift of tongues. You are tending to super-spiritualise the charismata in an unhelpful way.
quote:
Receiving a gift from God (whether you asked for it or not) has little or nothing to do with you ('you'/'me' the obsession of the charismatics).
Well, that sounds pious enough in its anti-charismatic sentiments, but it isn't what Jesus or the apostles teach. quote:
If it is supernatural, then you don't need to learn it—that's the point.
Is that the point? If it's not possible to learn how to use spiritual gifts what does Paul bother teaching about them? Your thesis doesn't hold water because Paul clearly does think that the proper use of the charismata worthy of Apostolic teaching. quote:
What is (mostly) happening is that people make up (though conditioning) their own gobbledygook and then declare it a 'gift of God'.
This is pure, uncharitable conjecture.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
one might learn to paint after having received the gift of a paintbox. One might learn to speak in tongues after having received the gift of tongues. You are tending to super-spiritualise the charismata in an unhelpful way.
Show me where in Scripture we see people learning how to exercise supernatural gifts themselves (i.e. prophesying or interpreting more accurately, speaking in tongues more fluently, healing more completely, and so on).
quote:
If it's not possible to learn how to use spiritual gifts what does Paul bother teaching about them?
Paul teaches about things like the time and the place to use gifts and how to use them corporately. (And as others have noted, in the wider context he is clearly trying to keep the lid on things rather than universally encourage all this). What he emphatically does not do, as outlined above, is explain to people the mechanics of prophesying, speaking in tongues, or so on. Please tell me you can see the difference.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But I'm still not completely convinced that either the pro-tongues lobby nor the anti-tongues lobby have got their exegesis right on this one.
Funny how on a contentious piece of theology or practice, even those who are not totally conservative suddenly become sola scriptura
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW, I remember being advised, when revising for my GCSEs, to listen to ethnic radio stations. Allegedly, the music would help me concentrate, but because I wouldn't understand the words, I wouldn't be distracted by thinking about them.
That's sort of the idea I have noodled with. When I pray in tongues (alway, always privately), it's pretty apparent to me that it isn't a "real" language and doesn't have the markers of real language, unless it's a toddler language with a vocabulary of like, 20 words (or maybe I'm just a spiritual toddler). But, like other posters, I do find it subjectively meaningful-- a way to communicate when I have no words, and a way to experience the Spirit of God with a high degree of immediacy. I don't think it's the only way to experience those things, just one.
My theory is that it is a way of occupying the "conscious mind"-- the "internal critic" that's always processing, always monitoring, always evaluating-- in order to allow for more direct "heart to heart" communication. There is something freeing about that-- in small doses (not the wholesale rejection of reason and logic), particularly for someone like myself who tends to be overly-analytical.
Again, not the only way to achieve that objective-- just one spiritual discipline among many possible ones.
[ 30. May 2012, 16:49: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
one might learn to paint after having received the gift of a paintbox. One might learn to speak in tongues after having received the gift of tongues. You are tending to super-spiritualise the charismata in an unhelpful way.
Show me where in Scripture we see people learning how to exercise supernatural gifts themselves (i.e. prophesying or interpreting more accurately, speaking in tongues more fluently, healing more completely, and so on).
quote:
If it's not possible to learn how to use spiritual gifts what does Paul bother teaching about them?
Paul teaches about things like the time and the place to use gifts and how to use them corporately. (And as others have noted, in the wider context he is clearly trying to keep the lid on things rather than universally encourage all this). What he emphatically does not do, as outlined above, is explain to people the mechanics of prophesying, speaking in tongues, or so on. Please tell me you can see the difference.
Paul teaches the Corinthian church how to use and not to use spiritual gifts. So we've established that spiritual gifts don't come with an automatic understanding of how to use them. Yes?
Now, if a person has asked for the gift of tongues it is perfectly reasonable to encourage that person to try the gift out. There's no guarantee that they will speak in tongues, but they might. One thing is certain though: if you don't make space to try it out it is much less likely to happen. It's the same with all learning.
Yes, grace gifts are sovereignly given according to God's will and yet those self same gifts can be earnestly desired as requested. That's just how God works I'm afraid.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
The tortured exegesis of 1 Cor. 13 here seems to be ignoring the clearer discussion of tongue-speaking in 1 Cor. 14, for example:
quote:
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you; 19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Which seems IMHO to make clear:
1. That Paul did, in fact, speak in tongues
2. That the tongue-speaking he is talking about is "unintelligible", therefore not a known language
3. That he thought of tongues as not particularly useful to anyone other than the prayer
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
A long way back in this thread Gamaliel asked how tongues helped me to pray "when I found prayer difficult"
There are two answers to this:
1. I have been having, over the last three or so years, a serious "crisis of faith". I have managed to hold on, just, to the idea that there is a God, but formulating any sort of prayer was beyond me. Words just wouldn't come. Tongues did, and I could pray and hope that God would translate.
2. Praying for an extremely difficult family situation when no solution can be found, there being no solution anyway, all options being bad, then what do you pray? "I leave it in your hands, God" seems a cop-out. Tongues helps.
And that is all there is to it, really. No exegesis, no translation of Paul's Greek, no interpretation, no-one wondering if it is all made up (it isn't) - just me, and hopefully, God.
And yes, I am, like Boogie, an ex-charismatic (and Pentecostal) and no, liturgical prayer leaves me stone cold, so I'm sort of hanging in there in mid-air so to speak.
Tongues fits sometimes.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The tortured exegesis of 1 Cor. 13 here seems to be ignoring the clearer discussion of tongue-speaking in 1 Cor. 14, for example:
quote:
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you; 19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Which seems IMHO to make clear:
1. That Paul did, in fact, speak in tongues
2. That the tongue-speaking he is talking about is "unintelligible", therefore not a known language
3. That he thought of tongues as not particularly useful to anyone other than the prayer
I don't see how you got to no. 2.
K.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
If it's not possible to learn how to use spiritual gifts what does Paul bother teaching about them?
Paul teaches the Corinthian church how to use and not to use spiritual gifts. So we've established that spiritual gifts don't come with an automatic understanding of how to use them. Yes?
No. Did you read anything I posted?
Paul teaches the Corinthians some things about when and where to use, and not to use, tongues. He says absolutely nothing about how the gift itself is to be implemented.
The whole thrust of his teaching is to say "use them privately or ensure interpretation or shut up". He says absolutely nothing anywhere about "making space to try it out" or anything like it, nor does he give any of the kind of mechanical or emotional indications that are routinely dispensed in meetings where people are invited to receive this gift.
In Acts 19 there is no indication of anything of that sort and in Acts 10 the narrative has it that Peter is positively interrupted in his sermon by the congregation spontaneously beginning to speak in tongues. quote:
Yes, grace gifts are sovereignly given according to God's will and yet those self same gifts can be earnestly desired as requested. That's just how God works I'm afraid.
OK well let me share my testimony ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
.
I came under tremendous pressure aged about 14 to speak in tongues from a youth group leader. I had no theological reservations but I didn't appreciate the pressure. One night I prayed "Lord, I believe in this gift and if you want me to have it, I'd love that, but I want it to be you not somebody else that gives it. In the mean time please give me peace about it." That really took the pressure off.
It was some five years later when I found myself attending a charismatic church in Spain for a month. One day while I was on my own it was as if God suddenly tapped me on the shoulder and said "remember that prayer? Well now I want you to have this gift". And that was that.
Admittedly there was context, but no immediate pressure. And when one of my hosts learned of this and smugly said "ooh, now you'll enjoy all these worship tapes" as if she was introducing me to the porn section of the local bookshop, I almost renounced it on the spot.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The tortured exegesis of 1 Cor. 13 here seems to be ignoring the clearer discussion of tongue-speaking in 1 Cor. 14, for example:
quote:
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you; 19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Which seems IMHO to make clear:
1. That Paul did, in fact, speak in tongues
2. That the tongue-speaking he is talking about is "unintelligible", therefore not a known language
3. That he thought of tongues as not particularly useful to anyone other than the prayer
I don't see how you got to no. 2.
K.
It was more explicit in the context than in the exact passage I quoted-- I just didn't want to put such a long passage in. Here's a more explicit reference:
quote:
5 Now I would like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
1Cor. 14:6
Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I speak to you in some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7 It is the same way with lifeless instruments that produce sound, such as the flute or the harp. If they do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is being played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves; if in a tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different kinds of sounds in the world, and nothing is without sound. 11 If then I do not know the meaning of a sound, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. 12 So with yourselves; since you are eager for spiritual gifts, strive to excel in them for building up the church.
1Cor. 14:13
Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
My experience was a bit similar to Eutychus': I was a member of a University Christian Union, very keen to receive everything God had for me. "Tongues" were controversial at the time: one group they were vital, the other group felt they had been withdrawn. Theologically I aligned myself more with the latter group, but could not see Biblical mandate for the ceasing of charismata. Without any external pressure, I craved tongues.
And nothing happened, despite my prayers. It was only several months later, in prayer at home, that I felt God's Spirit nudging me and saying,. "You have the gift now". And I had - it was nothing ecstatic or trance-like, in fact it was quite down-to-earth. And I've used it, not all that much, mostly privately, ever since.
Why was I not given the gift earlier? Well, God knows - but I think I would have seen it as a sign that "I had arrived" and would be boastful about that. God waited for me to get past that stage.
By the way, I do not believe (and have never believed) in a classic two-stage Pentecostal "baptism of the Spirit". I think God operates in far more varied ways than that! And tongues is certainly not "THE sign" that you have the Spirit.
[ 30. May 2012, 17:29: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
By the way, I do not believe (and have never believed) in a classic two-stage Pentecostal "baptism of the Spirit". I think God operates in far more varied ways than that! And tongues is certainly not "THE sign" that you have the Spirit.
This quasi-Pentecostal agrees.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
I have come to conclusion that on these boards regarding Spiritual gifts and charismata some people hold on to these as an essential way of church and others don't. Neither corner shows any sign of changing their mind!! Blatantly obvious this maybe!!!
In regards to speaking in tongues I use it for personal prayer as it find it creates a positive spiritual environment for me to connect with my God especially when my actual words fail me to express myself.
Another aspect of speaking in tongues which I don't think has been raised here is that Paul says Tongues is a sign for unbelievers (1 Cor 14 v 22). I've not quite got to grips with what he means but ignoring this text is not an option.
quote:
Baptist Trainfan posted:By the way, I do not believe (and have never believed) in a classic two-stage Pentecostal "baptism of the Spirit". I think God operates in far more varied ways than that! And tongues is certainly not "THE sign" that you have the Spirit.
I agree with the last part of your statement but I see the Holy Spirit having a two fold ministry rather than a two stage baptism. The ministry of speaking to individuals within where the Spirit enables believers to confess "Jesus is Lord" and then the ministry that came at Pentecost of 'upon'. The Spirit comes upon "men and women, sons and daughters, young and old" to equip and empower us in our calling to be witnesses and be church.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
If it's not possible to learn how to use spiritual gifts what does Paul bother teaching about them?
Paul teaches the Corinthian church how to use and not to use spiritual gifts. So we've established that spiritual gifts don't come with an automatic understanding of how to use them. Yes?
Paul teaches the Corinthians some things about when and where to use, and not to use, tongues. He says absolutely nothing about how the gift itself is to be implemented.
I'm not convinced. It seems to me that almost everything Paul says is precisely about how the gift/s should be implemented. For example, he identifies certain attitudinal requirements: ernest desire for the gift (14.1), a desire to edify the church (14.12), a desire to interpret the utterance (14.13), a desire to express thanksgiving to God (14.16-18), a desire to participate in edifying worship (14.26)
This is basic teaching on appropriate implementation of a preexisting charismatic gift. I grant that he doesn't explicitly describe the 'technology' by which the gift of tongues is first practiced.
But he certainly says how the gift is initially imparted to the saint (12.11), so all I can say is so what?
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
I first spoke in tongues after my church leader prayed for me to receive the Holy Spirit. My tongue (and nothing else) got very hot and I found I was able to speak in a language I didn't know. I had tried, on a number of occasions before this, to speak in tongues - I coildn't fake it.
On the wider question of learning how to use spiritual gifts we need to remember there are ways of learning other than by people giving you explanations. You can learn by following a demonstration or example for instance. And as I noted on a other thread, when the disciples were frustrated in an attempted act of deliverance (Mk 9) they asked Jesus why that was - in other words, how can we do it better next time.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
*sigh* there are actually some non-charismatic evangelicals that explain the NT phenomena in precisely that way: a straightforward interpretation of someone speaking their native language that is unknown to the listeners.
It obviously wasn't this going on in Acts otherwise there would have been nothing to report.
I had better come clean here - I wasn't taught this from the Orthodox church - it is a throwback from my days with the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.
They taught me that the tongues in Acts were indeed miraculous signs, that the Holy Spirit had descended, but the "tongues" in 1 Corinthians were simply foriegn languages, and an "interpreter" was simply someone who was bi-lingual.
I haven't revised this belief (yet) - but one thing I would say:
In normal english, when we talk of "gifts", we mean "talents", ie. a talent to learn another language and/or interpret it. When did this change?
[ 30. May 2012, 19:40: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
This is basic teaching on appropriate implementation of a preexisting charismatic gift. I grant that he doesn't explicitly describe the 'technology' by which the gift of tongues is first practiced.
By "implementation" I mean what you are referring to as 'technology', and I still maintain that this is widespread and unbiblical. If you've never been in a meeting where people have attempted to "get people started" in this gift then blessed are you.
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H
Modern tongues is anti-intellectual, semi-hysterical, self-indulgent showing-off...
I am not quite sure exactly what you mean by "modern tongues", but I can't see how the use of tongues in private prayer and worship can be "showing off", unless one is showing off to God!
As for being "anti-intellectual", yes, it's true that speaking in a language that is not understood bypasses the faculty of comprehension, but then I suppose we could say the same about the "language" of sexual experience, or the "language" of the taste of strawberries and cream. Are these also "anti-intellectual"? And the same examples can be used to rebuff the charge of "self-indulgent". Is the experience of the Holy Spirit "self-indulgent", in that He comes with joy and peace and a deep sense of fulfilment and spiritual reality? These are all wonderful experiences. Are they also "self-indulgent"?
From my experience there is absolutely nothing hysterical or "semi-hysterical" about speaking in tongues. There is certainly the counterfeit (as there is for everything in the Christian life), which may involve trances and hysteria, but genuine tongues do not involve this at all. So don't reject the genuine because you have experienced and / or observed the fake.
Coming back to the charge of "anti-intellectualism": given that our minds are finite, it follows logically that there are many aspects of life that defy analysis. God understands very many things that we do not, and indeed cannot. Anyone who denies this denies simple logic. How can finite minds possibly encompass the mind of God? They obviously cannot. So therefore it would seem very strange indeed that it is God's will that the entire spiritual life should be reduced to the merely intellectual. That speaks of a deeply impoverished life. There are times when the words of the vernacular fail, and we may need to express ourselves to God (usually privately) as the Holy Spirit leads in a way that goes beyond the intellect (but does not subvert the intellect). I am not suggesting that this is the only way to engage with mystery, and there are other ways of doing this, but I have found that it helps. But there is no hysteria, no trance, no weirdness about it at all.
Having said all this, I can thoroughly understand your concerns about the charismatic movement (if that phrase is not too "old hat" now). I have the same strong reservations, and there is indeed a huge amount of abuse, general crassness and conceited self-obsession within that form of churchmanship
I retract the "semi-hysterical"; I admit that all the tongues I've ever witnessed were delivered reasonably calmly. I stand by the rest, at least as far as public tongues is concerned. Theres' certainly a large element of spiritul showing-off involved - the charismatic movement does tend to attract and encourage show-offs. It's also anti-intellectual, as is the charismatic movement generally - and your paragraph above is just the sort of thing charismatics always say: "our finite minds cannot understand God", etc, often (though not by you above, I admit) as an excuse for believing the patently ridiculous, such as the charismatic woman I knew on another forum, whpo insisted, against all arguments, that God could perform logical contradictions, such as both giving creatures free-will and witholding free-will from them, at the same time.
As for tongues being useful when human language is inadequate - when that happens, why not shut up and listen to God, like the Quakers, instead?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@ EytemologicalEvangelical, I don't need to apologise, because I haven't done anything wrong. I'd be more than happy to apologise otherwise.
All I've done is to gently suggest that none of us who can apparently speak in tongues KNOW in a proof-positive sense that the 'tongues' we are speaking are:
- The same sort of thing that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians.
- Supernaturally endowed or simply some form of learned behaviour.
- An actual language and not just gobbledegook.
As it happens, I can be quite 'fluent' in tongues and it does some pretty convincing, a lot more convincing than the 'angabangara' stuff that one hears 90+% of the time.
But that doesn't mean that I switch off my brain and don't question the phenomenon - if indeed it IS a phenomenon. It might not be. It might be something I can do through suggestibility and so on.
How do I know? How can I tell?
The only mistake I've made, as far as I can tell, is to apply my question to you rather than using myself as a 'model'.
By choosing to direct my comments at you I have inadvertently put your back-up. And I will certainly apologise for having done that.
But for actually using my mind and suggesting that what many of us take to be 'tongues' in the NT sense may not actually be the same thing I won't apologise. Not now, not ever.
Why not? Because I've not done anything wrong.
If anyone is doing anything 'wrong' around here it's those who by a faulty exegesis suggest that these things can be learned and practiced in order to become proficient in them.
The 'tongues of angels' thing is a complete red-herring. You read Pentecostal history. The 'tongues of angels' thing only became a 'get-out-of-jail-free-card' when the first Pentecostal missionaries set off for China and India thinking that they would be able to preach the Gospel in the indigenous languages without having to go to the trouble of learning them. They were soon disabused of this notion.
So, what did they do? Abandon tongues-speaking? No, they looked at the NT and thought, 'Aha! This obscure verse about the tongues of angels, let's latch onto that ... perhaps that's what we've been doing, speaking in angelic tongues rather than human languages ...'
They took a rhetorical flourish of Paul's and built a doctrine around it.
Now, if I wanted to be really, really charismatic I would tell you about the time when I heard - or thought I heard - angelic singing one night after a Bible week meeting. It was quite a remarkable experience and it did sound like people 'singing in tongues' - only on a completely different level. I can't prove that I had that experience - sometimes I wonder whether it was atmospheric conditions etc. but it was very, very real at the time.
It would be easy for me to use that experience to champion the whole tongues-speaking gambit and other charismatic phenomena - but I don't. Not, I don't think, because I'm a cynical and unbelieving so-and-so (although I can clearly incline that way) but because I'm not sure that's how this sort of thing works. Just because we've had a particular experience doesn't mean that it's all legit'.
I'm open minded and ambivalent about most of this stuff. 'Do not forbid, do not promote.'
@Mudfrog - ho ho ho - but I haven't been sola scriptura all of a sudden. If you look back at my posts on this thread then you'll see that I refer to tradition and Tradition too. I don't make such a strong dichotomy between scripture and tradition. On one level, scripture IS tradition ...
@Nicodemia, I'm glad you're finding your glossalalic experiences helpful and that you find that these things help you to 'connect' with the divine in a way that other forms of prayer currently don't.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
This is basic teaching on appropriate implementation of a preexisting charismatic gift. I grant that he doesn't explicitly describe the 'technology' by which the gift of tongues is first practiced.
By "implementation" I mean what you are referring to as 'technology', and I still maintain that this is widespread and unbiblical.
It's no more 'unbiblical' that the various means and methods by which the elements of holy communion are administered: little cups, common chalice, Jesus biscuits, Mother's Pride, Ribena, Cockburn's Reserve, staying in your seat, lining up in rows, queuing, giving it to each other, getting it from a special man. None of that is the bible, Eutychus, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just a way of getting the job done.
[ 30. May 2012, 21:47: Message edited by: Daron ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I will, of course, apologise to EtymologicalEvangelical for spelling his name incorrectly ...
And I meant to write that if I speak in tongues (which I very rarely do nowadays) it can 'sound' more convincing than many of the so-called 'languages' one hears in charismatic circles. But that doesn't prove anything either. I might just be better at making it sound convincing ...
We can't PROVE any of this stuff. Sure enough, if there ever really was a qualified linguist present who could identify the languages then perhaps then ...
To suggest that we are actually speaking the languages that angels use (and everyone knows that they speak Welsh anyway ... ) is cloud-cuckoo land theology. Poor exegesis by anyone's standards.
Equally, this whole thing about somehow God the Holy Spirit praying 'through' us when we speak in tongues ... other than the 'groans that words cannot express' the 'Spirit helping us in our weakness' thing, I can't see any NT evidence that this is what is happening in that kind of direct way.
It isn't the Holy Spirit who speaks in tongues, it's US who speak in tongues - perhaps as 'the Holy Spirit gave them utterance' - perhaps not.
I would suggest that the greater the level of inducement or pressure, the less the Holy Spirit is actually involved. I find the stories of people apparently spontaneously speaking in tongues when peeling the spuds or riding a bike or whatever else a lot more convincing than the attempts to induce the practice at charismatic meetings with the laying on of hands and so on - although I wouldn't immediately dismiss Ramarius's testimony as he's shared it here. I'd be inclined to reserve judgement.
I really can't see what's so contentious about anything I'm saying here. I really don't.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
None of that is the bible, Eutychus, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just a way of getting the job done.
