|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: "I'm getting a picture…"
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm still more conservative theologically than you are, I think, Boogie, so I'm probably in 'less minds' than you are on this one. I tend to think that some of this stuff can be 'supra-natural' rather than 'supernatural' - but that doesn't rule the possibility of the supernatural out of the equation.
So I'm probably in a half-way house position between, say, someone like yourself on the one hand and EE on the other.
If I were to draw a chart of gradations between our respective positions on this one, I'd imagine it would go something like this (from left to right):
Komensky Boogie Chris Stiles Gamaliel Jolly Jape South Coast Kevin EE.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Oof! Do I really come across as such a hardliner? I'm not a cessastionist, but am deeply skeptical. The reasons for my skepticism are not lack of faith (the usual gambit in Charismanistan) but having seen, and been part of, the delusion for many years. The slightly depressing part of this (often useful and engaging) thread is the level of cognitive dissonance. Even over in the allegedly exegetical thread in Kerg, we're simply left with 'I believe it, therefore it is' as the final explanation.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Oof! Do I really come across as such a hardliner? I'm not a cessastionist, but am deeply skeptical. The reasons for my skepticism are not lack of faith (the usual gambit in Charismanistan) but having seen, and been part of, the delusion for many years. The slightly depressing part of this (often useful and engaging) thread is the level of cognitive dissonance. Even over in the allegedly exegetical thread in Kerg, we're simply left with 'I believe it, therefore it is' as the final explanation.
Or maybe, "I don't believe it, and therefore it isn't?" ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
I don't doubt your experience, I fully understand that these are the honest conclusions that you have drawn from your experience. What I am a little puzzled by is why you have drawn those conclusions, given that you are not a cessationist. It does seem like "guilt by association"; because these people who call themselves charismatic do this, that, or the other, therefore almost everything that passes for charismatic activity is inauthentic. That seems, to me, to be an illogical, if understandable, position, a bit like the atheist who says, "because I've met some judgemental and hypocritical Christians, therefore Christianity is bunk."
As I say, at the end of the day, I'm not trying to prove anything to you, I don't think charismatic gifts operate in that way. They are tools for the job, that's all. I think a healthy expectation that God will equip me to do the things he asks of me will be more beneficial than a more sceptical approach, just as I think that a mechanic with a full toolkit will, all other things being equal, be more effective than one who only has a hammer, but that's a judgement I make, which you clearly do not share.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If I were to draw a chart of gradations between our respective positions on this one, I'd imagine it would go something like this (from left to right):
Komensky Boogie Chris Stiles Gamaliel Jolly Jape South Coast Kevin EE.
Not sure I understand the spectrum, given that Boogie is - by your own admission - probably less theologically conservative than you are.
TBH, I think part of it is driven by our various approaches in arguing our point. I suspect on a thread about the Reformed I might end up coming over as an anti-Calvinist, and an anti sacramentarian on a thread about sacramental practices.
quote:
" I think a healthy expectation that God will equip me to do the things he asks of me will be more