I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this...
I think if one sets out to initiate something that is God's to give as he pleases and when he pleases, one is highly likely to end up with a poor imitation of the original - and one that won't "get the job done", whatever that might mean in this context.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Daron - I'm sorry, but whilst I can see where you are coming from with that one, I'm afraid I take it as a case of special pleading.
Sure, many Christian traditions believe that something 'supernatural' happens in the administration of the eucharist. Whether one takes a full on RC transubstantiation position or a Real Presence one that doesn't try to 'define' what goes on so prescriptively, many people do believe that the bread and the wine BECOME the body and blood of Christ.
But in your tradition, a charismatic Anglican one, there is less of an emphasis on the eucharist being as 'realised' as that. If anything, many charismatic evangelical Anglicans tend towards a memorialist position on the eucharist.
The wierd thing is, though, is that whilst they down-play anything 'supernatural' in the sacraments they then 'sacralise' things which may not have any supernatural explanation whatsoever - such as the ability to speak in tongues - which, as has been demonstrated time and time again, it is possible to 'fake' or to induce - even among people with no faith whatsoever.
It seems a highly selective approach to me. A highly selective and subjective one.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The 'tongues of angels' thing is a complete red-herring. You read Pentecostal history. The 'tongues of angels' thing only became a 'get-out-of-jail-free-card' when the first Pentecostal missionaries set off for China and India thinking that they would be able to preach the Gospel in the indigenous languages without having to go to the trouble of learning them. They were soon disabused of this notion.
Not convinced. Chrysostom thought this in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 13.1.
quote:
Now he here speaks of the tongues of angels, not investing angels with a body, but what he means is this: should I even so speak as angels are wont to discourse unto each other, without this I am nothing, nay rather a burden and an annoyance. Thus (to mention one other example) where he says, To Him every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and things on earth, and things under the earth, Philippians 2:10 he does not say these things as if he attributed to angels knees and bones, far from it, but it is their intense adoration which he intends to shadow out by the fashion among us: so also here he calls it a tongue not meaning an instrument of flesh, but intending to indicate their converse with each other by the manner which is known among us.
[ 30. May 2012, 21:59: Message edited by: Daron ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
When I was a very young Christian an ex-Pentecostal turned Brethren cessationist tried to warn me off the charismatic thing by saying that what we see nowadays is simply a 'cardboard cut-out' version of what we read about in the NT.
I wasn't convinced by his cessationist arguments - and I remain unconvinced by them.
But I have increasingly become convinced that he was right when he said that what we generally see are 'cardboard cut-out' versions of what we find in the NT.
It strikes me as axiomatic that any attempt to manufacture or encourage these things is bound to end up promoting the spurious, the wishfully-thought and the not-thought-through.
And when I read posts like Daron's, the wiser my Brethren friend appears in retrospect.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I cross-posted with Daron ... I don't see how the Chrysostom quote you've cited goes against anything I've written. I'll need to read the whole thing, of course, but at first glance he seems to be reinforcing the conditional thing ... 'even IF I could discourse as angels do ...'
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
You're just trying to make a text fit what you believe. You are an eisegist.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H
It's also anti-intellectual, as is the charismatic movement generally - and your paragraph above is just the sort of thing charismatics always say: "our finite minds cannot understand God", etc, often (though not by you above, I admit) as an excuse for believing the patently ridiculous, such as the charismatic woman I knew on another forum, whpo insisted, against all arguments, that God could perform logical contradictions, such as both giving creatures free-will and witholding free-will from them, at the same time.
I think you misunderstood my comment about finite minds. Admittedly I should have elaborated on it. I am certainly not anti-intellectual, and one of my major problems with fundamentalist and much evangelical Christianity is precisely the issue you mention here: the seeming refusal to acknowledge the proper role of free will, especially as it concerns God's judgment. This is not just an issue for charismatics. Reformed theology is bedevilled with this. Read John Blanchard's evangelistic booklet called "Ultimate Questions" (which is typical of the average evangelistic message), in which he states that we are all deserving of hell because of the fall, our will is bound in sin, but we freely choose it!! I can't put into words how appalled I am at this kind of reasoning. You cannot have it both ways: either our will is bound by the inevitable consequences of original sin, or it is not.
What I meant by my reference to finite minds is not that we cannot understand God (and you seem to acknowledge that that was not what I was saying), but that our minds cannot encompass the mind of God. Therefore it stands to reason that there are very many aspects to life that we don't understand and indeed that we cannot understand. That is not being anti-intellectual, but actually logical. Our minds are finite; God's mind is infinite. Therefore we cannot hope to understand everything about life or specifically the Christian life.
I realise that this acknowledgment of our finiteness can be exploited by those who are genuinely anti-intellectual (as in the frequent use of "My thoughts are not your thoughts..."). But no one in their right mind can deny the truth of this fact. Therefore there is bound to be an element of mystery in the Christian life. Is it really true that all our worship should be built on precise theological formulations about One whose is infinitely greater than us? Is there really no place for a form of worship that can transcend the obsession with the cerebral? When two lovers embrace, is their experience invalid unless it is driven by intellectual discourse on the structure of the human anatomy? Must they understand all their hormonal reactions as a prerequisite for doing what lovers do?
And just because unstable people abuse the gift of tongues, does that mean it is inherently invalid? God is in the business of taking risks, and He allows Himself to be vulnerable by allowing His resources to be entrusted to deeply fallible human beings, who frankly mess up most of the time. Does that mean He should just play safe and ban everything that has been misused? That's the petulant and draconian way of our PC society, but it's not God's way.
quote:
As for tongues being useful when human language is inadequate - when that happens, why not shut up and listen to God, like the Quakers, instead?
Are you suggesting that everyone who speaks in tongues refuses to listen to God? I hope not, because that is a truly extraordinary charge, and one which is actually quite offensive. I find that speaking in tongues actually helps me in my spiritual life, which includes listening to God.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You seem to take offence quite easily, Etymological Evangelical ...
I s'pose our mileages vary. I wouldn't be at all offended if someone came to me and suggested that when I 'spoke in tongues' it might not be the direct, unmediated gift of the Holy Spirit I'd taken it to be ...
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on
:
I admit, having read your post above, that I misunderstood your point about our inability to encompass the mind of God.
I do, however, think that speaking in tongues is often, for many people, speaking for the sake of speaking, and being quiet would be more helpful. I don't, in any case, think it is really speaking in unknown tongues, and linguistic analysis by experts seems to bear that out: it doesn't have any consistent structure, but is just random sounds. It's noticable that people generally only use sounds which occur in ther own language, Englsih in the case of the examples I've heard: no rolled or trilled 'r's, or French pronunciation of j, half-way between the English pronuciation and the Englsih 'sh' sound, for example.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To suggest that we are actually speaking the languages that angels use (and everyone knows that they speak Welsh anyway ... ) is cloud-cuckoo land theology. Poor exegesis by anyone's standards
Generally, we're not meaning to suggest as much. We're merely borrowing Paul's (obviously poetic) language to explain the apparent difference between the 1 Cor. activity and the Pentecost event. I realize there are some on the fringes who suggest it literally is the "language of angels", but, as you say, cuckoo.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Equally, this whole thing about somehow God the Holy Spirit praying 'through' us when we speak in tongues ... other than the 'groans that words cannot express' the 'Spirit helping us in our weakness' thing, I can't see any NT evidence that this is what is happening in that kind of direct way.
Well, except that passage (Rom. 8) that you just alluded to.
fwiw, that's precisely what tongues "feel" like to me-- as if the Spirit is, indeed, speaking thru me, in me, and to me, with "groans too deep for words". ymmv.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would suggest that the greater the level of inducement or pressure, the less the Holy Spirit is actually involved. I find the stories of people apparently spontaneously speaking in tongues when peeling the spuds or riding a bike or whatever else a lot more convincing than the attempts to induce the practice at charismatic meetings with the laying on of hands and so on - although I wouldn't immediately dismiss Ramarius's testimony as he's shared it here. I'd be inclined to reserve judgement.
I tend to agree re: the high pressure, "laboring in prayer" thing-- just too obviously prone to abuse, faking, guilt-inducing, whatever, and seems far afield to what we see in the NT.
otoh, I wouldn't suggest that it has to always be the spontaneous experience either (although I've known a few who've had such). It seems to me that the exercise of the non-ecstatic gifts frequently involves some "training" or "practice". Even the most naturally gifted teachers and preachers will work at their craft. And those with the "gift of helps" still often need some direction in how/where to serve, cultural norms, etc. Since Paul really seems to be treating all the charismata as "one and the same" it stands to reason IMHO for the ecstatic gifts to have similar kinds of learning curves. otoh, you rarely have someone pressuring you to keep "laboring" in prayer until you suddenly "receive" the gift of preaching, or of helps. So, for me, matter-of-fact, non-pressured instruction/tips/practice= good, high-pressure, forced, guilt-inducing= bad.
again, ymmv
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
But in your tradition, a charismatic Anglican one, there is less of an emphasis on the eucharist being as 'realised' as that. If anything, many charismatic evangelical Anglicans tend towards a memorialist position on the eucharist.
The wierd thing is, though, is that whilst they down-play anything 'supernatural' in the sacraments they then 'sacralise' things which may not have any supernatural explanation whatsoever - such as the ability to speak in tongues - which, as has been demonstrated time and time again, it is possible to 'fake' or to induce - even among people with no faith whatsoever.
Well I know of one "tongues speaking Bible believing Anglican Christian" who definitely does not take that position on the eucharist. Muggins himself.
And Muggins can only speak for himself, and he rather resents being lumped with those who take a different view. So as far as he is concerned, your argument here doesn't really amount to very much.
By the way... are you suggesting that just because tongues can be faked, that therefore there can be no genuine gift of tongues? It would be like saying: "because pound coins can be forged, therefore there cannot exist any genuine ones." That is, of course, a non sequitur.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
... Particularly if they then went on, by citing sociological analysis, linguistic experiments and observation etc to suggest that tongues were easily induced and tended to be evident products of 'learned' or communal behaviour.
Interestingly, perhaps, I once saw a documentary on Scottish TV about tongues-speaking in which the investigators found that very few tongues-speakers actually produce sounds that are not commonly found in their own language or accent.
So, for instance, if you have a language or accent where the tendency is not to roll one's r's (titter ye not) then it's pretty unlikely that you'll roll them when 'speaking in tongues'.
If we were dealing with actual languages here, whether human or angelic, then one might expect there to be consonantal and syllabic patterns that don't occur in one's learned and natural language. But this is very rarely the case.
In fact, the programme only had one example which the linguists did find inexplicable and intriguing. It wasn't identifiable as a known language but it did conform somewhat to a syntactic pattern and involved sounds that certainly weren't natural to the speaker's Glaswegian English.
But then, all Glaswegians speak unintelligibly anyway ...
Interestingly, too, the programme did include a reasonably convincing testimony of a very liberal theology professor at Glasgow University who'd found himself - to his surprise - speaking in tongues when praying about an issue where he'd felt that he had to forgive someone for a wrong done against him. He couldn't explain this but felt it was legit'.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not out to write the whole thing off. I'm not a cessationist and believe that these things are possible.
It's just that because they are so apparently easy to induce, occur in other contexts as well as Christian ones and don't necessarily involve anything apparently supernatural that I have become sceptical about many putative instances.
Not all, though. Certainly not all.
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Particularly if they then went on, by citing sociological analysis, linguistic experiments and observation etc to suggest that tongues were easily induced and tended to be evident products of 'learned' or communal behaviour.
Interestingly, perhaps, I once saw a documentary on Scottish TV about tongues-speaking in which the investigators found that very few tongues-speakers actually produce sounds that are not commonly found in their own language or accent.
So, for instance, if you have a language or accent where the tendency is not to roll one's r's (titter ye not) then it's pretty unlikely that you'll roll them when 'speaking in tongues'.
If we were dealing with actual languages here, whether human or angelic, then one might expect there to be consonantal and syllabic patterns that don't occur in one's learned and natural language. But this is very rarely the case.
Er, quite - see my post above!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Read my posts, EtymologicalEvangelical. You think it's all about you, don't you?
I said that 'many' charismatic evangelical Anglicans take a memorialist view - not ALL. And I wasn't necessarily referring to you as I wouldn't know, unless you told me, what your position was on the eucharist.
Equally, at no point have I written that because 'tongues' are so apparently easy to fake or induce that it means that the genuine article doesn't exist. Again, do me the courtesy of reading what I've actually written.
What I have asked though, is how you, I or anyone else can be so sure that what we have is the genuine article and not simply something that we have picked up by osmosis by knocking around in charismatic circles or been induced into or picked up through peer-pressure or suggestibility.
I'm not saying that we have. I'm just asking how we can know that we haven't.
That seems a legitimate one to me and one that Daron and yourself - with the greatest respect - seem to have elided so far.
Daron hides behind proof-texts such as the one about father's giving good gifts to their kids rather than a serpent or a stone and you ... well, forgive me, but you seem to suggest that spiritual deception, 'prelest' as the Russians would call it, and general numptiness is something that can happen to other people but can't possibly happen to you.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's how it's come across to me.
'Just because those people over there might be faking it or be suggestible it doesn't mean that I am ...'
Well, no, it doesn't necessarily follow. But how can you be so sure?
'Who can discern his errors?'
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
What I have asked though, is how you, I or anyone else can be so sure that what we have is the genuine article and not simply something that we have picked up by osmosis by knocking around in charismatic circles or been induced into or picked up through peer-pressure or suggestibility.
*sigh*
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well?
Are you going to answer my question or continue to bury your head in the sand like an ostrich?
I'm only stating something axiomatic.
NONE of us can be 100% sure about any of these things.
What's the big deal about asserting that?
I really don't get why you have such a big beef about it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
I think there is a substantive difference between saying something like, 'Firmly I believe and truly, God is Three and God is One ...' which is, of course, a statement of faith and something we can't prove but only 'take' on faith and asserting that these unintelligible syllables I've just uttered must be some kind of angelic language ...
I'm not saying that this is what you believe them to be, EtymologicalEvangelical, nor am I suggesting that you abandon the practice. If you find it helpful, then go for it. It's not hurting anyone else.
If I've got a bone to pick with anyone on this thread it's not you but Daron. Where's he gone so I can snap at him ...
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
HELL CALL, Gamaliel.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think there is a substantive difference between saying something like, 'Firmly I believe and truly, God is Three and God is One ...' which is, of course, a statement of faith and something we can't prove but only 'take' on faith and asserting that these unintelligible syllables I've just uttered must be some kind of angelic language ...
In what way? I think I might be following you, but I'm not sure if the way I'm understanding this statement is the same as yours.
I would say I arrive at those statements in somewhat similar, yet different, paths. The Trinity I arrive at through a combination of tradition, reason, and Scripture (the authority of which I arrive at then through tradition, reason, and experience). Experience plays a more minor role. My understanding of tongues is based more on experience + Scripture, somewhat less on reason & tradition. Similar, but with some nuanced differences. Yet both are, in the end, an exercise of faith.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry to post again - I was just ruminating on tongue speaking in the middle ages and came to the conclusion that if I were a 15th century monk who suddenly started babbling away I would probably do all in my power to keep it a total and utter secret. Wouldn't want to burned at the stake for being in league with Satan, would I?
I would wager that there were some very 'quiet' tongues speakers in those days!
Yes, it is just possible Muddy that a lot more tongues-speaking went in church history than people let on about, but I very much doubt it.
Between the New Testament era and the outbreak of the modern Pentecostal movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, documented cases of tongues-speaking are extremely few and far between - second century Montanists, seventeenth century Camisards and (maybe) Quakers, nineteenth century Irvingites.
During those two millenia, however, countless individuals were prepared to come out with beliefs and practices which were dangerous to acknowledge, and to suffer for them.
For example, mystics such as the fourteenth century Catherine of Siena, and the sixteenth century John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, were objects of suspicion to the ecclesiastical authorities of their day.
I mention mystics because despite their many differences from modern Pentecostals, both groups represent experience, the fourth source of authority in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (which is not to say that either group took their guidance from experience to the exclusion of the other three).
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The 'tongues of angels' thing is a complete red-herring. You read Pentecostal history. The 'tongues of angels' thing only became a 'get-out-of-jail-free-card' when the first Pentecostal missionaries set off for China and India thinking that they would be able to preach the Gospel in the indigenous languages without having to go to the trouble of learning them. They were soon disabused of this notion.
I am aware of an incident in the early history of the China Inland Mission in which James Hudson Taylor discovered a newly arrived group of CIM recruits praying for the instantaneous gift of speaking one of the Chinese languages, and subjected them to a blistering reprimand.
Can you refer us to other sources which describe anything similar?
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't see how the Chrysostom quote you've cited goes against anything I've written.
I'm citing Chrysostom as a Church Father who believe that Paul's phrase 'tongues... of angels' refers to the spiritual language - not the physical means - by which angelic beings communicate. His point is that the word tongue means language and in that particular instance it means angelic communication.[/QB][/QUOTE]
quote:
You're just trying to make a text fit what you believe. You are an eisegist.
Well I suppose that's as may be, but I don't think so.
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on
:
I seem to have become invisible, so I'll piss off to another thread. 'Bye.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
Let's analyse Chrysostom's thinking:
quote:
Now he here speaks of the tongues of angels, not investing angels with a body, but what he means is this:
So Chrysostom's purpose is to explain what Paul means by the phrase tongues of angels.
quote:
...should I even so speak as angels are wont to discourse unto each other, without this I am nothing, nay rather a burden and an annoyance.
So, the phrase tongues of angels is a reference to the way angels speak to each other.
quote:
Thus (to mention one other example) where he says, To Him every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and things on earth, and things under the earth, Philippians 2:10 he does not say these things as if he attributed to angels knees and bones, far from it, but it is their intense adoration which he intends to shadow out by the fashion among us
He then uses an example of a physical human posture to describe an angelic spiritual disposition - bowing the knee is a physical action which 'shadow's out' the intense adoration of the angels.
quote:
...so also here he calls it a tongue not meaning an instrument of flesh, but intending to indicate their converse with each other by the manner which is known among us.
His argument is this: the phrase of 'tongues of angels' does not refer to the physical organ called the tongue. It refers to angelic discourse: the language by which they communicate with each other (tongues of angels), in the same way as human beings have languages by which we communicate with each other (tongues of men).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
None of what you quote Chrysostom as saying means that he believed, or was arguing, that Paul was actually speaking with angelic languages, because he explains Paul as meaning quote:
should I even so speak as angels
The "should" incontrovertibly indicates that Chrysostom saw Paul's statement as hypothetical; as a rhetorical device: "even if I were to speak...".
This does not mean there is no such thing as angelic discourse, nor does it necessarily mean that Paul did not speak in actual angelic discourse, but it is certainly an extremely weak basis on which to claim that he definitely did.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
I'm genuinely surprised that so many people on this thread have encountered instances of "coaching" wrt tongues. I've been around in Charo circles for a long time, and never heard anyone do a "repeat after me" number. On a few occasions people have been encouraged to open their mouths and speak, which, I supose, mighht be regarded as a variation on that theme, but never with "here are a few phrases to start you out". My own "induction" into tongues was entirely spontaneous. I never sought the gift, indeed my theology was, at that time, extremely sceptical and negative towards such phenomena.
WRT Glaswegian people speakin in tongues with a Glaswegian accent, why should this be surprising? Tongue speaking is a human activity, something we do with our physical bodies. That remains self-evidently true whether or not it is also a genuine spiritual gift. I can't see that the observed phenomenon is evidence on then genuineness of tongues one way or the other. All I would say is that the sound associated with the Hebrew "ch" (as in the name "Chaim"), which is not a sound present in normal spoken English, seems quite common, certainly in my own "tongue vocabulary".
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Between the New Testament era and the outbreak of the modern Pentecostal movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, documented cases of tongues-speaking are extremely few and far between ... (maybe) Quakers,...
I think not, but feel free to cite a source to correct me.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
I seem to have become invisible, so I'll piss off to another thread. 'Bye.
Don't worry Steve H - you are not invisible! People get embroiled in bits of conversation and ignore what you said. It happens to me a lot here - it's not personal.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Between the New Testament era and the outbreak of the modern Pentecostal movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, documented cases of tongues-speaking are extremely few and far between ... (maybe) Quakers,...
I think not, but feel free to cite a source to correct me.
My only source is a quote in the Wikipedia article on Glossolalia, which is why I say "maybe".
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
I seem to have become invisible, so I'll piss off to another thread. 'Bye.
Don't worry Steve H - you are not invisible! People get embroiled in bits of conversation and ignore what you said. It happens to me a lot here - it's not personal.
Happens to me all the time too, Steve H., but then I'm used to it because that's how my family treats me too (pardon me while I dab my eyes with my hankie).
You'll have to grow a thicker skin than that if you are going to survive on the Ship.
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
I seem to have become invisible, so I'll piss off to another thread. 'Bye.
Don't worry Steve H - you are not invisible! People get embroiled in bits of conversation and ignore what you said. It happens to me a lot here - it's not personal.
Nice to know - thanks for the reassurance! However, while someone making exactly the same point that I made a few posts earlier without acknowledgement could be a simple oversight, not acknowledging the fact after I point it out, reasonably good-humouredly, looks a bit rude. (Not you!) Still, water under the wossname.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
I think the coaching that I've seen tends to be a bit more subtle than you describe JJ. Even the 'just open your mouth and see what comes out' is a nice little psychological game when you get down to it.
The people in the NT seemed to be able to speak in tongues just fine without being told what it was or having it all 'explained' to them. Christ never taught about tongues and the 12 still spoke in tongues at Pentecost.
Personally, I see the very explanation of tongues to the uninitiated to be a form of coaching as it tends to build up an expectation of what will happen when they 'receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit'.
A far more genuine approach would be to pray that they might receive the Spirit, and then just see what happens.
Speaking in tongues seldom occurs in a vacuum.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Happens to me all the time too, Steve H., but then I'm used to it because that's how my family treats me too (pardon me while I dab my eyes with my hankie).
You'll have to grow a thicker skin than that if you are going to survive on the Ship.
They can't do it to me IRL - I'm too 'In your face'!
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
[/end of tangent, I'll stop it now! May be worth a thread 'tho?]
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
None of what you quote Chrysostom as saying means that he believed, or was arguing, that Paul was actually speaking with angelic languages, because he explains Paul as meaning quote:
should I even so speak as angels
The "should" incontrovertibly indicates that Chrysostom saw Paul's statement as hypothetical; as a rhetorical device: "even if I were to speak...".
This does not mean there is no such thing as angelic discourse, nor does it necessarily mean that Paul did not speak in actual angelic discourse, but it is certainly an extremely weak basis on which to claim that he definitely did.
Let's look at all the 'ifs' of verses 1 to 3 and see your argument stacks up. quote:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
You suggest that Paul didn't necessarily speak in angelic tongues. quote:
2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge
So Paul may never have prophesied. quote:
and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
So, it's possible that Paul didn't have faith. quote:
3 If I give away all I have,
So it's possible that Paul never gave anything away. quote:
and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
So it's possible that Paul wouldn't actually have chosen martyrdom?
This whole passage is about the loving use of spiritual gifts. In the case of verse 1 it's about how to use "various kinds of tongues" (1 Corinthians 12:28) lovingly.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Your argument is collapsing under its own weight, since your quotes merely serve to demonstrate that Paul is using rhetoric. You might as well argue that the fact that the psalmist says "if I go up to heaven, you are there, and if I go down to the place of the dead, you are there" means he's definitely been to those places.
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge
So Paul may never have prophesied.
No, it means "even if one were to prophesy and thus understand all mystery and knowledge...". Are you trying to claim Paul understood all mystery and knowledge?
quote:
quote:
and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
So, it's possible that Paul didn't have faith.
No, it means "even if one were to have faith that enabled one to move mountains...". Are you trying to claim Paul moved physical mountains? quote:
quote:
3 If I give away all I have,
So it's possible that Paul never gave anything away.
No, it means "even if one were to give everything away...". Are you trying to claim Paul gave everything away (bear in mind that at the end of his life he's asking Timothy to bring his parchments and cloak...)? quote:
quote:
and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
So it's possible that Paul wouldn't actually have chosen martyrdom?
No, it means "even if one were to go so far as to go to the stake...". Are you trying to claim that at this point (or indeed subsequently) Paul was willing to be burned (as opposed to beheaded, which I believe is what tradition says)?
I repeat: there may be tongues of men. There may be tongues of angels. But attempting to prove that Paul spoke in the tongues of angels on the basis of 1 Cor 13 is risible.
You're in an exegetical hole. Stop digging.
[ 31. May 2012, 07:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
OK. Been thinking about this in the shower (TMI?). Gamaliel and Eutychus, I think I see your point(s).
The "I" of 1 Cor 13, is the "I" of Romans 7: it is everyman, or at least every christian. In this respect, it is - as you say - incorrect to read 1 Cor 13 as prescriptive or descriptive of one particular individual. In other words, 1 Cor 13 is not an anatomy of Paul's spiritual and devotional life.
However, I think it is still fair to say that the "various kinds of tongues" mentioned in 12.28 correlates to the "tongues of men and angels" in 13.1. In other words, Paul is aware that there are different sorts, kinds, species etc. of tongues and mentions two of those kinds in 1 Cor 13.1.
It is therefore fair to say - and as you concede - that certain kinds of utterances in tongues can be understood to be an earthly shadowing of angelic discourse. This is certainly Chrysostom's reading.
And Paul claims to speak in tongues more than anyone in the Corinthian church (14.18). Of course, I can't say for sure is Paul spoke in angelic tongues, but if anyone could recognise them when he heard them it would be Paul, what with his having been caught up to their realm and all that...
[ 31. May 2012, 08:17: Message edited by: Daron ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
I seem to have become invisible, so I'll piss off to another thread. 'Bye.
Don't worry Steve H - you are not invisible! People get embroiled in bits of conversation and ignore what you said. It happens to me a lot here - it's not personal.
Nice to know - thanks for the reassurance! However, while someone making exactly the same point that I made a few posts earlier without acknowledgement could be a simple oversight, not acknowledging the fact after I point it out, reasonably good-humouredly, looks a bit rude. (Not you!) Still, water under the wossname.
I've just quoted you (sadly, not with much approval ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
, sorry!) on the prayer battle thread!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think Eutychus's explanation and your shower has clarified things a bit, Daron.
He's explained things better than I can, but that's essentially the position I take - that it is risible at worst and iffy at best to build a whole 'speaking in angelic tongues' edifice on the tantalising hints we find in 1 Corinthians.
Of course, there are other doctrines and practices which have built up over the years with equally apparently slender biblical evidence - but at least they have the imprimatur of tradition (or Tradition).
The standard Pentecostal explanation of the verses we've discussed just strikes me as shoddy exegesis and perhaps a case of special pleading when what they were expecting to happen didn't materialise.
You'll notice that unlike the sadly neglected Steve H (hi Steve, I've been wondering where you were ... ) I'm not writing off the phenomena completely nor suggesting that the whole thing is psychologically induced.
I fully accept accounts such as that given here by Jolly Jape that it is possible to speak in tongues without the kind of 'instruction' that sometimes accompanies it in charismatic and Pentecostal circles. If anything, I'd say that the old-time Pentecostals (particularly the AoG) were 'worse' in respect of attempts to induce the practice - shaking people, bellowing at them in tongues until they followed suit and so on ...
However, what I have observed, over 30 years of knocking around with charismatics, is that there is more often than not a certain amount of suggestibility running alongside. The whole movement creates an almost self-fulfilling sense of expectation.
As for people speaking in tongues in their own accents etc - well, it doesn't prove anything one way or another - but it may well indicate that what these people are doing is hardly supernatural.
On the day of Pentecost people understood the languages that were spoken. Ok, it might be that the other instances of tongues-speaking we find in the NT were examples of glossolalia rather than xenoglossy but as I've attempted to demonstrate, there is insufficient biblical evidence to tell us exactly what was going on. Hence my caution over verses like the 'tongues of angels' instance.
I think Cliffdweller has been more 'honest', if I may put it that way without being accused of charging everyone else with being a phoney, in acknowledging that it's the 'experience' part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that kicks in at this point.
If we acknowledge that, then I have less of an issue. What I do have an issue with is people trying to build a whole edifice of practice around on very flimsy and ambiguous biblical evidence.
Now Mudfrog will undoubtedly tell me off for extending more leeway to various Catholic practices ... ... than I am to practices that are apparently more generic within my own background and tradition.
Well, tough.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Eutychus's explanation and your shower has clarified things a bit, Daron.
He's explained things better than I can, but that's essentially the position I take - that it is risible at worst and iffy at best to build a whole 'speaking in angelic tongues' edifice on the tantalising hints we find in 1 Corinthians.
I'm not convinced that a position of principled agnosticism concerning the precise nature of the charismatic gift of tongues necessarily legislates for abandoning the practice experimentation with tongues speaking.
After all, the Apostle Paul emphatically states that no-one knows the precise nature of prophecy and yet he positively encourages its practice. He concludes his teaching on the charismata in 1 Corinthians by saying, quote:
So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.
He says that tongues (both spoken and sung cf. 14.15) does have a place in public worship, if done for the purposes of loving edification, saying quote:
26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
He does state that he wants everyone to speak in tongues (14.5) but is aware that this desire is subordinate to the will of the Holy Spirit (12.11).
Furthermore, on the basis of loving edification he counsels tongues speakers to seek further gifting in the from of interpretation (14.13) and yet favours prophecy as a higher gift because it is by nature a more effectual means of corporate edification.
So the question, it seems to me, is this: how are Christians to seek these gifts and in what context? Is it possible for Christians to develop their confidence and competency in exercising their gifts? And if so, how?
[ 31. May 2012, 11:01: Message edited by: Daron ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
On the subject of human versus angelic languages, there seems to be the implication that we can recognise the former and even ascertain whether a stream of unknown sounds could actually be a legitimate human language. I beg to differ.
There are some extremely strange human languages (to English ears), and I could well imagine that if certain sounds of some genuine languages were heard, it would be hard even for some linguists to believe that they communicated anything intelligible, if they didn't actually know anything about the language.
Here is an example from Mexico. Because Sochiapam Chinantec is a highly tonal language, it is possible to strip away the phonemes* and rely entirely on naked tone - thus complex conversations can be conducted over long distances by whistling alone . Now suppose someone in a church in the West started whistling like this, it would probably be assumed that his "tongue" was dodgy. But this evidence shows that that would not necessarily be the case!
Here is the version of this language with phonemes*. I wonder how many people would dismiss this as "gibberish"?
Human language is exceedingly complex. That's why it can sound outrageously simple at times. So some versions of tongues may sound as if they include very few sounds, but who knows what tonal subtleties are involved?
Therefore it is, in principle, extremely difficult to "test" tongues on the basis of human languages.
(* by "phoneme" I mean the normal sounds of language - i.e. consonants and vowels. I am not too sure whether the whistling sounds - and tones - would be classed as "phonemes". Perhaps a linguist may like to put me right on that point.)
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
I seem to have become invisible, so I'll piss off to another thread. 'Bye.
Don't worry Steve H - you are not invisible! People get embroiled in bits of conversation and ignore what you said. It happens to me a lot here - it's not personal.
Nice to know - thanks for the reassurance! However, while someone making exactly the same point that I made a few posts earlier without acknowledgement could be a simple oversight, not acknowledging the fact after I point it out, reasonably good-humouredly, looks a bit rude. (Not you!) Still, water under the wossname.
I've just quoted you (sadly, not with much approval , sorry!) on the prayer battle thread!
Disagreement is fine - at least it's acknowledgement! I'll head over to that thread later. However, as Boogie suggested earlier, I think this tangent should be dropped now.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Not so Mt G.
You forget that The Salvation Army is neither Pentecostal, Charismatic, or even Reformed!
Being a Wesleyan movement we sit firmly within the heritage of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions via Anglicanism and Methodism - though there is a smattering of American revivalism thrown in from Phoebe Palmer and a little bit of influence from 1850s English evangelical Quakerism.
It may interest you to know that our 'prophet' of holiness, Samuel Logan Brengle was once sent by General Booth to Europe with the task of correcting the abuse of speaking in tongues during 'an outbreak' in the early 1900s.
The General's son, Bramwell, wrote in 1925 when he was himself General,
quote:
"We have to be suspicious of any voices and gifts which make men indisposed to bear the Cross or to seek the salvation of others; and although some of our own people have received what is spoken of as a gift of tongues, we have almost invariably found that one of the consequences has been a disposition to withdraw from hard work for the blessing of others and from fearless testimony to the Saviour. I recognise the dangers which attend the whole subject, and while I believe that these things, as I have witnessed them, are divine in their origin, I do not forget that in some instances they may have been mixed with what is the very reverse...
...it is by their practical effects that all these things must be judged."
Bramwell Booth, 'Echoes and Memories', Hodder and Stoughton, 1925
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
Gamaliel says: quote:
On the day of Pentecost people understood the languages that were spoken. Ok, it might be that the other instances of tongues-speaking we find in the NT were examples of glossolalia rather than xenoglossy but as I've attempted to demonstrate, there is insufficient biblical evidence to tell us exactly what was going on. Hence my caution over verses like the 'tongues of angels' instance.
Not quite. There were 120 people speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2.9-11 lists a number of middle eastern language groups but there's no way of knowing if the tongues spoken at Pentecost were exclusively xenolalic. There may well have been glosolalic utterances in the mix but no-one would have understood without the charismatic gift of interpretation.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
Thanks for the responses. However, I would have appreciated more response to what I posted rather than a couple of people monopolising the site on their own tangent. How about a few ideas from others.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
Well, bib, this is a public discussion board so unfortunately for you it isn't possible to regulate who posts what and who talks to whom. I acknowledge that the thread is 'yours' in some vague sense, of course. The received convention, I think, is that you - as the OPer - can in some way 'manage' the thread by engaging the contributors but attempting to shut people up because they're not saying what you want is a bit rich.
Maybe if you contributed a bit more a whined a bit less people would engage with your OP. As it stands, I've reread your OP and my simple response is this: if you want to talk about evangelism don't start a thread about tongues.
[ 31. May 2012, 12:10: Message edited by: Daron ]
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Where is the gift of discernment in all of this? I reject as logical fallacy the idea that "I speak in tongues and therefore it must be true". There have been numerous studies on the modern 'speaking in tongues' phenomenon, none of them (that I have seen) have found a single example of one that resembles a real language beyond the very superficial. Several of those studies have found that there are patterns found within congregations where they pick up on elements of the 'leader's' babbling. In most of the arguing on this thread the aspect of correlation is largely missing. The fallacious progression seems follow these lines:
1. "I prayed for the gift of tongues' [optional]
2. "In the act of prayer I made some babbling noises"
3. "Therefore I am speaking in tongues"
Just how suggestible are people? Extremely suggestible—we all are. All we need to be is willing and *presto* it happens. We are called to test everything. Most 'speaking in tongues' fails the tests if we are to follow those described in the Bible and those experienced in the early church.
Among these studies, it was also found that the 'vocalisations' that fit the sort of 'babbling' type of speaking in tongues are by no means limited to Christians or even religious people—they can be taught and learned.
Our human experiences are so flimsy and unreliable—why place so much emphasis on something like glossolalia, which is so easily debunked?
K.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky
I reject as logical fallacy the idea that "I speak in tongues and therefore it must be true".
Who is saying that? I mean precisely that, with that kind of reasoning?
quote:
There have been numerous studies on the modern 'speaking in tongues' phenomenon, none of them (that I have seen) have found a single example of one that resembles a real language beyond the very superficial.
Define a "real" language. I already touched on this issue here.
quote:
We are called to test everything. Most 'speaking in tongues' fails the tests if we are to follow those described in the Bible and those experienced in the early church.
OK, so you hear someone speaking in tongues, and you decide - in your method of discernment - that it's dodgy. What then? Perhaps you tell the person. They reply that they disagree with you, and that, on the basis of their experience of God, they are confident that they are not doing anything dodgy. What then? What are you going to do about it? Are you going to try to force that person to stop doing it? Have them sectioned for committing a thought crime?
What exactly are you advocating in practice?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Where is the gift of discernment in all of this? I reject as logical fallacy the idea that "I speak in tongues and therefore it must be true". There have been numerous studies on the modern 'speaking in tongues' phenomenon, none of them (that I have seen) have found a single example of one that resembles a real language beyond the very superficial. Several of those studies have found that there are patterns found within congregations where they pick up on elements of the 'leader's' babbling. In most of the arguing on this thread the aspect of correlation is largely missing. The fallacious progression seems follow these lines:
1. "I prayed for the gift of tongues' [optional]
2. "In the act of prayer I made some babbling noises"
3. "Therefore I am speaking in tongues"
Just how suggestible are people? Extremely suggestible—we all are. All we need to be is willing and *presto* it happens. We are called to test everything. Most 'speaking in tongues' fails the tests if we are to follow those described in the Bible and those experienced in the early church.
Among these studies, it was also found that the 'vocalisations' that fit the sort of 'babbling' type of speaking in tongues are by no means limited to Christians or even religious people—they can be taught and learned.
Our human experiences are so flimsy and unreliable—why place so much emphasis on something like glossolalia, which is so easily debunked?
K.
I don't think tongues is any more easily debunked than prayer itself. Yes, linguistic studies can show that tongue-speaking is not a "real language" in the linguistic sense of it. Yes, we can show that the sounds are often unconsciously "copied" within communities. That does not tell us, though, whether or not it is a "real" event-- i.e. whether or not the Holy Spirit is acting in the believer's life, being made manifest in the utterances-- even if they're "just gibberish". It doesn't tell us whether it is caused by a divine act or human gullibility or a combination of both.
Like prayer or the very existence of God, tongues can never be confirmed nor denied by science.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
Yes, linguistic studies can show that tongue-speaking is not a "real language" in the linguistic sense of it.
What studies?
A link?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
Yes, linguistic studies can show that tongue-speaking is not a "real language" in the linguistic sense of it.
What studies?
A link?
Sadly not everything is available on the internet, but William Samarin and Felicia Goodman have published multiple papers and books on this topic. The LINGUIST list has touced on this topic in the past - and you can probably find some references by searching through their website.
Posted by rhflan (# 17092) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
It looks very much as if tongues in Acts 2 are speaking in a way that could be understood by the crowd as speaking in their own languages.
But it looks as if tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is something different.
This.
My understanding (based off of the Bible, what I'd been taught, other books about it, and my own personal experience) is that there are basically two kinds of tongues. The one mentioned in Acts 2, which I guess I would describe as having a sort of 'word from the Lord' in another language, where there's someone else there who knows the language; and then in 1 Corinthians 12-14, where I think that it's talking about a private prayer language. It *might* be some other language that is spoken on Earth, or it might now, but it's really something that's between you and God.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It doesn't tell us whether it is caused by a divine act or human gullibility or a combination of both.
Why would you put these as the only three options?
I see it as a human choice, a way of connecting with God. I don't see it as a supernatural gift. There is nothing that isn't natural, imo.
If we are believers then we choose the way in which we relate to and connect with God.
This is one of many.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Thanks for the responses. However, I would have appreciated more response to what I posted rather than a couple of people monopolising the site on their own tangent. How about a few ideas from others.
I don't get this bib(?)
You put up an OP about tongues - why wouldn't you expect a discussion on that very subject?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Thanks for the responses. However, I would have appreciated more response to what I posted rather than a couple of people monopolising the site on their own tangent. How about a few ideas from others.
In other words "thanks, but no thanks".
I count at least twenty contributors to this thread and at least half a dozen who have posted three or more times. This is your second post, including the OP. If you are actually interested in the subject, and want more variety of feed-back, get more involved. It's not rocket science.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
EE there have been lots of studies of tongues-speaking and many are readily available from any public library.
Your point about very strange human languages, such as the whistling one from Mexico and so on doesn't help you as much as you think. If we heard people speaking something like that then it might actually make the 'tongues' more convincing ie. it was so unusual that they would be hardly likely to be making it up.
As it is, for the most part what we get is the 'angarbangarabangara' stuff that we've all heard at one time or another and which is pretty easy for anyone to do with the modicum of instruction.
And it has been well documented that in many Pentecostal and charismatic congregations the dominant 'style' of tongue is that of the leaders - with the clear implication that people are following suit as a form of learned behaviour.
I find it very perplexing why you apparently find it so difficult to grasp that what we might be dealing with here is a natural rather than a supernatural phenomenon.
I'm not suggesting that the supernatural version, if you like, doesn't exist. I'm simply suggesting that what we appear to be dealing with for the most part is a very human and very psychological and easily naturally explained activity.
What's the big deal about suggesting such a thing? It's not as if I'm denying the virgin birth or the resurrection ...
@Daron - well, scripture doesn't tell us how many human languages were spoken on the day of Pentecost. It lists some. Who knows? But the clear implication is that the languages spoken by the 120 disciples were 'understanded of the people' - or at least some of the people. I would suggest that there was a far higher 'strike-rate' on the day of Pentecost than there is in most charismatic circles today - even if we accept that we are dealing with the same phenomena.
You would be the first to criticise an RC or an Orthodox Christian for arguing from the silence of scripture and substituting 'human tradition' for the clear teaching of the text. And yet here you are doing the self-same thing.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Your point about very strange human languages, such as the whistling one from Mexico and so on doesn't help you as much as you think. If we heard people speaking something like that then it might actually make the 'tongues' more convincing ie. it was so unusual that they would be hardly likely to be making it up.
Actually it doesn't help on another level. If I understood the argument correctly, it was that languages are sufficiently different so as to elude any form of identification. That is not in fact the case, even absent ideas of a universal grammar (which aren't so favoured these days) it's possible to start to identify structures which can give a probability that the material is in some language form. The actual vehicle by which the sounds are made is somewhat incidental.
Also, going back to the 'speaking tongues in a Glaswegian accent' post. The point is that tongue speakers by and large only ever use the inviduals phonemes that exist in their native language which is quite unlikely if what they were speaking was a completely different language. Consider that French contains phonemes that don't exist in English and vice versa (something that is true for all european languages to one extent or another).
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
Gamaliel says: quote:
Well, scripture doesn't tell us how many human languages were spoken on the day of Pentecost. It lists some. Who knows?
Correct. It just says they spoke in tongues that didn't need interpretation because understood them. Or it could be that the different people in the crowd were given the gift of interpretation. I doubt that though. quote:
But the clear implication is that the languages spoken by the 120 disciples were 'understanded of the people' - or at least some of the people.
I think that's right. quote:
I would suggest that there was a far higher 'strike-rate' on the day of Pentecost than there is in most charismatic circles today - even if we accept that we are dealing with the same phenomena.
Oh my goodness! Are we really gonna go over this again? There are different kinds of tongues. The tongues at Pentecost were qualitatively and perhaps functionally different but non phenomenologically different.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Quote: " There were gathered in Jerusalem Jews ......."
Presumably dispersed Jews, like devout Jews today attended Hebrew lessons at school out of hours.
Any need for 120 odd languages to be spoken?
And, anyway, I think Luke was writing theology in this accout. ( Babel reversed for one thing)
[ 31. May 2012, 16:28: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It doesn't tell us whether it is caused by a divine act or human gullibility or a combination of both.
Why would you put these as the only three options?
I see it as a human choice, a way of connecting with God. I don't see it as a supernatural gift. There is nothing that isn't natural, imo.
If we are believers then we choose the way in which we relate to and connect with God.
This is one of many.
Sorry, I was trying to be suggestive, not limiting.
I would see it as a human choice, a way of connecting with God, but would also see it as supernatural-- it is one of many ways in which "heaven and earth intersect" (to use Wright's phrase)-- ways in which God reaches us in surprising and unexpected places.
And yes, very much one of many.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
EE there have been lots of studies of tongues-speaking and many are readily available from any public library.
Your point about very strange human languages, such as the whistling one from Mexico and so on doesn't help you as much as you think. If we heard people speaking something like that then it might actually make the 'tongues' more convincing ie. it was so unusual that they would be hardly likely to be making it up.
As it is, for the most part what we get is the 'angarbangarabangara' stuff that we've all heard at one time or another and which is pretty easy for anyone to do with the modicum of instruction.
And it has been well documented that in many Pentecostal and charismatic congregations the dominant 'style' of tongue is that of the leaders - with the clear implication that people are following suit as a form of learned behaviour.
I find it very perplexing why you apparently find it so difficult to grasp that what we might be dealing with here is a natural rather than a supernatural phenomenon.
Again, I don't think the facts you present here (which I am not at all disputing) demonstrate that it is not a "supernatural phenomenon". It simply demonstrates that it's not a linguistic medium-- a language per se. It demonstrates that it is learned, but not that it's not valid or real.
Again, it's not much different than prayer itself. Prayer is also learned, and has certain "community markers". People from the same faith community usually pray rather similarly, whether that's use of archaic KJV language, lofty liturgical phrasing, or excessive use of the word "just". That doesn't mean that prayer isn't a real activity where God is present and active, even if it looks different in different places.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair do's, Cliffdweller, but you'll know as well as I do that this isn't what most charismatics are claiming - they are not claiming to be using 'praying languages' that it may be possible to learn or pick up by osmosis, but actual supernaturally endowed languages ... which is quite a different thing.
I will accept that 'natural' actions can be embued with supernatural significance - and the eucharist and baptism are examples of that, I would suggest.
As is prayer in general.
But I think there are rather more claims than that being made here. Angelic languages for one thing.
@Daron - yes, we will keep going over it again because you appear recalcitrant and unable to accept as a possibility that you might be making these things up - perhaps unconsciously - but making them up all the same.
You seem to be suggesting that just because you've experienced speaking in tongues yourself then ipso facto it must be real. You are using your own subjective experience as the yardstick. Effectively, you have become your own Pope ...
And you are still arguing from the silences of scripture. Shamwari is right about the theological aspect of what Luke is writing - a kind of reverse Babel. Even if we accept the historicity of his account - ie. it refers to an actual incident - then this still applies.
We really have no possible way of telling whether the 'tongues' that charismatics speak today are the same phenomena that the Apostle Paul alludes to.
End of.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair do's, Cliffdweller, but you'll know as well as I do that this isn't what most charismatics are claiming - they are not claiming to be using 'praying languages' that it may be possible to learn or pick up by osmosis, but actual supernaturally endowed languages ... which is quite a different thing.
I will accept that 'natural' actions can be embued with supernatural significance - and the eucharist and baptism are examples of that, I would suggest.
As is prayer in general.
I don't think you're understanding my point.
I am also suggesting that tongues are "actual supernaturally endowed languages" rather than just something we "pick up by osmosis." My point was that the fact that it's not a real "language" or that the sounds are "picked up" does not mean that the experience itself is not Spirit-instigated. My purely speculative theory (based in part by the research on tongues and other multi-faith ecstatic experiences vis-a-vis the neurological "God spot") is that this is more about what's happening elsewhere in the heart, mind, or spirit while the tongue/ language center of the brain is otherwise engaged. Therefore it's not important that it be "real language" or that it bears community markers. The sounds made and where they come from are irrelevant-- it's about what's happening elsewhere.
That doesn't change the fact that there is undeniably some degree of faking-- possibly even a lot. And that faking is directly proportional to the amount of pressure or guilt placed on parishioners to "perform". But I don't think you can prove faking or even non-pneumatic origins in general based on the linguistic studies that have been done (any more than the "God spot" proves or disproves the existence of God).
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But I think there are rather more claims than that being made here. Angelic languages for one thing.
Again, most people (not all, I grant) who speak of "angelic languages" are, I think, simply mimicking Paul's use of the term, which I think is more poetic than literal.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Gamaliel,
Since you insist that I should subject my own "gift of tongues" to linguistic testing - not something that I have liked to do, because this gift is not a trivial thing of curiosity - I have discovered that it appears to contain ten consonants and it is difficult to ascertain the number of vowels, because of the question of length and diphthongs, but I would venture at least five. So here we have fifteen phonemes.
This is not dissimilar to the Hawaiian language, which has eight consonants and five vowels (with both long and short versions of the vowels - so perhaps that should be ten vowels). The Maori and Kiribati languages also have similarly sized alphabets. The Piraha language has only ten phonemes and Rotokas has eleven.
Of course, we have to factor in the phenomenon of tone, stress and context, which can also create a rich vocabulary. The Mexican language I referred to earlier has up to 14 tone and stress versions of a single syllable, and to the foreign ear it is almost impossible to tell the difference between these different sounds - there is some information about this here.
A language with 10 consonants and five vowels could generate hundreds of unique syllables, and the count would be considerably boosted by tonal variations. Then when syllables are combined, a lexican of thousands of words could easily be generated. I haven't gone into an analysis of the structure of the words I use, and I don't intend to. But I think I have made my point. From what I know about languages (and it's quite a bit), I am satisfied that my "tongues" is a legitimate language and not the babble you think it might be.
However, I don't regard this kind of "testing" as the means by which this gift is validated. I have already explained the basis of my discernment on this matter.
The linguistic studies can say what they like. It doesn't follow that every instance of "tongues" should be simple babble that is generated naturally. In fact I have a suspicion that Christians who have the genuine gift are not likely to want to subject something, which they regard as holy and precious, to linguistic testing at the hands of sceptics (unless recordings have been made of their utterances without their permission). I only say this, because that is my feeling about the matter. So it could possibly be the case that the material that linguists have had to work with may be compromised anyway. (Yes, I know the latter few sentences are presenting a circular argument - I admit that that is merely a subjective impression, but I thought I would state it anyway.)
Happy now?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, I'm not.
Why not? Because you haven't subjected your 'tongue' to proper scientific, linguistic analysis and discovered that you are speaking some kind of Polynesian dialect or anything of the kind.
You are simply jumping to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence.
As it happens, I'm a lot more comfortable with Cliffdweller's explanation as given in the post above yours than I am with your wishful thinking ... which is cloaked in a kind of pietistic fog - with the get-out clause of 'these things are holy, we can't possibly subject them to any form of scientific analysis ...'
I don't doubt that you are able to speak in tongues. I can speak in tongues too. But I'd be very, very surprised if it turned out that I was speaking the dialect of Upper Silesia or the language of the Solomon Islands. I wouldn't have the hubris to make any such claim.
I do believe in the charismatic dimension, I do believe in healing and I do believe in prophecy.
But what I don't like are the get-out-of-jail-free-cards that are so often bandied about to justify the apparent lack of a verifiable outcome.
So, on the extremes we get the word-of-faith guys who make ridiculous claims such as, 'This person has been healed but only the symptoms remain ...' and so on.
I'm not accusing you of being like that.
However, there is this tendency to cite ever more flimsy excuses to cover up a lack of actual 'results' if I can put it that way.
In the instance of the early Pentecostals, it is a matter of historical record that they genuinely believed they were speaking in actual, real, live human languages - until they went on the mission field and had to adjust their position, alighting on the poetic 'tongues of angels' comment by the Apostle Paul as a convenient 'get-out-clause'.
The same applies to prophecy. I remember Ramarius citing - in a very literal way - an apparently simple prophecy from one of the Minor Prophets in order to justify the occurrence of apparently 'so-what?' style prophecies today.
The list goes on ...
You seem hell-bent ( ) on insisting that your 'gift of tongues' can't possibly be anything other than the genuine article. On what basis?
It might very well be the genuine article, some kind of supernaturally endowed language in the way that Cliffdweller describes. Then again, it might not be.
Rather than a principled agnosticism on these issues being the untenable position that Daron suggests, I'd suggest that in the light of the evidence we have it's the only position we can possibly take.
You might not like that and I certainly don't mean any offence by it. I'm certainly not suggesting that you are stringing us along. But 'who can discern his errors?'
You and I both might be self-deluded by thinking we can speak in tongues. It simply seems to me as an open and principled position to accept that possibility.
Am I making sense?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Does it matter even if it is 'babble'? Perhaps babble can serve a useful function in comforting people (psycho-babble) at a very deep level, even if they don't know what they're saying? I'm not a supporter of speaking in tongues at an interpretive level, but I can see that it can be useful at times when there are no words to express deep feelings.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
You seem hell-bent on insisting that your 'gift of tongues' can't possibly be anything other than the genuine article. On what basis?
I have already explained.
But since you don't accept that explanation, then let me give you another "explanation", that will, I am sure, please you...
I am a totally heretical, dodgy, morally and spiritually irresponsible, utterly gullible pseudo-Christian, who has decided one day - for the pure hell of it - to babble away in a load of gibberish, 'cos it just gives me a kick. Everything about me is pure apostasy, and don't I just luv it!! Great, innit, this depravity!
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
There. I'm totally up the creek, and I admit it.
ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? Now that I have told you what your itching ears want to hear?
(By the way... you need to clue up on linguistics, mate)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, I would agree, Chorister. It's just that some people on these boards seem to insist that what they're doing isn't babble but something deeper and more profound than that. So deeply spiritual and profound that they wouldn't even entertain the possibility of subjecting it to linguistic analysis.
I would suggest that if they were that comfortable in their own skins and convinced of the value of the apparent gift then they wouldn't be at all fazed by linguistic analysis. It would either confirm to them (and amaze the world) that they were speaking a genuine language or they would go, 'Ok, it's a fair cop, so it must be a language unknown to science or else the linguists have got it wrong or it must be some kind of heavenly language, the tongues of angels ...'
Either way, they ain't going to lose out ...
More seriously, I have been a tad harsh on EE, I must admit.
However, an immediate alarm bell rings when he suggests that ALL the linguists involved in such studies must be sceptics and that this is why no genuine tongues-speakers have come forward ...
Special pleading or what?
I'd be more than happy to go to a laboratory and have someone tape me speaking in tongues. What's there to be frightened of?
It's not as if the sky would fall in if someone could demonstrate to EE that there is a perfectly natural explanation for his apparent ability to speak in tongues.
It's not as if Christ would not be raised from the dead or that God would cease to exist.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, that's not what my itching ears want to hear, EE.
I am not suggesting you are having us on. I believe you are sincere.
If I might for a moment ventriloquise what I might say were I in your shoes - well, my own take for what it's worth - it would be like this.
'Ahem .. (clears throat), I am a Christian and I believe that there is a supernatural dimension to the Christian faith. I also believe that there are things that are difficult to explain and much that remains mysterious and unknown. Some of these things might well have a perfectly legitimate scientific explanation that we don't understand yet. Others may well remain mysteries for as long as mankind lives on this planet.
I keep an open mind.
In the course of my Christian life I have had various experiences of what I consider to be supernatural events. I could list these. Among them is the apparent ability I have to speak in what I have taken to be a language I haven't learned. It's something I use in prayer and I value it highly. I can't prove that it is a real language or simply some form of rhythmic utterance that I have learned to produce. I find it helpful, but I wouldn't insist that it was supernatural in origin. If a scientist or psychologist could offer me a satisfactory explanation for this behaviour then I would accept their explanation.
My faith in Christ doesn't stand or fall on the ability to use this apparent 'gift'. Even if it could be demonstrated to me that it was some kind of unconscious, psychological use of an inner 'psychic' language as it were then it wouldn't mean that I would abandon my faith. My faith is bigger and stronger than apparent 'signs' of that kind and doesn't depend on proof-positive in that sense. Nevertheless, it is a rational faith and I am open to the findings of modern science, of modern biblical criticism and the evidence of my own senses. I like to apply common sense and in cases where there appears to be doubt or uncertainty, tend to go for the simplest or most rational explanation.
In the case of 'speaking in tongues' there are apparent rational explanations. I am cool with that.'
Is that any better?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I need to clue up on linguistics?
Perhaps.
You need to stop being a pompous pietistic prat.
Shall I see you in Hell?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Does it matter even if it is 'babble'? Perhaps babble can serve a useful function in comforting people (psycho-babble) at a very deep level, even if they don't know what they're saying? I'm not a supporter of speaking in tongues at an interpretive level, but I can see that it can be useful at times when there are no words to express deep feelings.
That's closer to what I'm saying... I don't have the sense when I'm speaking in tongues that it's language in the sense of "this set of syllables = that English word or phrase". I have more the sense that an emotion, a thought, a worship experience that is beyond words is somehow being expressed. I think that's more than just "comforting" and a heck of a lot more than "psychobabble" but also not the same thing as a "real" language, whether earthly or heavenly.
fwiw. ymmv.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As it happens, I'm a lot more comfortable with Cliffdweller's explanation as given in the post above yours than I am with your wishful thinking ...
pure speculation on my part, though. And based on rather limited experiential data.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In the instance of the early Pentecostals, it is a matter of historical record that they genuinely believed they were speaking in actual, real, live human languages - until they went on the mission field and had to adjust their position, alighting on the poetic 'tongues of angels' comment by the Apostle Paul as a convenient 'get-out-clause'.
But that's not at all unique to Pentecostals. The history of the Christian church is one of constantly adapting what we've learned through Scripture with our experience and with what we learn thru science. Look at the way we've had to adapt our understanding of the physical world, the universe and what that means theologically, to what we've learned thru science.
I could argue that the fact that the early Pentecostals were so sure of their gift that they were able to take such a huge gamble-- traveling halfway across the world on the confident expectation that God would empower them to speak the indigenous language-- as evidence of the supernatural nature of their gift. They certainly weren't faking on any conscious level, or they wouldn't haven't stepped out in such a way.
So they had a powerful, extraordinary experience that was at least not consciously faked or manufactured, so quite possibly of divine origin. The natural thing to do is look to Scripture to understand/ interpret it. They began with Acts 2.
When Acts 2 failed to adequately explain the phenomenon, they looked to 1 Cor. And I'm sorry, where you and I part ways is your insistence that the 1 Cor. interpretation was "convenient". To me ch. 14 in particular fits the modern Pentecostal experience to a T. I could find it curious that so many on this thread have focused on speculating the meaning of ch. 13's "ifs" or the elusive "tongues of angels", while failing to take into account the context-- ch. 14 makes the meaning really pretty clear.
I don't see anything untoward about this process. It is the way we discern pretty much everything about our faith. We begin w/ Scripture & tradition, bringing to it inevitably certain assumptions-- which then are challenged by new information from reason or experience-- which causes us to look again at Scripture and tradition and reassess/ re-evaluation those assumptions. It's an ongoing process of discernment.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'll buy that, Cliffdweller ... seems to be back where we started when I said that I have actually 'interpreted' tongues and that's the impression I've had - rather like 'interpreting' the mood of a piece of music or piece of abstract art.
I know it doesn't 'prove' one way or another whether it is supernatural or not ... but what you've said makes sense to me - and, dare I say it, sounds a lot less precious than some of the positions taken on these boards ...
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
However, an immediate alarm bell rings when he suggests that ALL the linguists involved in such studies must be sceptics and that this is why no genuine tongues-speakers have come forward ...
Special pleading or what?
Are you just taking the piss, Gammy, old man?
Didn't I admit that this was a circular argument, and was only my impression. For goodness sake, what is wrong with you? I admitted that that was not a serious argument - and yet you use that against me. FFS, get a grip!!!
quote:
I'd be more than happy to go to a laboratory and have someone tape me speaking in tongues. What's there to be frightened of?
Who said I was frightened?
quote:
It's not as if the sky would fall in if someone could demonstrate to EE that there is a perfectly natural explanation for his apparent ability to speak in tongues.
But they could never prove that it was natural. Coming up with a "natural explanation" does not prove natural causation. That's the great fallacy that many scientists commit.
I know that it is not due to a natural cause, but it would be impossible for me to convince someone who was looking for a natural explanation, because they could say: "Well, it is physically possible for someone to make up these sounds." Yes, it is. It is no different from a preacher who preached an anointed sermon being told that his words were entirely "natural". After all, it is physically possible for an atheist to preach exactly the same sermon by mouthing the exact same form of words. Do you honestly think that preacher would give a monkeys what such "investigators" thought, when he knew - on the basis of his experience of the Holy Spirit - that his words were anointed and inspired by God?
If you think I am deluded, then fine. THINK THAT.
I really don't give a monkey's arse whether you think my gift of tongues is made up or not.
I KNOW THAT IT IS OF GOD.
End of.
By the way...
Since you are so keen on testing me, perhaps I will set a little test for you.
If you heard someone making the following sound, would you consider that it was gibberish or a genuine language:
abobabababebulebebalolelelawele
Please answer this question. What's your impression about this string of sounds?
What do you think your well-informed "high and mighty" linguists would say?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry, we're getting tangled here. My 'I'll buy that' was in response to your reply to Chorister, Cliffdweller.
On your subsequent post, the one about how the Penties tried to make sense of their experience, well yes, I'd go along with that around 80-90% of the way - more on a 'good' day ...
But I'm not entirely convinced that we can fit 1 Corinthians 14 to modern Pentecostal experience to a T.
It might be a close-ish approximation but that's the most we can hope for, I would suggest.
There's still the issue that not all Pentecostals and not all charismatics can agree on the details of 1 Corinthians 14 anyway. I'm sure you've come across differing views on how the 'logistics' works out in practice.
Ok, so there's a broad enough agreement there but hardly a complete consensus.
I stick by my original point that we don't know enough nor can we infer enough from these passages to construct a water-tight approach to how to work these things through in practice - but the same applies to other passages we could mention.
That's why I'm happy to live with a degree of ambiguity about the whole thing.
EE, bless 'im, seems to think that the whole thing is so binary and clear-cut that there are only two alternatives - ie. to speak in tongues or not to speak in tongues.
I'm suggesting that it's not as clear cut as that.
If people want to speak in tongues, fine, let them go ahead. As long as they don't pretend that the whole thing is so battened down and tidy that it is completely incontrovertible.
It isn't.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you heard someone making the following sound, would you consider that it was gibberish or a genuine language:
abobabababebulebebalolelelawele
Please answer this question. What's your impression about this string of sounds?
What do you think your well-informed "high and mighty" linguists would say?
They would probably say that they don't have enough material to come to any conclusion.
I think you are doing the field a disservice in your mischaracterisation.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@EE
Well, it's all down to context, my friend and you've raised an interesting point.
Given the context and thrust of your argument, I'm immediately on my guard and my initial reaction is, 'Here are some syllabic patterns I don't recognise. The 'wele' part at the end is reminiscent of certain sounds I've heard or seen transcribed from African languages, such as Swahili. It could be that dear old EE is pulling my plonker and setting a trap, expecting me to say, "This is arrant nonsense. There is no way this is a real human language, EE has made it up ..."
Whereupon the pompous pietistic prig will turn around and say, "Got you, you sceptical bastard, using my superior linguistic knowledge of which I am so inordinately proud - as proud as I am of my apparent spiritual gifts and superior 'anointing' - I can now show him that this is in fact the Masai language and I know better than you-oou ...nur nur na nur nur ...'
Well, I ain't gonna step into your trap, sonny.
All I'd be prepared to say when confronted with something like that would be:
'Well, parts of it look like an African language but I can't say for sure. Let's subject it to proper, objective linguistic analysis and then we'll find out.'
As for your 'My tongues are of God. Proof positive. End of.' Well, there is such a thing as hubris, of spiritual pride, of 'prelest' as the Russians call it.
Beware. Of all sins spiritual pride is the worst and most insidious.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Concerning my little test:
abobabababebulebebalolelelawele
It looks just like a string of the kind of gibberish that Gammy would write to mock the gift of tongues.
In fact, I wish I had changed the tense and put:
abobabababebulebebalolelelelewele
All that repetition looks a bit babyish and extreme, don't you think?
Actually it's from a language I am fairly familiar with called Lumasaaba, from eastern Uganda. It means "they who are brethren look to God". Admittedly there would be word spaces, but the language is spoken so quickly that you would never guess there were. With the tense change we have "balolelelele" = "have looked".
It is a highly complex language with a verb system far more sophisticated than English. The syllables that repeat are totally different due to their grammatical function, and I doubt a native speaker would notice the repetition, but rather their minds would be tuned to the meaning. There is absolutely nothing primitive about the language and it is well able to express the whole range of human thought and experience that English can.
To call something gibberish because it consists of few phonemes and much repetition is just pig ignorance.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
To call something gibberish because it consists of few phonemes and much repetition is just pig ignorance.
Which is not what linguists studying tongues are doing.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not suggesting that anything that consists of a few phonemes is necessarily gibberish. If you'd read my posts properly you'd have seen that I correctly identified the piece you've reproduced here as a possible African language.
I saw through your trap and avoided it.
You really are the prize pillock at times.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Gamaliel posted: I'd be more than happy to go to a laboratory and have someone tape me speaking in tongues. What's there to be frightened of?
Having a good day then?
The point about speaking in tongues, prophetic words and yes even our own prayers is that they can never stand up to laboratory testing.
There is much of the Christian faith that can be reasoned by scientific understanding especially with the technological advancements we have today. But heaps still remains a mystery. It's simply called faith and this faith takes on many forms and shapes. I know this is obvious.
Whereas I think and agree that you have some valid points about Charismatic's your posts seem to send out mixed messages. First you are very critical and then you apologise but then get critical again. If you stood in the camp that says I reject Charismatics or in the camp that says I still lean in that direction that would be ok. The problem is that you seem to want a foot in both camps.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
You really are the prize pillock at times.
Well, it seems that my greatest act of "pillockness" is to have confidence in God.
Poor me for being so terribly arrogant - oh me of too much faith!!
As for the trap I set...
Yes you did rightly suspect it was a trap (kinda obvious really!). But it makes the point that we should not rush to judgment about language. Something can sound minimal and repetitive, but that does not mean it is not replete with meaning, as I have demonstrated.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
Which is not what linguists studying tongues are doing.
Exactly. So where does that leave Gammy's little thesis?
As I pointed out earlier in the thread (with empirical evidence to boot), even whistling can be a genuine and complex language. So what's Gammy on about then?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As I pointed out earlier in the thread (with empirical evidence to boot), even whistling can be a genuine and complex language. So what's Gammy on about then?
I don't think he said what you thought he said.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
What Gammy is on about is simply this:
- He believes that speaking in tongues might be possible. Anything is possible with God.
- He concedes that some languages can sound unconvincing but turn out to be the genuine article.
HOWEVER, given the way that 'tongues' can be encouraged/induced in charismatic circles and that there are no documented instances of charismatics speaking in any known languages then it would appear to be likely that what most charismatics are doing is not speaking in 'real' languages at all.
I also believe that there is such a thing as spiritual pride.
I detect symptoms of it in your posts.
Why? Because you apparently regard your position to be above and beyond question.
That's always a bad sign.
Where does 'confidence in God' become blind and blinkered spiritual pride? That's the refuge of the jihadist and the fanatic.
I don't see how a position that says, 'I speak in tongues and believe it to be a gift of God but I am also open to the possibility that it might not be ...' displays a lack of faith or confidence.
Even in my more full on charismatic days I remained open to the possibility that I might not be speaking in tongues at all but simply following cues and patterns that were established within the group I belonged to.
I really don't see what the problem is in acknowledging that.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yes you did rightly suspect it was a trap (kinda obvious really!). But it makes the point that we should not rush to judgment about language. Something can sound minimal and repetitive, but that does not mean it is not replete with meaning, as I have demonstrated.
I think the point was, that on the occasions where linguists have studied samples of tongues, they've found them not to have the sort of structures one would associate with real languages and they've found no evidence of xenoglossy - so it would seem to be incredibly rare.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
Well Polly, I think a lot of us (and I'm not trying to speak for Gamaliel here) find the absoluteness of many Charismatic/Penti claims to be the issue, rather than the claims themselves. That's not a 'foot in both camps' but a different camp altogether.
One thing most charismatics that I know seem to abhor, is the position of 'I'm skeptical of your claims, but don't reject them altogether.' I had a charismatic friend that I used to drive nuts by just looking at him blankly and shrugging when he'd give a report on 'what happened at church.' He couldn't stand the fact that I didn't want to affirm or argue with him.
With regards to the current debate: EE may very well have the 'genuine article' when it comes to speaking in tongues, I don't know and frankly don't care; but its his total unwillingness to even consider the alternative (that his gift is more of this earth than from heaven) that I find suspect. To me, his rather fragile demeanor over the issue betrays a lack of confidence in his own claims.
In the end I think you're right, it's all very much a mystery; I'm skeptical of anyone who has it all figured out.
Posted by Fr Raphael (# 17131) on
:
I don't have strong views on speaking in tongues, and did, many years ago find myself doing it in worship once or twice.
Looking back I wonder if it was about not finding the vocabulary but wanting to worship. Rather like the sounds of a baby to her parent.
I don't move in speaking in tongues circles now but I get the impression in my own church, the C of E, it is n't as common as it ways. Evangelicals become more and more numerous in the C of E and bring with them, often, dedication and enthusiasm, but not speaking in tongues. At least that's my understanding.
to be fair though doesn't Alpha encourage speaking in tongues, so maybe there are C of E places encouraging it more.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I also believe that there is such a thing as spiritual pride.
I detect symptoms of it in your posts.
Why? Because you apparently regard your position to be above and beyond question.
That's always a bad sign.
Where does 'confidence in God' become blind and blinkered spiritual pride? That's the refuge of the jihadist and the fanatic.
OK, so I submit to your idea of humility and allow myself to be questioned.
You have asked me a question. I did not ignore it, but I answered it. But you did not accept my answer. So what am I supposed to do with someone who insists on making up the rules of the game?
By whose rules do we play the game? Yours? Mine? God's?
It seems that you are insisting that we should all play the game by your rules. That looks to me like deep-seated pride.
quote:
I don't see how a position that says, 'I speak in tongues and believe it to be a gift of God but I am also open to the possibility that it might not be ...' displays a lack of faith or confidence.
Fair enough, but how far can we take this idea?
"I believe I exist, but I am open to the possibility that I might not exist..."
"I believe that I was born on a certain day, but I am open to the possibility that I may not have been..."
"I believe the earth orbits the sun, but I am open to the possibilty that it may not..."
etc...
Now I anticipate that your answer to this will be: ah but you can be certain of these things because of evidence.
Exactly! Evidence.
It is not proud to accept the verdict of EVIDENCE.
But how then do we define the concept of "evidence"?
I think there is such a thing as "spiritual evidence". Is it arrogant to accept the verdict of spiritual evidence - i.e. the evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit?
If you really think so, then I assume you don't accept the Bible as the Word of God, because nowhere in the Bible is there the slightest hint that it is a virtue to doubt the work of the Holy Spirit. Yes, we must "test" all things, but only in order to come to settled conclusions. That is not an excuse to make a virtue of doubt.
Finally... if you really think I am a Jihadist in waiting, then I pity you. I really do.
[ 31. May 2012, 21:44: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Gameliel, it does seem to me that you are being a little unfair to EE. I think it is right and correct to "test the spirits", but that is not to say that we are enjoined to be sceptical as a continuing attitude. Surely the aim of any testing is that we should, at the end of the process, have discerned whether or not the gifting in question is of God. I think that EE has explained, fairly explicitly, the testing process which he has employed, though he did not have to do so.
I am somewhat bemused that you feel his testing to be inadequate: it seems just the sort of process employed by most people of faith when trying to assess any specific issue, whether it's speaking in tongues or belief in the Holy Trinity. That is, is it consonant with a reasonable reading of scripture, is it an understanding shared by at least a number of other Christians, does the Holy Spirit bear witness to it in my own experience, etc, etc. I think it unlikely that you would have been so outspoken about this had the discussiob been about, say, the Divinitu of Christ, even if the conclusions were tested with precisely the same tools
Of course, the argument as to whether tongues is a true spiritual gift or a human activity is somewhat sterile. It seems to me that it is both. The origin is, I believe, Divine, and, arguments about the tongues of angels notwithstanding, I think that a natural reading of scripture could be said to support such a contention. But it is a gift expressed through our bodies, and that,AFAICS, means that we mediate the gift in some way, whether it be by using, in your case, I guess, a mellifluent Welsh cadence with a side of hwyl, or by using only the sounds common to our "mother tongue".
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sorry, we're getting tangled here. My 'I'll buy that' was in response to your reply to Chorister, Cliffdweller.
On your subsequent post, the one about how the Penties tried to make sense of their experience, well yes, I'd go along with that around 80-90% of the way - more on a 'good' day ...
But I'm not entirely convinced that we can fit 1 Corinthians 14 to modern Pentecostal experience to a T.
It might be a close-ish approximation but that's the most we can hope for, I would suggest.
There's still the issue that not all Pentecostals and not all charismatics can agree on the details of 1 Corinthians 14 anyway. I'm sure you've come across differing views on how the 'logistics' works out in practice.
Ok, so there's a broad enough agreement there but hardly a complete consensus.
I stick by my original point that we don't know enough nor can we infer enough from these passages to construct a water-tight approach to how to work these things through in practice - but the same applies to other passages we could mention.
That's why I'm happy to live with a degree of ambiguity about the whole thing.
EE, bless 'im, seems to think that the whole thing is so binary and clear-cut that there are only two alternatives - ie. to speak in tongues or not to speak in tongues.
I'm suggesting that it's not as clear cut as that.
If people want to speak in tongues, fine, let them go ahead. As long as they don't pretend that the whole thing is so battened down and tidy that it is completely incontrovertible.
It isn't.
untangling the dropped threads here, yeah, I think we're in the same neighborhood in our views, G.
As I said in the 2nd half of my post, I think there is (or should be) always a dynamic interplay between our reading of Scripture & tradition, our experience, and reason/ scientific discovery, etc. My understanding of tongues has been influence by 1 Cor. 12-14 but also by the linguistic studies, and, as I said, the "God spot" research. And my understanding of that research is influenced by my experience of speaking in tongues. Hopefully, I will remain open to new data and understanding, so that my understanding of tongues and other sorts of things will continue to evolve and develop through the interplay of differing experiences, learning, study of Scripture, scientific discovery, etc.
[ 31. May 2012, 23:56: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
I don't have Tourette's syndrome (AFAIK) but I frequently speak "in tongues". It's slightly embarrassing when my wife hears it, more so when I think strangers overhear.
In my case it's mo more than a vocal twitch, though I can do it voluntarily ad nauseam.
I can do it contemplatively, quietly, or angrily.
I'm sure I could make it a private prayer if I so wished. It's great fun doing it in long rhyming couplets.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you really think so, then I assume you don't accept the Bible as the Word of God, because nowhere in the Bible is there the slightest hint that it is a virtue to doubt the work of the Holy Spirit. Yes, we must "test" all things, but only in order to come to settled conclusions. That is not an excuse to make a virtue of doubt.
Yes - you have hit the nail of the head there (for me)
I have no faith in the Bible.
I pray every day in tongues as this is my best way of wordlessly praying.
This is because I don't believe God 'answers prayer' - so requests are pretty pointless anyway.
But I do want to give thanks to God and I also want to remove distractions to 'sit in God's presence' as S/he gives me strength for the day.
<code>
[ 01. June 2012, 06:24: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Baptist Trainfan: I can pray in tongues while I'm driving, for instance, with my mind fully alert yet dissociated from my actual words.
Hmm, do you mind if I try again? I can see that this subject is a bit sensitive (it has already spawned a Hell call ), but I hope that I'm allowed to try to approach it from a physiological angle, just to see where it will lead. I'm just trying, I'm not a neurologist, but the way I see it is something like this.
If we give our brain a task that takes some effort, and we repeat it a lot of times, then there comes a point where it becomes automatic, and the brain detaches itself from the task. However, because of this intensive process that is going on, our whole brain is entering a state that is somehow different than when it is at rest. It reaches a state of consciousness that is somehow different.
I can feel this when I'm playing an improvised trumpet solo. There is a point where my mind detaches from the actual notes, and enters a state that is different. I tried to do speaking in tongues yesterday (I found it quite easy) and I got the same feeling.
Maybe it has something to do with increasing blood flow to the brain, I don't know. But something is happening to our brain. The same thing happens with our bodies if we let our legs do some very physical excercise: the state of our whole body changes.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'trance', because it carries negative associations for some people (on this thread, someone even called it a 'subversion of the brain'). This 'different state' of our brain doesn't mean that we walk around like unconscious zombies, unaware of our surroundings. I'm not surprised that you're able to drive under these conditions, I'm guessing that you can even be more alert in this state.
Of course, if we take this process much farther, then we can enter a real trance. In fact, a number of religious practices around the world use this very process to reach a trance state. But I'm guessing that most people who speak in tongues get nowhere near that stage.
Just to be clear, by approaching this from a physiological angle, I'm not trying to remove God from the picture. I think that we're in this state, we can reach out to something higher, and this can very well be God.
I'm also not trying to bash speaking in tongues. I'm a lib'rul but I have nothing against it (as long as it's not of the if-you-can't-do-it-you're-not-a-real-Christian kind). But is this 'physiological' approach really so wide off the mark?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Irish Lord has said that he hasn't been 'speaking for' me, but he has articulated my position far better than I have done myself.
He's noticed the same degree of certainty that narks me about EE's position, and that of many charismatics.
I can sympathise with your challenge, Jolly Jape, and I have conceded on several posts that I am deliberately being a tad harsh on EE - because to all intents and purposes my own position on tongues etc is similar to Cliffdweller's - which is, essentially, a more moderate form of the position that EE takes.
I am not suggesting that EE abandon tongues-speaking, simply that he be open to the possibility (however remote in his view ) that what he's doing is something that can be explained psychologically - and not necessarily supernaturally.
Heck, Boogie speaks in tongues and she has no conservative form of faith in the Bible or the Christian tradition whatsoever. Le Roc tried it yesterday and found it rather easy to do and he's not coming at it from a Pentecostal or charismatic perspective either.
This has got nothing to do with putting God to the test, this has got nothing to do with dismissing the Bible - it has everything to do with discerning, judging and regulating our own attitudes and motivations.
Sure, I believe in the historic Creeds, 'Firmly I believe and truly, God is Three and God is One.'
But it is a BELIEF. I cannot prove it. For all I know when I die I might find out that the Christian faith was all illusory and that really I should have been worshipping the Gooseberry Fairy from the Planet Zarg ...
I'm not suggesting that Christianity isn't true, of course. I believe it is. Otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian.
But the opposite of faith isn't doubt, it's certainty. I'm not making a virtue out of doubt. I'm not Richard Holloway.
It's perfectly legitimate to question these things. I don't see how that dishonours God in any way whatsoever.
As for my 'jihadist' reference - well, look at the context - that was rhetoric, hyperbole. I am clearly not suggesting that EE is a closet jihadist, simply drawing a comparison, an analogy. Rather like the apostle Paul with this 'tongues of angels' trope.
If you are clearly unable to recognise rhetorical flourishes then I seriously doubt your ability to exegete and understand the scriptures.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
There's an annoying whiff of 'prelest' running through the posts of many charismatics on these Boards. It's probably common to evangelicalism as a whole. Me and my Bible. Me and my Saviour. Me and my spiritual gifts, my prophecy, my tongues ... me, me, me, me, me, me, me.
It's infantile.
'I don't need a Patriarch to tell me what to believe,' Mudfrog trumpeted at me the other week. Thereby asserting his right to set aside whatsoever dominical injunctions he sees fit - such as baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Now, I like Muddie and will give him some slack, but one could argue that there's a lack of humility in a position like that. I know best. It's me and my Bible.
I submit that we're seeing a similar attitude with EE. 'I don't farkin' care what linguists and psychologists might say, this is my tongue ... it's mine, all mine, my preciousss ... God gave it to me, who are you to question it? God gave it to be because I'm so farkin' special ...'
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Read your own posts and tell me how much humility you can find. Pretty.damn.all.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Now it's arrogant to come to a conclusion about something (after having gone through the appropriate process of discernment and testing). And apparently it's "humility" to have a relationship with someone you are not sure even exists.
Whatever next?
Great wisdom is flowing from Cheshire at the moment, I see.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Where have I said that God doesn't exist?
Do you actually read my posts EE?
Do you actually read anyone posts?
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Speaking as one of no strong opinion either way, but stupid enough to step into the crossfie, it does seem as though you guys (Gamaliel and EtymologicalEvangelical) are talking past each other a bit.
Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that you're both reading each other's posts through the filters of what you're expecting to see, not what's actually there, but subtly so. Or maybe you know each other better than I know either of you, and I'm reading through my natural peacemaking filters
FWIW to my little brainy EE doesn't sound particularly arrogant or prideful about his (?) tongues schtick. It's more just a case of "this is how it is for me, go figure". So the accusations of being up his own bum on the thing probably wrankle.
OTOH, I can see how some of what EE posts contains trigger words for Gamaliel, given his Ship-known background and journey.
So I reckon that both of you have imported external baggage into this, and then got yourselves in a positive feedback loop of pink mist (not really strong enough to be red). Everybody step back, have a beer, and reset your perception filters.
Group hug?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Where have I said that God doesn't exist?
You didn't. And I never said that you did say that.
But you did express a rather major doubt, which is tantamount to being less than certain of the existence of the One with whom I presume you would claim to have some kind of relationship (which is the point I made, but which you flagrantly misread). Shall I quote you?
quote:
For all I know when I die I might find out that the Christian faith was all illusory and that really I should have been worshipping the Gooseberry Fairy from the Planet Zarg ...
So it seems I do read your posts after all - quite obviously with far more care than you bother to read mine.
Do keep up...
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags
Group hug?
I've got no problem being reconciled to anyone. I'm not the one doing the judging. Gammy's taken it upon himself to call me arrogant just because I believe in the authenticity of something God has given to me.
What am I supposed to do? Assert something I don't believe (i.e. tell a lie) just to please him? If I said that I believe that my gift of tongues could be phony, I would be lying, because I do not believe that. If he wants to think I am deluded by saying that, so what? His views are not going to stop me telling what I believe is the truth.
Gamaliel's been playing mind games with me, and he doesn't like that I have told him where to go. I'm the one who has presented linguistic evidence on this thread - he hasn't. I'm the one who gave an honest answer to his question early in the thread; he's the one who refuses to respect that.
All I have been doing is defending myself against relentless attacks by someone who insists on messing with my spiritual life, instead of doing what any mature person would do - mind his own business.
He apologised and I accepted his apology, and then he started all over again, which just proves that his original apology was totally phony. Not the attitude of someone at all interested in reconciliation.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Whilst I agree you are not making a virtue of doubt, it does seem to me that you are making a vice out of reasoned committment.
Whilst I can appreciate that we need to be philosophically tentative about something which is, of its essence, rather mysterious, in practical terms people have to have a belief system that enables them not only to reflect, but to live in the day to day. If you accept this proposition, then it seems to me you should have a mechanism by which you can test phenomena, and having tested them, and found them convincing, to put the matter to bed until such time as the evidence leads you to reconsider. This is pretty much where I am, and, ISTM, where EE is. If you find that lacking in humility, I'm not sure what I can do about that. But to caricature the testing process as described by EE as "me,me,me" seems to me to be unfounded. What are the processes that you use for testing, and how do they differ from those described by EE?
I actually think that a totally evidence based decision is not accesible to us. We can't know what was in Paul's mind when he penned the stuff about the tongues of angels. What if a linguistic study were to conclude that tongues definately did not conform to the requirements of being a human language? Would that invalidate it from use as Boogie describes, or even prove that it could not be an angelic, rather than human, language? At the end of the day, we look at the evidence, pays our money and takes our choice.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If I said that I believe that my gift of tongues could be phony, I would be lying, because I do not believe that.
I think part of this may come down to your confusing the word "believe" with the word "know". But belief and knowledge are two very different things.
I believe that God exists. I do not know that He does. You would presumably describe that as "tantamount to being less than certain of the existence of the One with whom I presume you would claim to have some kind of relationship", and I would agree with you about that analysis. It's just that I (and presumably Gamaliel, though he can speak for himself) simply do not see such doubt as a bad thing.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Whilst I agree you are not making a virtue of doubt, it does seem to me that you are making a vice out of reasoned committment.
Whilst I can appreciate that we need to be philosophically tentative about something which is, of its essence, rather mysterious, in practical terms people have to have a belief system that enables them not only to reflect, but to live in the day to day. If you accept this proposition, then it seems to me you should have a mechanism by which you can test phenomena, and having tested them, and found them convincing, to put the matter to bed until such time as the evidence leads you to reconsider. This is pretty much where I am, and, ISTM, where EE is. If you find that lacking in humility, I'm not sure what I can do about that. But to caricature the testing process as described by EE as "me,me,me" seems to me to be unfounded. What are the processes that you use for testing, and how do they differ from those described by EE?
I actually think that a totally evidence based decision is not accesible to us. We can't know what was in Paul's mind when he penned the stuff about the tongues of angels. What if a linguistic study were to conclude that tongues definately did not conform to the requirements of being a human language? Would that invalidate it from use as Boogie describes, or even prove that it could not be an angelic, rather than human, language? At the end of the day, we look at the evidence, pays our money and takes our choice.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Oops, dunno what happened there. Maybe a kindly passing Host could delete the duplicate.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Baptist Trainfan: I can pray in tongues while I'm driving, for instance, with my mind fully alert yet dissociated from my actual words.
Hmm, do you mind if I try again? I can see that this subject is a bit sensitive (it has already spawned a Hell call ), but I hope that I'm allowed to try to approach it from a physiological angle, just to see where it will lead. I'm just trying, I'm not a neurologist, but the way I see it is something like this.
If we give our brain a task that takes some effort, and we repeat it a lot of times, then there comes a point where it becomes automatic, and the brain detaches itself from the task. However, because of this intensive process that is going on, our whole brain is entering a state that is somehow different than when it is at rest. It reaches a state of consciousness that is somehow different.
I can feel this when I'm playing an improvised trumpet solo. There is a point where my mind detaches from the actual notes, and enters a state that is different. I tried to do speaking in tongues yesterday (I found it quite easy) and I got the same feeling.
Maybe it has something to do with increasing blood flow to the brain, I don't know. But something is happening to our brain. The same thing happens with our bodies if we let our legs do some very physical excercise: the state of our whole body changes.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'trance', because it carries negative associations for some people (on this thread, someone even called it a 'subversion of the brain'). This 'different state' of our brain doesn't mean that we walk around like unconscious zombies, unaware of our surroundings. I'm not surprised that you're able to drive under these conditions, I'm guessing that you can even be more alert in this state.
Of course, if we take this process much farther, then we can enter a real trance. In fact, a number of religious practices around the world use this very process to reach a trance state. But I'm guessing that most people who speak in tongues get nowhere near that stage.
Just to be clear, by approaching this from a physiological angle, I'm not trying to remove God from the picture. I think that we're in this state, we can reach out to something higher, and this can very well be God.
I'm also not trying to bash speaking in tongues. I'm a lib'rul but I have nothing against it (as long as it's not of the if-you-can't-do-it-you're-not-a-real-Christian kind). But is this 'physiological' approach really so wide off the mark?
This is similar to what I have been hypothesizing. I would call it a "neurological" approach, rather than "psychological". It is simply explaining the biology behind what is happening. As mentioned before, I think it dovetails nicely with research that show increased activity in the "God spot" of the brain when persons (of any faith) speak in tongues-- as well as when they engage in other sorts of intense religious experiences such as chanting, meditation, etc. The common denominator seems to be experiences that evoke "transcendence"-- that get you out of our "self" in union (we suppose) with the Almighty.
There is, of course, two ways to understand this. To a skeptic it would be evidence that tongue-speaking and other sorts of religious experiences are "mere biology"-- evolutionary quirks, simple brain chemistry.
For believers such as myself, it is evidence that we were created for union with God. We were created for these sorts of experiences.
Similarly, the fact that the same effect can be achieved through different means and in relation to different deities could be interpreted as:
1. evidence the whole experience is a sham
2. evidence of Satanic influence-- "false prophesy"
3. (my choice) evidence that we were created for union with God, so that even our brains are "hardwired" for it. The experiences of believers of other faiths while misdirected (from a Christian pov) are still attempts to unite with the Almighty and therefore have similar neurological components.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
ok - let's back up a bit ...
I think Snags is right in that both EE and I are reading things into one another's posts that might not necessarily be there.
For instance, he's interpreted a point I've made - which Marvin has elaborated (and done so much better than I) - to infer that I doubt the existence of God. I don't. I'm just saying, as Marvin has said that belief and knowledge are different things.
I believe that there is a God. I cannot prove that there is a God.
I really don't see what is so contentious about that. It's mainstream Christian belief.
Equally, and I'm not suggesting that EE takes me up on this necessarily, I would definitely feel more comfortable if EE said something like: 'I believe in speaking in tongues and believe that God has given me that gift' - rather than presenting it as some kind of incontrovertible fact.
Because as I've attempted to show - and as he refuses to accept - there are alternative explanations to his 'take' on the tongues phenomena.
I don't how he can explain, for instance, how Boogie can speak in tongues without having any faith in the evangelical/charismatic sense or understanding of the term. Unless he were to revert to yet another circular argument such as 'The gifts and call of God are irrevocable ... therefore as an ex-charismatic Boogie can still speak in tongues because God hasn't taken the gift away ...'
Which would strike me as a very odd argument, but YMMV.
Equally, I don't see how he can explain how Le Roc apparently found it easy to 'speak in tongues' the other day even though he didn't believe it was some kind of supernatural gift but simply a form of scat - rather like jazz improvisation.
I know I've been at this one like a dog with a bone and I can see why EE has got narked. I apologied to him. Happy to do so.
However, what subsequently riled me again - after that first exchange - was an apparent recalcitrance (from my point of view) to even accept the possibility that there was any alternative way to consider these things. It's God's gift and that's all there is to it.
That's not how I operate and I don't believe it's how scripture and Christian belief in general operates.
I've repeatedly said that I believe in the supernatural, that I believe in the Creeds and that I do believe in the possibility of speaking in tongues. And yet EE takes snippets of my posts out of context and beats me over the head with them to suggest that it is me, and not him, who is being stubborn and recalcitrant.
If I had time I could send him references to all manner of studies on glossolalia that back up the things that I've been saying. But I doubt he'd take any notice. All he does is throw out a few linguistic examples of unusual examples in a show-offy, look-at-me kind of way (or so it seems to me) and thinks that this will put the matter to rest. It won't. I am not a linguist - although I do have a modicum of knowledge about some aspects - but I do respect academic linguistic findings. Rather more than EE appears to.
I'm quite prepared to have a group hug and to stop sparring with EE. I can be an argumentative git but equally part of me doesn't like confrontation.
I still think that EE hasn't properly engaged with some of the points I've raised, though, but I'm prepared to let that slide. He doesn't come across to me as someone with a great capacity for nuance, an understanding of rhetoric nor the possibility of alternative views other than his own.
I'd call him to Hell but it wouldn't be worth it. He's in an arrogant and blinkered Hell of his own making already.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
And if I may use my own post (how arrogant is that?) to attempt to speak for Gamaliel (in an attempt to resolve the standoff w/ EE that, yes, often looks a bit like "posting past each other"), I hear Gamaliel as saying something close to:
quote:
For believers such as myself, it is evidence that we were created for union with God. We were created for these sorts of experiences.
while wanting EE to acknowledge the ever-present possibility of:
quote:
:
There is, of course, two ways to understand this. To a skeptic it would be evidence that tongue-speaking and other sorts of religious experiences are "mere biology"-- evolutionary quirks, simple brain chemistry.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Cliffdweller, interesting ...
I also wonder whether some of the 'feelings' that people describe in relation to charismatic activity - a sense of 'release' of joy etc etc are also connected with this. And also the sense that there is something slightly 'transgressive' going on (not in the sinful sense) but of pushing back barriers, a stepping outside of comfort-zones and convention.
I once attended an Orthodox service where they were venerating a particularly well-known icon of the Virgin Mary (believed to be supernatural in origin and imbued with supernatural powers).
Part way through, I decided to throw Protestant caution to the wind and dive straight in and do what the Orthoes were doing. I venerated the icon, I chanted the Akathist with them, I was anointed with oil three times in succession by three priests - on the forehead, eyes, earlobes, nostrils, mouth, chest and on the back of my hands if I remember rightly.
There was at once both a sense of cognitive-dissonance ('I'm a Protestant!!!') and not quite exhilaration or euphoria - but a sense of joy in a way that reminded me of some of the charismatic experiences I'd had back in my full-on charismatic days.
I wonder if this is the same sort of thing you're describing?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Backing up a bit more ... I'm not being literal, of course, about the 'Hell' of EE's apparent own making ... and I'm not sure it's a very helpful comment anyway.
I would like to apologise for it and withdraw it.
The rest of that post I will stand by.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Cliffdweller, interesting ...
I also wonder whether some of the 'feelings' that people describe in relation to charismatic activity - a sense of 'release' of joy etc etc are also connected with this. And also the sense that there is something slightly 'transgressive' going on (not in the sinful sense) but of pushing back barriers, a stepping outside of comfort-zones and convention.
I once attended an Orthodox service where they were venerating a particularly well-known icon of the Virgin Mary (believed to be supernatural in origin and imbued with supernatural powers).
Part way through, I decided to throw Protestant caution to the wind and dive straight in and do what the Orthoes were doing. I venerated the icon, I chanted the Akathist with them, I was anointed with oil three times in succession by three priests - on the forehead, eyes, earlobes, nostrils, mouth, chest and on the back of my hands if I remember rightly.
There was at once both a sense of cognitive-dissonance ('I'm a Protestant!!!') and not quite exhilaration or euphoria - but a sense of joy in a way that reminded me of some of the charismatic experiences I'd had back in my full-on charismatic days.
I wonder if this is the same sort of thing you're describing?
My guess would be yes. We'd have to plug you into an MRI or at Cat-scan or something to know for sure.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, next time I'd down your way and passing a scanner you can connect me up ...
I suspect you are spot on, incidentally ...
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Equally, and I'm not suggesting that EE takes me up on this necessarily, I would definitely feel more comfortable if EE said something like: 'I believe in speaking in tongues and believe that God has given me that gift' - rather than presenting it as some kind of incontrovertible fact.
We can argue forever about the distinction between "knowledge" and "belief". I am quite happy to engage with that argument, because I am deeply interested in epistemology. It can be argued that we do not actually "know" that the earth orbits the sun, but we believe it on the basis of evidence (and this evidence we "believe" without "knowing"). Even though I would say that we can "know" that the earth orbits the sun, we cannot be absolutely certain (in a strictly philosophical sense) that when we look at the sun or the earth - or any other empirically perceived object - we are actually seeing those objects, and not hallucinations that seem to work in a conveniently regular way. So there is a sense that "knowledge" (as understood in daily parlance) is really "belief with 99.9999999% certainty".
So to talk about "belief" as some kind of tacit acknowledgment of doubt (that is more than a minute percentage of merely philosophical - Cartesian - doubt) is fallacious. In daily life, "belief" means: "as far as I am - and common sense is - concerned, this is true".
quote:
Because as I've attempted to show - and as he refuses to accept - there are alternative explanations to his 'take' on the tongues phenomena.
But I have NOT said anything of the sort!!
I am not denying that tongues can be fabricated or generated naturally. I am not denying that there can be satanic tongues or occult tongues. And, of course, I certainly do not deny that the physical and neurological act of speaking in tongues can be reduced to certain biological mechanisms.
But what I do not accept is the idea that I am just "making it up" when I speak in tongues. When I speak in tongues something is certainly happening in my brain, in my vocal chords, in my nervous system. The body is good and God uses the body. So what?
And why do I believe that I am not "making it up"? Because of the witness of the Holy Spirit. Is God so small that he is not able to give any certainty or assurance about this matter - or indeed about anything? Doesn't the Bible say that the Holy Spirit "leads us into all truth"? It doesn't say "leads us into all doubt or confusion", does it?
But when I testify to the witness of the Holy Spirit, I then get accused of being arrogant.
Just look at your last post:
You call me "stubborn and recalcitrant".
You say that I was showing off when I presented linguistic evidence: "in a show-offy, look-at-me kind of way".
This is just appalling behaviour (and I acknowledge that you withdrew your "hell" comment). You originally asked me a straightforward question, and I answered it honestly and politely. Since then I have been subjected to vitriol, beginning with this nasty piece of slander:
quote:
What strikes me about Daron and EytemologicalEvangelical is that they are quite prepared to accept that it might be phoney for other people but not for them - as if somehow they are above all of that. 'That person over there might be making it up but I'm not ...'
Nothing that I said justified this comment. The implication was that I - and Daron - and conceited, and the language you have used subsequently confirms this. I have tried to be honest, but you just cannot accept my honest position.
You may think otherwise (in fact, you've said as much), but I think I am generally fairly thick-skinned. When debating with others over some issue - e.g. atheists - I have been called terrible things, and most of the time I just laugh at it. But in those situations we are sparring over issues. At the end of the day we have to "agree to disagree". BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, CAN YOU?
And what is worse, you can't leave an issue that is highly personal. It's almost as if the deeply personal aspect of this subject is like blood to a shark. You smell blood and go in for the kill. You can't seem to bear the fact that I am utterly confident that I have received a genuine spiritual gift from God. If this actually affected you directly, then I could understand your concern, but it doesn't.
We can talk about the nature of the gift of tongues and may have a heated discussion without getting so personal. A cessationist would, of course, tell me that my gift of tongues was not "of God". I would just say: "Fair enough, that's your position. I disagree. Let's leave it there." Usually such a person would just walk away. But you can't do that. It's as if you can't bear not actually invading my own personal life and trying to change my thinking and personal spiritual walk. It feels almost like a kind of spiritual or psychological rape (yes, I really mean that).
This conversation is not a debate. It's an attack on me as a person and as a Christian. Your insults are clear evidence of this. I admit that I used fairly bad language in "hell" to tell you to back off, but that was no less than you deserved, quite frankly.
To sum up: I acknowledge that there are different ways to obtain the gift of tongues. It is not for me to sit in judgment on anyone. But I testify that I believe that God has given me the genuine gift of tongues as spoken of in the Bible. I do not harbour doubts about this. Why? Because this gift is inextricably bound up with my experience of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is able to give assurance.
Now this position does not affect you at all. It is entirely my business. It is not arrogant for me to testify to the work of God in my life. Since when has that ever been an act of arrogance?
I repeat: I am not looking down on anyone. If you think I am, then show me the clear evidence.
If you insist on carrying on insulting me, then do so. Others are intelligent enough to see you for what you are.
[ 01. June 2012, 16:46: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
3. (my choice) evidence that we were created for union with God, so that even our brains are "hardwired" for it. The experiences of believers of other faiths while misdirected (from a Christian pov) are still attempts to unite with the Almighty and therefore have similar neurological components.
Yes - my choice too. But I don't think other faiths are misdirected, just different in approach.
(I can't even begin to understand what EE and Gamaliel are now arguing about, both are splitting hairs imv - but I think they should go back to hell with it. The air quite obviously wasn't cleared )
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
I can't even begin to understand what EE and Gamaliel are now arguing about, both are splitting hairs imv - but I think they should go back to hell with it. The air quite obviously wasn't cleared
I'm as sick of this as you are. Gamaliel apologised in hell. I accepted his apology. I thought that was the end of it, but then he carried on as if nothing had happened.
This is my last post on this thread. I will state my position very clearly.
Gamaliel asked me a simple question, as follows:
quote:
@EytemologicalEvangelical - how do you KNOW that the tongues you've experienced are the genuine article and not 'fake'? Because you haven't gone into a trance-like state and it feels normal and not wierd?
...
How do you KNOW that what you've experienced isn't the same as what I've just described?
I answered this question honestly and politely, as follows:
quote:
One could ask the same question about one's own relationship with God. How does any Christian "know" that he is in contact with God and not the devil or just some hallucination? Is God or the Holy Spirit only "safe" when He is a construct that can be fully explained in some entirely intellectual way? Is there no such thing as spiritual experience that we can actually come to recognise as genuine and therefore trust?
The experience of speaking in tongues cannot be isolated from one's whole experience of God through the Holy Spirit. And therefore it is through my own relationship with and experience of God that I judge the validity of particular spiritual gifts. I know that this may sound subjective (in one sense it is), but I have no need to convince anyone else that my experience of speaking in tongues is valid. It's an issue for me and me alone. I have resolved it within myself to my own satisfaction.
Since then I have been subjected to a stream of abuse, against which I have tried to defend myself.
That is the issue, Boogie. It's not hair-splitting. It's a simple matter of one person refusing to respect the spiritual testimony of another.
NO MORE FROM ME ON THIS THREAD.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Sticking my head momentarily above the parapet…
The reason I haven’t wanted to engage with this thread, despite being one of the (I imagine) minority of tongues-speakers on board, is precisely what EE has said several times. It’s also why I didn’t respond to bib’s attempt to get back to the OP. Viz., for many of us who speak in tongues, it is a deeply personal and intimate thing. It’s like talking about kissing your beloved. That being the case, discussing it with skeptics - which many of the contributors here are, either that or people with a superior or judgmental attitude to non-liturgical Christians* - feels a bit like skinny-dipping with sharks.
(Full disclosure – I was raised Baptist and tongues speaking pretty much freaked me out when I first came across it. I looked in the Bible and couldn’t construct a good reason for why it wasn’t a gift of the Spirit, to which my initial reaction was basically “oh bugger I wanted that not to be in the Bible”. No one ever prayed for to speak in tongues or anything like that. I just got to a point where I was sure I could do it. I tried – alone in my room – and found out I was right. I think a lot of my fear about tongues was because I believed it to be out of the person’s control. As a tongues speaker myself, I have discovered this to be completely untrue, in my own case at least. When I pray in tongues, I am always in control.)
Anyway, I understand why EE’s upset. Have I considered the possibility that my tongues are not from God? Yes, and I've rejected it. (Incidentally, for what precious little it’s worth, I am perfectly bilingual and have a languages degree.) I’m not stupid. But I’ve decided to go on the side of belief, not the side of skepticism. It’s what my heart tells me is right. The thing is, the repeated question of “yes, but you accept it might not be from God, don’t you?” sounds more like “come on, think about it hard enough and you know it’s probably not from God really”, which is patronising and hurts, especially when talking about something so intimate.
Gamaliel, I know you’ve been round the block, but you often seem not to realise that others of us have been in the same environment and we like it there and are confident that we're in the spot where God intends for us to be. We don’t stay just because we’re too naïve or deluded to move to the spot where you are. It didn’t work for you. It works for us. What you call healthy doubt looks like too much like cynicism to me for me to want to go there (which doesn't mean I don't ask intelligent questions about anything). Not for the first time, I kind of want to tell you to just Build a Sodding Bridge and Get Over It. In Christian love.
<ducks back behind the parapet>
*I'm not naming names here. Whether you fit into either of these categories I leave entirely to your own conscience.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
Well this has been a lively one.....
I've not read all this, but to pick up a couple of points....
Can you fake tongues? Oh yes. I could tell you some semi-amusing stories about methods of helping people get started. There's the 'umph' method, the 'abc' method and the 'mobile phone' method. PM me if you're interested. But they are all very obvious acts of chicanery.
Surprised no-one's mentioned counterfeit tongues. Spiritual experiences can have their basis in ungodly powers as well as the Holy Spirit. I well remember hearing a 'message in tongues' in a church where this was normal practice, and instantly feeling a profound sense of unease with it. On the surface it sounded much like other public tongues, there was no particular emotion behind it - just something in me said 'this ain't the Holy Spirit.' Turned out the speaker was a visitor from a spiritualist church. Some would call my unease a gift of discerning of spirits. You can't bottle any of that or put it under a microscope, anymore than you can use a blood test to show someone is filled with the Holy Spirit. In the end, we have to test the the validity of these experiences with the right tools - the combination of scripture, our church's traditions and shared experiences, and the wider array of the gifts of the Spirit.
Round of applause for bib. That's post 200 if I timed it right.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've not explained myself very well and I think that the 'heat' of this debate has led me to adopt a more cynical and - indeed hectoring - attitude that I should have done.
As it happens, I don't have a big issue with what Ramarius has just posted nor with what la vie en rouge has said. I'd happily go along with what they've said and not seek to challenge or quibble with either of them on those points.
I think Snags was on the money with an earlier intervention about my reacting in a somewhat knee-jerk way to EE's posts because of previous experience and having 'moved on' (to some extent) from a more conservative charismatic position - if I can say that without sounding all liberal or else a patronising closet-(or even out of the closet) liturgist ...
I'm sorry EE has left this thread because it means he is unlikely to read this post which is something of a climb-down on my part.
I'm quite happy and prepared to do that.
That said - and this isn't a get-out-clause caveat - I find I do react against people who post with what I sometimes take to be an almost breath-taking arrogance about their own certainties. I might very well have been wrong, but that's the tone I picked up from EE's posts. It was my perception. Just as he has formed a perception of me that I might not recognise.
I'm happy to clear the air though and no, I don't want to continue in Hell.
I'm sorry that EE felt that I was attempting to commit 'spiritual rape' and violation - what a horrible image but I can take the point he's making. If that's how it came across then I apologise unequivocably.
I often use these boards as a way of testing, stretching and pushing out the boundaries of my thinking. If that means that I sometimes tread on other people's toes then I'm sorry to hear that.
On the sensitivity thing - sure, I can appreciate what la vie en rouge is saying about 'tongues' being private and intimate and not the sort of thing one wants other people prying into - in the same way as one might resent intrusion on how one kisses one's partner and so forth.
I respect that, but I can only speak as I find. I would have no problem, personally, with anyone analysing my apparent ability to 'speak in tongues' and subjecting it to scientific, linguistic or sociological scrutiny. I know this might offend those who value the 'gift' and I'm opening myself up to charges - as indeed I did receive from EE - of dishonouring God or shunning his grace and all the rest of it - but that's beside the point IMHO.
One might as well turn around to EE (and indeed the rest of us who aren't RC or Orthodox) and accuse him (us) of rejecting God's gifts and calling by rejecting membership of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
There are RCs and Orthodox (and even Anglicans) around who would do such a thing. There are all sorts of issues like that where we can accuse each other of rejecting stuff or not accepting stuff that we ought to.
For my part, I acknowledge that I've been a bit bastardly to EE. I started it and he defended himself. Fair do's.
But he's also accused me of rejecting scripture, of rejecting God's grace and shunning his gifts and much else besides. I'm big enough and ugly enough to take all of that. I've got broad shoulders. He can take a running jump if he believes that, though. He can fuck right off to that extent.
(See EE, I can use worse language than you ... let's do a linguistic exercise to see who can use the worst ...)
But as for the rest of it - fine, fair call. I'm happy to apologise and to stop hounding him on this one.
But I'll still chelp and bluster when I come across anything that smacks of pietistic clap-trap when I've a mind to. And I'll aim to be even-handed with it all - from whatever source it comes, be it charismatic, liturgical or all points east or west.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
A thought on the linguistic test for tongues point.... I liked La Vie's point about preserving the sanctity/intimacy of private tongues. We're in different territory when a message is given in tongues in a public context. It would be perfectly reasonable to subject that to linguistic analysis. I've read accounts of messages in tongues turning out to be a communication in a language known to one or more of the hearers. I've met one person who heard a message in tongues which turned out to be in a dialect with which she was familiar from her native China. From what I've experienced - and heard elsewhere - this is unusual.
But just back to the linguistic test, I'm wondering what you could learn from it. If a tongue couldn't be associated with a known language, all you've found out is that it couldn't be associated with a known language. It could stil be a language - unknown, dead, not yet developed, non human, without even having to resort to angelic options.
So I don't have a problem with analysis. Given the nature of what's being analysed, I would also exepect there to be limitations to the exercise.
I came in too late to follow the debate between EE and Gamaliel, but my hat is off after reading Gamaliel's last post.
[ 02. June 2012, 10:46: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the sensitivity thing - sure, I can appreciate what la vie en rouge is saying about 'tongues' being private and intimate and not the sort of thing one wants other people prying into - in the same way as one might resent intrusion on how one kisses one's partner and so forth.
Yes - it's a fair point but, if one felt that sensitive about it one wouldn't join an internet discussion about it. So I still don't get what la vie en rouge means.
If you don't want it prying into - don't talk about it.
Simples.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't want to reverse into territory that's been covered in my debate with EE, Ramarius, but there are some issues/caveats I am tempted to raise with your latest musings:
- Use of known languages in glossolalia (xenoglossy):
Yes, I can cite instances too, but more often than not these are second or third hand. There is only one instance of xenoglossy (the speaking in unlearned languages) known to science and this involved an occultic instance of 'speaking in tongues'. But the evidence is apparently contended and is by no means clear cut. You pays your money ...
Equally, whilst I know people (including relatives by marriage) who claim to have been heard speaking actual languages the evidence is by no means conclusive. Again, you pays your money ...
Similarly, I've heard of instances where actual languages have been claimed but subsequently been debunked.
And there are anecdotal instances I can cite from Wales where English visitors have attempted to 'interpret' what they thought were 'tongues' only to find themselves 'interpreting' Welsh prayers by native Welsh speakers ... and the resulting 'interpretations' were way wide of the mark ...
This doesn't 'prove' anything either way - but I think it does indicate that we should err on the side of caution.
- On the 'messages in tongues' thing:
I've never really 'got' this. It's not entirely clear from the Biblical evidence what the Apostle Paul was referring to here. If anything, I'd be inclined to the view that an interpretation of a 'tongue' would be a 'prayer' rather than a 'prophecy'. I'm not convinced by the 'tongue+interpretation = prophecy' thing. What's the point of having an intermediary 'tongue'? Why not just have a prophecy?
I wouldn't die in a ditch over that one, but would use it as an instance where there is insufficient biblical evidence to come to any firm conclusions.
- Tongues as a 'language' even if not an actual one.
From what I can gather from reading the studies and the literature, there is very little evidence that 'tongues' conform to the features one would expect from a language. Some instances of it come closer to it than others though, and I understand that there are some comparatively recent studies which have challenged the prevailing wisdom from early studies and suggested that some 'tongues' do do confirm to actual language patterns.
Again - the evidence is pretty skimpy. You pays your money ...
What I do think, though, is that attempts to postulate that 'tongues' can be some kind of ancient language that has gone out of use or that they are mysterious languages (not necessarily angelic) currently unknown are a case of special pleading.
'Oh, it's been shown that they aren't real languages ... hmmm ... let's see, what can help us out of that dilemma ... Ah, I know, they might be actual languages but ones that are currently unknown to us ...'
It's a bit like the word-of-faith people's attempts to explain why people aren't automatically healed. 'They are healed but the symptoms remain ...' and so on.
I don't dispute that 'tongues' exist and that people can speak in them - but I do think that there's a lot of bollocks spoken about them.
Unlike Boogie, I can understand la vie en rouge's reluctance to submit these things to scrutiny. That's a personal choice.
But it wouldn't rock my faith in God one way or another (despite EE's suspicions that I'm some kind of major Doubting Thomas) if I went along to a language lab and had my 'tongues' recorded and analysed and came out having been told that I wasn't 'speaking in tongues' at all but unconsciously making the whole thing up.
I can, as it happens, think of instances where I've spoken in tongues spontaneously and with great depth and feeling - and these have 'felt' more authentic than the rather 'automatic' way that this stuff tends to be trotted out in charismatic circles. Back in the day there almost used to be a 'tongues-section' as part of the liturgy as it were.
'Right, we've had some rousing choruses and some slow, gentle, reflective ones ... now let's have some singing in tongues ...'
I'm sure it varies on different occasions and in response to different stimuli. None of this stuff happens in a vacuum. And I agree with EE that it is right to use our bodies and physical expression in worship - whether it be raising hands charismatic style or crossing oneself Catholic style.
I'm really not as much of a sceptic as people take me for. But I don't think that anything is beyond the pale when it comes to being up for grabs for discussion - even our private, personal prayer lives - although I would respect people's privacy and do apologise if people have found me rather insensitive and prying in the way I've posted here.
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's not entirely clear from the Biblical evidence what the Apostle Paul was referring to here. If anything, I'd be inclined to the view that an interpretation of a 'tongue' would be a 'prayer' rather than a 'prophecy'. I'm not convinced by the 'tongue+interpretation = prophecy' thing. What's the point of having an intermediary 'tongue'? Why not just have a prophecy?
Then again, what's the point of an intermediary tongue in prayer? Why not just have a prayer?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Unlike Boogie, I can understand la vie en rouge's reluctance to submit these things to scrutiny. That's a personal choice.
I didn't say that - I completely understand the need to not submit these things to scrutiny. Of course, if you feel it's as private and personal as a kiss you won't talk about it.
That's my point - if you are talking about it on here then you have, by being here, submitted what you say to scrutiny.
There are plenty of things I think are far too private for public discussion - but (for me) this isn't one of them. What I don't understand is why la vie en rouge posted about tongues if it's too personal a subject for her.
<code>
[ 02. June 2012, 12:46: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
@Gamaliel. Yes I agree that on tongues there are more questions than answers. Might be that we're looking for the answers in the wrong places. As you say, linguistics is a developing discipline, and recent studies seem to be moving towards the possibility that tongues do have a language sttucture recognisable to a linguist.
But whilst this is interesting, it's a side issue. Whether or not a linguist can make sense of tongues neither validates nor invalidates the experience. Paul himself says that the tongues speaker speaks 'mysteries' that no-one understands (1 Cor 14:1).
Just on xeloglossy/xenolalia - again, that this hasn't been verified by a specialist isn't an issue for me. The facts of the cases are simply whether the speaker knew the language of the hearer, and whether the hearer heard a message in their own language. If the people involved are reliable witnesses, then that's evidence of an event. We can then consider further how the event came about, and the significance of it, but it meets the standard of evidence we use all the time in UK civil law. If you want something more than that, you can (as you say) pays your money. On this one, I'm happy to save mine for the bank holiday weekend.
[ 02. June 2012, 12:57: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@SteveH - well, yes, and this is one of the reasons why I tend not to 'speak in tongues' very much these days and tend to favour 'normal' or more liturgical prayers instead. I don't really see the point in speaking in tongues, to be honest, but can see that some people find it helpful (as attested on this thread) and that I myself have found it helpful too, in the past.
But it was all part and parcel of buying into a particular paradigm where we felt we needed to 'feel' or be convinced of the immanence of God. Tongues helped us to achieve that.
As I've said many times on these Boards, the sociologist Andrew Walker once analysed a charismatic gathering where there were 'tongues and interpretations' and found that very few people actually remembered the content of the apparent 'messages' and 'prophecies' after the event. He came to the conclusion that this wasn't really the 'point', the 'point' for those involved was that the very fact that there were apparent tongues and interpretations in the first place acted as proof positive that God was really among them.
They were satisfied with that.
I think Walker was onto something. Whatever it's role in private prayer, I suspect the key aspect of 'tongues' in a charismatic context is the building of community around common ground and commonly held beliefs ie. 'We believe in the immediate and discernible work of God the Holy Spirit in this church and we have the tongues and interpretation to prove it ...'
@Boogie - yes, I know what you said and I'm inclined to agree. But I'm not la vie en rouge and neither are you. If I were to be more cynical than I actually am, I might suggest to la vie en rouge that she has an overly subjective and lovey-dovey attitude towards Almighty God. Jesus is not her boyfriend. So why whisper 'sweet-nothings' in tongues?
But I'm not enough of a bastard (not quite) to suggest that to her.
But just because I would have no qualms in someone analysing the guts out of my apparent ability to speak in tongues it doesn't mean that she should.
If I did submit my 'tongues' for scrutiny it wouldn't be as if I were exposing my bollocks for a doctor or a nurse to examine or allowing them to prise open the buttocks of my big hairy arse with a spatula ...
@Ramarius - well, yes, I'm happy to save my money for a bank holiday weekend too - but what I would say is that SOME (not all) modern studies appear to indicate that SOME 'tongues' (not all) have some kind of discernible linguistic pattern.
One swallow doesn't make a summer ...
It's possible to explore and live out the Christian faith without 'tongues' and it's possible to do so with them too. It's really no big deal.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
@Gamaliel. On your 'what I would say is that SOME (not all) modern studies appear to indicate that SOME 'tongues' (not all) have some kind of discernible linguistic pattern.' I would just say that summer's coming regardless of the number of swallows. Tongues has been around long before contemporary linguistics which may throw some light on the experience but will never be an arbiter of its validity.
Enjoy your bank holiday too....
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If I did submit my 'tongues' for scrutiny it wouldn't be as if I were exposing my bollocks for a doctor or a nurse to examine or allowing them to prise open the buttocks of my big hairy arse with a spatula ...
OK - now pass the brain bleach please!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:
It's possible to explore and live out the Christian faith without 'tongues' and it's possible to do so with them too. It's really no big deal.
You have spent a lot of words, on two threads, talking about something that's really no big deal ...
Another thing I forgot to mention. I pray in tongues because it focuses me on God, in by far the best way - for me. I do so silently. Of course, I could speak out loud - but there is no point as I'm always alone (with God)
There are some languages that sound so similar I feel like asking the person if my tongues make sense to them! In fact I did once (It was Urdu) and he person I asked didn't understand a word - no surprise there!
[ 02. June 2012, 15:50: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Waterchaser (# 11005) on
:
I went on a short term mission with an Albanian pastor who believed that God had miraculously given him the gift of speaking english. He had studied and learnt French over a period of time, his English (which was flawless) he'd leant without having the same opportunity to study the language formally and with far less deliberate effort, although he had spent time with people who spoke english and clearly given he had studied and learnt French to a good standard he had an aptitude for learning languages.
I would tend to think of the gift of tongues in the more "traditional" pentecostal/charismatic sense as being a prayer language - and this is my experience of it but I wonder if the those people who have posted who are sceptical about this are more comfortable with the idea of God supernaturally quickening/increasing someone's ability to speak a language for a practical purpose.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair call, Boogie. I like to introduce an earthy note to some of these more esoteric discussions ...
And fair call on the many words on a 'no big deal' subject too ...
Actually, if they were what people claim to be (and I suspect that some instances are but others aren't) then they probably are something of a big deal.
One of the things that narks me a bit about the way the issue is dealt with by Nicky Gumbel and all is that they're trying to domesticate the whole thing and introduce it as some kind of life-style choice. You get your coffee from Costas, your furniture from Ikea, your speaking in tongues from the Alpha Holy Spirit weekend ...
Anyway - Ramarius has made some good points. Of course 'tongues' predate modern linguistics - so what? I'm sure some of this stuff is kosher.
For what it's worth here's my take:
- Some 'tongues' are simply an instance of learned behaviour, people copying leaders and other dominant personalities or bowing to peer pressure.
- Some 'tongues' can easily be learned or picked up, even by people with no faith.
- Some 'tongues' are complete bollocks.
- Other instances may be legitimate 'God-spot' reactions in the way that Cliffdweller describes.
- There may even be examples of xenoglossy out there. But there might not be. There might be a Loch Ness Monster ...
Now pass around the brain bleach again ...
I'm buggered if I know or any of us can really say for sure.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Oh dear, I haven't explained well. I was trying to explain why I was going to hit and run (and here I am again... )
My point was that when talking about something highly personal (a) people take it personally and (b) the conversation is liable to be rather lopsided because the people who don't want to talk about it don't talk about it.
(When I say intimate, I don't mean lovey-dovey, I mean personal. What goes on in my doctor's surgery is also intimate and I don't usually talk about that on the Ship either.)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One of the things that narks me a bit about the way the issue is dealt with by Nicky Gumbel and all is that they're trying to domesticate the whole thing and introduce it as some kind of life-style choice. You get your coffee from Costas, your furniture from Ikea, your speaking in tongues from the Alpha Holy Spirit weekend ...
Doesn't he do that with the whole Gospel?
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One of the things that narks me a bit about the way the issue is dealt with by Nicky Gumbel and all is that they're trying to domesticate the whole thing and introduce it as some kind of life-style choice. You get your coffee from Costas, your furniture from Ikea, your speaking in tongues from the Alpha Holy Spirit weekend ...
Doesn't he do that with the whole Gospel?
Charismatics do that with everything. Pop in a prayer, and out pops (in their theory) a healing or a miracle. It's no coincidence that the ghastly health-and-wealth heresy is associated with Charismaticism (though I realise that many charis would condemn it).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair do's, la vie en rouge. You might have noticed that I was trying to respect your privacy and your position to some extent.
I don't agree with it, but hey, I'm not in your shoes, but I respect your right to hold it.
And apologies if I suggested that your relationship with the Living Christ was far-too lovey-dovey. That was out of order. I retract that assertion.
I know what you're saying, but for me all this stuff is up for grabs and nothing is beyond the pale. But then, I'm from South Wales. We tell people everything. I've heard complete strangers down there telling their most intimate secrets to someone they've just met in the bus queue.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But then, I'm from South Wales. We tell people everything. I've heard complete strangers down there telling their most intimate secrets to someone they've just met in the bus queue.
If you can't be bothered to read your mail, just ask the postman to tell you what's in it (Dylan Thomas?)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Gamaliel. On your 'what I would say is that SOME (not all) modern studies appear to indicate that SOME 'tongues' (not all) have some kind of discernible linguistic pattern.' I would just say that summer's coming regardless of the number of swallows. Tongues has been around long before contemporary linguistics which may throw some light on the experience but will never be an arbiter of its validity.
Enjoy your bank holiday too....
To be clear; a wide variety of phenomanea variously described as tongues have been around for some time, the relationship between any of them and the phenomanea described in scripture is largely a matter of debate.
Modern Linguistics post-dates that - but that need not necessarily impinge on it's ability to analyse, given it's successes on a practical level - many of basic techniques used to learn unknown languages (for translation purposes) are the same as those used to analyse samples of tongues.
Otherwise what you just wrote seems to imply a scorn for 'book learning' which I'm sure isn't what you intended.
[ 03. June 2012, 09:58: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm prepared to give Ramarius the benefit of the doubt, but there is an element of anti-intellectualism in most charismatic congregations in my experience - but the intensity of it varies.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...but there is an element of anti-intellectualism in most charismatic congregations in my experience - but the intensity of it varies.
It must be the 2nd coming as I agree with Gamaliel on something!!
Posted by Waterchaser (# 11005) on
:
quote:
Charismatics do that with everything. Pop in a prayer, and out pops (in their theory) a healing or a miracle. It's no coincidence that the ghastly health-and-wealth heresy is associated with Charismaticism (though I realise that many charis would condemn it).
Stating the obvious somewhat. The health and wealth heresy can only arise amoung people who believe that:
1) God heals
2) God provides
3) God acts in response to prayer
Hence why it is more likely to arise amoungst charismatics as all charismatics pretty much are likely to believe in the above. It is least likely/almost impossible for it to arise amoung people that don't believe God ever intervenes in the world in response to prayer of course. However I would suggest that the latter is a heresy or at least a deficient view of God in itself.
[ 03. June 2012, 22:37: Message edited by: Waterchaser ]
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
quote:
Charismatics do that with everything. Pop in a prayer, and out pops (in their theory) a healing or a miracle. It's no coincidence that the ghastly health-and-wealth heresy is associated with Charismaticism (though I realise that many charis would condemn it).
Stating the obvious somewhat. The health and wealth heresy can only arise amoung people who believe that:
1) God heals
2) God provides
3) God acts in response to prayer
Hence why it is more likely to arise amoungst charismatics as all charismatics pretty much are likely to believe in the above. It is least likely/almost impossible for it to arise amoung people that don't believe God ever intervenes in the world in response to prayer of course. However I would suggest that the latter is a heresy or at least a deficient view of God in itself.
Of course, there are plenty of people (myself included) that believe those three things and don't believe in the health&wealth bit.
Posted by Waterchaser (# 11005) on
:
Exactly which I think is the right place to be. The point I was making though is that heresy tends to be a distortion or exaggeration of a truth - if you reject the truth wholesale you are completely safe from the heresy; but you are poorer not richer for that complete rejection.
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
quote:
Charismatics do that with everything. Pop in a prayer, and out pops (in their theory) a healing or a miracle. It's no coincidence that the ghastly health-and-wealth heresy is associated with Charismaticism (though I realise that many charis would condemn it).
Stating the obvious somewhat. The health and wealth heresy can only arise amoung people who believe that:
1) God heals
2) God provides
3) God acts in response to prayer
Hence why it is more likely to arise amoungst charismatics as all charismatics pretty much are likely to believe in the above. It is least likely/almost impossible for it to arise amoung people that don't believe God ever intervenes in the world in response to prayer of course. However I would suggest that the latter is a heresy or at least a deficient view of God in itself.
Fair point, but what I meant was that charismaticism tends to be a crudely cupiditous vending-machine religion. You can believe that God intervenes in the world and answers prayer without taking that attitude. All traditional Christians believe that God answers prayer, but they don't have the idea that God is at their beck and call that charis tend to have.
[ 04. June 2012, 07:57: Message edited by: Steve H ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The mileage varies, Steve H. I have a similar charismatic background to yours and whilst I can be quite critical of it all on these boards (as Polly has identified), I wouldn't lump ALL charismatics in the same basket.
The mileage varies. There are degrees of it just as there are degrees of liberalism - from one extreme that suggests that God doesn't really exist and that all we have is the liturgy - to more moderate forms which meld reasonably well with the more moderate forms of evangelicalism.
There is a continuum. Sure, I tend to think that most charismatic circles are tainted with a degree of anti-intellectualism, extreme subjectivism and a tendency towards special-pleading when things don't quite work out as they think they should.
But as Waterchaser has suggested, there is an equal and opposite danger in more liberal circles of not having any notion of an 'interventionist' God whatsoever.
As ever, I would suggest that there is a balance between the two poles.
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The mileage varies, Steve H. I have a similar charismatic background to yours and whilst I can be quite critical of it all on these boards (as Polly has identified), I wouldn't lump ALL charismatics in the same basket.
The mileage varies. There are degrees of it just as there are degrees of liberalism - from one extreme that suggests that God doesn't really exist and that all we have is the liturgy - to more moderate forms which meld reasonably well with the more moderate forms of evangelicalism.
There is a continuum. Sure, I tend to think that most charismatic circles are tainted with a degree of anti-intellectualism, extreme subjectivism and a tendency towards special-pleading when things don't quite work out as they think they should.
But as Waterchaser has suggested, there is an equal and opposite danger in more liberal circles of not having any notion of an 'interventionist' God whatsoever.
As ever, I would suggest that there is a balance between the two poles.
I agree with all of the above. I did say "tends to be".
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
cliffdweller: This is similar to what I have been hypothesizing. I would call it a "neurological" approach, rather than "psychological".
In fact, the word I used was 'physiological', but I can see what you mean. 'Neurological' would probably have been the best word.
quote:
cliffdweller: As mentioned before, I think it dovetails nicely with research that show increased activity in the "God spot" of the brain when persons (of any faith) speak in tongues-- as well as when they engage in other sorts of intense religious experiences such as chanting, meditation, etc.
To be honest, I think that with all the media talk about a 'God spot', a bit of over-hyping is taking place. Yes, I believe that some neurological processes happen in the minds of believers that are somewhat different, but a 'God spot' that is the cause and the explanation for religious beliefs goes three steps too far IMO.
quote:
cliffdweller: There is, of course, two ways to understand this. To a skeptic it would be evidence that tongue-speaking and other sorts of religious experiences are "mere biology"-- evolutionary quirks, simple brain chemistry.
For believers such as myself, it is evidence that we were created for union with God. We were created for these sorts of experiences.
I agree (even if I'm sceptical about a 'God spot'). Even if there are neurological processes in the minds of believers that are different, they don't rule out God at all.
PS I'll participate in the group hug any day
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But as Waterchaser has suggested, there is an equal and opposite danger in more liberal circles of not having any notion of an 'interventionist' God whatsoever.
I think this is what I am veering towards. I see no intervention whatever, in fact this is what led me away from charismatic beliefs.
But that's another subject entirely.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
Exactly which I think is the right place to be. The point I was making though is that heresy tends to be a distortion or exaggeration of a truth - if you reject the truth wholesale you are completely safe from the heresy; but you are poorer not richer for that complete rejection.
Can you clarify what you mean because I'm not sure you can level the understanding of heresy to anyone who differs their view regarding the OP.
In addition no-one is safe from heresy. Maybe in their own mind.
Having absolute confidence in this and one's own theological thinking, that it is the truth is IMO dangerous no mater at what point of the Christian Spectrum I consider myself to be.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Now I'm agreeing with Polly ...
@Boogie - yes, I can see that. I know quite a few liberal Christians who don't believe that God is interventionist. I can see how they've arrived at that position, but it's not one I share. But I wouldn't burn you or anyone else at the stake over it ...
Posted by Waterchaser (# 11005) on
:
Polly - To be clear I was at a tangent from the original thread rather than talking directly about the gift of tongues and responding to what Steve H had said about the health and wealth hersey.
I would say that believing in a God that intervenes in the world in response to prayer (but not only in response to prayer) is orthodox christian belief and conversly not believing in this is not orthodox christian belief. When talking in my own words rather than responding within a framework of discussion that is already occuring I would select a less emotive term than heresy.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
The problem with all "interventionist" language iis just that it is that - language.
Intervention implies some sort of action from the "outside" and "upon".
Why not see God working from the inside?
It is no less God at work. But it preserves us from thinking of a sporadic activity and a "law breaking or a law-suspending activity".
God is at work all the time and within things IMO
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Why not both, Shamwari?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
cliffdweller: This is similar to what I have been hypothesizing. I would call it a "neurological" approach, rather than "psychological".
In fact, the word I used was 'physiological', but I can see what you mean. 'Neurological' would probably have been the best word.
agh. My mistake. "Physiological" works just as well as "neurological".
Must have coffee.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
For people here sympathetic to Pentecostal Christianity, who may be feeling a bit defensive and frustrated right now, and don't understand why what they feel is a God-given gift is being treated with various levels of wariness and/or skepticism by other Christians -- here's my perspective as someone from a tradition not known for the more publicly dramatic gifts of the Spirit.
There is a perception, on our side of the street, that some (note that I said "some") Pentecostals believe that speaking in tongues is the sign of a Real Christian[tm], and that if you can't do it you're obviously not a Real Christian. [tm] This is untenable both Scripturally and historically.
There is also a perception that, among Pentecostals/charismatics who don't embrace this all-or-nothing attitude, there's still a sense among them that speaking in tongues is a superior gift of the Spirit, and that people who can't do it are deficient somehow regarding their level of faith or spiritual formation, or being stubborn about "accepting a gift." Again, this is untenable Scripturally and historically.
In our churches, we're taught that every single Christian, by virtue of being called into the family of God, is gifted with a spiritual gift. Everyone. The little old lady who comes faithfully to church every Saturday and dusts and mops and scrubs down the pews with Murphy's Oil Soap, or the fellow who greets everyone on Sunday morning, longtime member or first-time visitor, with grace and welcome and who takes it upon himself to make new people feel comfortable and safe within his worshipping community, have been gifted spiritually to do what they do. They're no better or worse Christians than someone who speaks in tongues.
While I share some of the thoughts expressed by other posters here regarding what glossolalia is really all about and whether it's a specifically Christian phenomenon or just a variation of "wired" human behavior, and if what Paul et al were describing in the Epistles was the same phenomenon that occurs today...I'm frankly less concerned with questions of validity as a spiritual practice and more with the "Look at us and how special we are" vibe that's evident in a few (again, not all) Pentecostal groups. I want to say, well, no, you're not more special than Doris the volunteer church janitor, who's never spoken a syllable of ecstatic utterance (at least the "Holy Spirit" kind) in her life.
[ 04. June 2012, 14:09: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Most Pentecostals and charismatics of my acquaintance would agree with you, LutheranChik - at least in theory. In practice they do appear to want everyone to share their experience.
To some extent this is understandable and laudable. If you've experienced something that you feel brings you closer to God in some way or endues you with spiritual power, then it's only to be expected that you'd want others to share in it - and there doesn't have to be anything sinister about the motive behind that.
All that said, I think it does get mixed up as part-and-parcel of the whole group identity thing. Either that, or it becomes a treasured personal experience that people can become a bit touchy or precious about because ... well, because it's personal.
That's how the dynamic works.
But there does seem to something latent within charismatics, even more balanced Anglican or Baptist ones, to try to get everyone else on board. You find the same tendency too, of course, with converts from other Christian traditions who've become RC or Orthodox. 'I've found the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church! You're missing out, come and join us!'
It can happen over a whole range of things, not just speaking in tongues.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But there does seem to something latent within charismatics, even more balanced Anglican or Baptist ones, to try to get everyone else on board.
Probably, at least in part, because it's a whole lot easier to convert other Christians to your way of thinking and worshipping, than it is to convert non Churchgoers to any sort of Christianity.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But there does seem to something latent within charismatics, even more balanced Anglican or Baptist ones, to try to get everyone else on board.
Probably, at least in part, because it's a whole lot easier to convert other Christians to your way of thinking and worshipping, than it is to convert non Churchgoers to any sort of Christianity.
I thought trying to get others to come to the church where 'I' go was more basic than that! Eg the coffee is good and sermons are short
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
cliffdweller: agh. My mistake. "Physiological" works just as well as "neurological".
Must have coffee.
Is this need psychological or physiological?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
cliffdweller: agh. My mistake. "Physiological" works just as well as "neurological".
Must have coffee.
Is this need psychological or physiological?
Excellent question! (Even if tongue in cheek) This is true of our need to connect with God imo - it isn't just psychological, or we wouldn't need physical worship.
Both psychological and physiological will always be intertwined while we live in physical bodies. Our experience of God has to be physical as there is nothing that isn't filtered through our feelings/nerves/brains/emotions etc.
ETA - I love Terry Pratchett's take on death as we wake up dead with no glands, therefore dispassionate.
[ 05. June 2012, 07:45: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by NJA (# 13022) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
What is your interpretation of 'speaking in tongues'?
An unlearned prayer language that we need God to lead us in:
"he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not to men, but unto God: for no man understands him; howbeit in the spirit he speaks mysteries. ... he.. edifies himself" (1 Cor. 14:2, 4)
This is the same phenomena as in Acts 2 where although they understood the words as referring to the works of God, they did not understand what God was saying to them. The hearers were over-hearing God's people speaking to God, praying according to his perfect will for them.
"the Spirit also helps our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" (Romans 8:26)
We don't have the words to take us to the love, joy and peace that passes understanding, but The Spirit does! (see v27)
I cannot speak for whatever experience you have had, but I know that I and all the people I'm with have the same as in the New Testament.
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Surely it is preferable to share the Gospel in language with which the listener is familiar.
Of course, tongues was never for preaching the gospel! This is a myth put about by people who havn't read Acts 2 properly. Over-hearing others speak in tongues left all in doubt and confusion (Acts 2:12-13), even though the hearers were bi-lingual and recognised the words. Peter straight-away realised this and stood up, stopped speaking to God in tongues and began top preach to the crowd in the common, learned language ... then they understood the gospel.
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
It was wonderful that the crowd heard Christ's message in their own translation
No, wrong, see above.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Question for the class: "Now, it this good Biblical exegesis or barmy old cack?"
Posted by NJA (# 13022) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Modern tongues is anti-intellectual, semi-hysterical, self-indulgent showing-off - and I write as one who did it for 15 years or so, at a charismatic church, before I came to my senses and realised what a dangerous, self-indulgent perversion of Christianity charismaticism is.
Intellectually, one should expect God to need to lead his people in prayer by a way they knew not, to attain to the love joy and peace that passes understanding.
"as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God." (1 Cor. 2:9-11, see also Romans 8:26-27)
That's why it says that tongue-speakers edify themselves and speak mysteries and are talking to God, not to men (1 Cor. 14:2, 4)
If you experienced semi-hysteria, that was because the people concerned were following some wrong notions, so we have a situation of the partially-sighted leading the blind. It is not emotional / of the flesh, you can control when, how long & how loud you speak in tongues, "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." (1 Cor. 14:32), the fruit of the spirit includes gentlenes.
The trouble is that the charismatic movement brought in wrong ideas such as Toronto Blessing, casting demons out of Christians etc... and caused the way of truth (including the need to speak in tongues) to be evil spoken of. It may well be that you have never actually beenm to a church like the one in the bible where all members pray in tongues privately, and where the gifts are used in an orderly way in meetings - yet this is how to "follow love" (1 Cor. 14:1).
I see you are in Hemel, let me know if you want to visit such a church.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
NJA: I see you are in Hemel, let me know if you want to visit such a church.
(LOL, 'Hemel' is the Dutch word for Heaven.)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There are no such churches, NJA, only churches who believe themselves to be such churches ...
There's no possible way of proving that the way people speak in tongues in your church is the same as the way they did back in NT times.
We may not be comparing like with like in any way, shape or form.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There are no such churches, NJA, only churches who believe themselves to be such churches ...
There's no possible way of proving that the way people speak in tongues in your church is the same as the way they did back in NT times.
We may not be comparing like with like in any way, shape or form.
The problem with that view is what is says about our view of providence. Think of it like this. The NT contains a fraction of the writings penned by the apostles. So we believe that the Holy Spirit has preserved the ones needed by the church throughout history on which to base its doctrine and practice. True, every new culture into which the church evangelises needs to contextualise this teaching, but fundamentally we believe it's all useful.
Now why would the Holy Spirit preserve a record of the early church's experience of spiritual gifts, if it was so disconnected from our current experience as to be irrelevant. He may have some deep and mysterious purpose for this, but this isn't the approach we take to scripture generally.
So I'd say you'd need a specific reason to affirm a disconnection between C1 glossollia and C20 glossollia. Simply raining the possibility of a disconnection isn't a strong enough enough to assume that one exists.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No it doesn't. Why should it?
All it implies, to me at least, is that as human beings we like to have everything neat and battened down. I don't see how accepting that we really don't know what the heck the Apostle Paul was talking about at certain points (or the Gospel writers for that matter) obviates the importance of scripture or nullifies its benefits for us today.
At best, with the passages in question in 1 Corinthians it's like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We have to make a hermeneutical leap or educated guess to work out the gist of the other (unheard) side of the conversation.
We may make a reasonable stab at it but that's the best it can amount to, a reasonable stab.
I really don't see the problem with that at all. It's the best we can do under the circumstances.
For all I know, the phenomena of speaking in tongues encountered in 20th and 21st century charismatic and Pentecostal churches might very well be the exact same phenomena that we find in the NT. But it might not be. We can't prove it either way. We have to take a leap of faith. We pays our money and we makes our choice.
For what it's worth, my own view is that it doesn't really matter whether it is or it isn't, the important thing is to ascertain whether it is of benefit or not.
The jury is out on that one. As NJA demonstrates, his church being one where speaking in tongues is compulsory and a sign that one is truly 'born again', these things tend - these days - to function as some kind of sociological glue - a kind of group adhesive. They convince the participants that what they are doing is signally 'owned' of God. Whatever else tongues might be, they tend to act as a reinforcement exercise for those who want some kind of apparent 'proof' or vindication of their beliefs.
The problem with that view is what is says about our view of providence. Think of it like this. The NT contains a fraction of the writings penned by the apostles. So we believe that the Holy Spirit has preserved the ones needed by the church throughout history on which to base its doctrine and practice. True, every new culture into which the church evangelises needs to contextualise this teaching, but fundamentally we believe it's all useful.
Now why would the Holy Spirit preserve a record of the early church's experience of spiritual gifts, if it was so disconnected from our current experience as to be irrelevant. He may have some deep and mysterious purpose for this, but this isn't the approach we take to scripture generally.
So I'd say you'd need a specific reason to affirm a disconnection between C1 glossollia and C20 glossollia. Simply raining the possibility of a disconnection isn't a strong enough enough to assume that one exists.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Heck, I don't know what happened there, I appear to have copied the last part of Ramarius's post into my response. From 'The problem ....' onwards.
Perhaps some kindly Host could delete that section or else enable me to edit it.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Heck, I don't know what happened there, I appear to have copied the last part of Ramarius's post into my response. From 'The problem ....' onwards.
Perhaps some kindly Host could delete that section or else enable me to edit it.
Heck - am I putting words into your mouth now Gamalel?
I'll reply to your reply when I wake up - long week.....
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
OK where were we. How confident can we be that our current experience of tongues is basically same as the NT experience. Well my question in return is 'Why wouldn't it be?' Speaking in tongues was one of the signs that the Spirit had been poured out on 'all mankind'. It's a sign of the new covenant, and as long as we are in the new covenant I would expect some congruence between them.
We also have the providential point. If our speaking in tongues and that of the NT are different we have two problems. We have a lot of info in the NT about something which is now a complete mystery (and therefore practically useless), and a current experience about which the NT has nothing directly to say. Since the Holy Spirit has preserved the writings now recognised as our New Testament it begs the question why he would leave us in the dark on a matter which is not some side issue, but an essential part of the experience of a large and fast-growing stream of Christianity.
Third problem, if our experience and NT are different, at what point in history did the Holy Spirit change his modus operandi? If you're going to convince anyone that there is an historical disconnection, you will need to identify where in history that disconnection occurred.
So I've some good reasons to think the experinces are fundamentally similar, and no good reason to think they are not.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Many things about our current ecclesiastical practices are different from that of the NT. I'm pretty sure our worship--whether high church or low, traditional or "happy clappy", anglo or ethnic, is quite different from that of 1st c. Christians. Our ways of fellowshipping, caring for the poor, educating the children of the church, communicating church activities-- all are quite different from the 1st c. The question is not "are we the same?"-- we aren't. The question is, does it fit the broad framework of wise practices laid out in 1 Cor. 14 and elsewhere?
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Many things about our current ecclesiastical practices are different from that of the NT. I'm pretty sure our worship--whether high church or low, traditional or "happy clappy", anglo or ethnic, is quite different from that of 1st c. Christians. Our ways of fellowshipping, caring for the poor, educating the children of the church, communicating church activities-- all are quite different from the 1st c. The question is not "are we the same?"-- we aren't. The question is, does it fit the broad framework of wise practices laid out in 1 Cor. 14 and elsewhere?
With respect to practice, yes I agree with your point entirely. The question here (see up thread) is the extent to which, in the case of tongues, we have a shared experience.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Many things about our current ecclesiastical practices are different from that of the NT. I'm pretty sure our worship--whether high church or low, traditional or "happy clappy", anglo or ethnic, is quite different from that of 1st c. Christians. Our ways of fellowshipping, caring for the poor, educating the children of the church, communicating church activities-- all are quite different from the 1st c. The question is not "are we the same?"-- we aren't. The question is, does it fit the broad framework of wise practices laid out in 1 Cor. 14 and elsewhere?
With respect to practice, yes I agree with your point entirely. The question here (see up thread) is the extent to which, in the case of tongues, we have a shared experience.
Yes, I understood the question (I'm not new to the thread). But I think my point still holds.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
@Clffdweller. Then it looks we're in violent agreement.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, we can assume it is a 'shared experience', we can assert that it is a shared experience, but we can't possibly know for sure. That's the point I'm making.
Does it matter?
Well, no, not in the overall scheme of things because, quite frankly, I see it as a secondary issue and not one I'd be prepared to go to the stake for.
I happen to believe that some instances of tongues-speaking can be valid and upbuilding, but I counted quantify that in any way or put a percentage evaluation on it ... of course I can't.
But beyond giving some sense of cohesion by virtue of having a shared experience to a rapidly growing Christian movement, I'm at a loss as to what tongues actually achieve, to be quite honest.
Ok, so there's no biblical basis for us all playing tiddlywinks or playing wobble-boards like Rolf Harris (thank goodness ) but had these been the means by which charismatic and Pentecostal churches had maintained their momentum then the effects would pretty much be the same, as far as I can see.
Now I'll be accused of disparaging tongues or turning my back on spiritual gifts or even God the Holy Spirit himself ... but that's not my intention.
I'm just saying that it takes something of a hermeneutical leap to assert that what we see in the charismatic and Pentecostal movements today are exactly the same thing that the disciples experienced on the Day of Pentecost or the Corinthians experienced in their worship services.
It might be, it might not be ...
You pay your money ...
As to when the 'gift of tongues' became less widespread ... well, there are some Patristic references to it here and there but it appears to have fallen out of general use (if indeed it ever had general use, we don't know that it did, we only have Corinthians and the early instances in Acts to go on) by the time of the Montanists in the second century. Although the issue there seemed to be duff prophecy rather than prophecy per se.
I don't know on what basis we can deduce or conclude that 1 Corinthians 12 - 14 is supposed to be a prescriptive pattern for how we conduct worship services. It can be read that way, it can be interpreted in other ways. The same can be said of other passages of scripture.
There are a lot of things in the scriptures we don't fully understand, but we know enough to make us 'wise unto salvation.'
I don't see how it calls into question the Holy Spirit's guiding of the Church (however we define it) into all truth if we accept that some passages are always going to remain fairly obscure.
That doesn't undermine scripture, if anything it allows it to be what it is ...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Clffdweller. Then it looks we're in violent agreement.
Violent agreement??? What the heck would that look like????
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Clffdweller. Then it looks we're in violent agreement.
Violent agreement??? What the heck would that look like????
....whimsical humour....
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Clffdweller. Then it looks we're in violent agreement.
Violent agreement??? What the heck would that look like????
....whimsical humour....
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
Sorry to drag this up from the back of beyond:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Question for the class: "Now, it this good Biblical exegesis or barmy old cack?"
Which refers to the previous post by NJA, of which this is an extract:
quote:
Of course, tongues was never for preaching the gospel! This is a myth put about by people who havn't read Acts 2 properly. Over-hearing others speak in tongues left all in doubt and confusion (Acts 2:12-13), even though the hearers were bi-lingual and recognised the words. Peter straight-away realised this and stood up, stopped speaking to God in tongues and began top preach to the crowd in the common, learned language ... then they understood the gospel.
I don't know about "barmy old cack", but it's not an especially accurate rendition of Acts 2. Luke has the crowds declaring that "we hear them [the disciples] declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" - which is before Peter has proclaimed the Gospel to them. Which suggests that the confusion wasn't caused by the languages the disciples spoke in, because:
a) They understood enough to know that what they heard was "the wonders of God" being declared;
b) They heard their own languages being spoken.
Luke then goes on to say they were "amazed and perplexed" - which suggests it wasn't the "babble" that was confusing them, but the fact that they could hear and understand - in their own languages, not in an alien/heavenly/angelic one.
All of which suggests to me that this is somehow different to the tongues mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14. Why does that make either of these less "special" or less "of the Spirit"?
Posted by NJA (# 13022) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
...
a) They understood enough to know that what they heard was "the wonders of God" being declared;
b) They heard their own languages being spoken.
Luke then goes on to say they were "amazed and perplexed" - which suggests it wasn't the "babble" that was confusing them, but the fact that they could hear and understand - in their own languages, not in an alien/heavenly/angelic one.
The people over-hearing tongues were bi-lingual, God-fearing Jews from all over the known world.
They encountered a bunch of Galileans all speaking different languages at the same time that's why they were amazed and perplexed.
These people had all just been born again, unlike 1 Corinthians where there is advanced warning of what God wants to do, namely give clear messages to people, through his people.
The Corinthian church, like most churches is not a gathering of bi-lingual people from all over the known world, it is a gathering of people that have already received the Spirit + perhaps a few visitors, friends of Christians who have already heard the testimony of the person that invited them along.
I don't see any contradiction.
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
All of which suggests to me that this is somehow different to the tongues mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14. Why does that make either of these less "special" or less "of the Spirit"?
God obviously caused the disciples to speak in languages that would be recognised at Pentecost, this doesn't mean it was a different phenomena to the tongues mentioned later in Acts or in Corinthians, just a more powerful /directed use of it. After the church was "up and running" and people were changed by God they had become his witnesses, un-believers could see this whereas at the start (Pentecost) God had to use specific languages - but it is still the same phenomena as encountered later in Acts and in Corinthians ... and today since the new covenant has not changed.
There was a guy in our church about 15 years ago, his greek wife visited and he gave a gift of tongues, in greek that she recognised! God obviously decided that she needed this. Most other visitors don't understand what is said in the gifts of tongues, but it is still a sign to them.
[ 09. June 2012, 23:12: Message edited by: NJA ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0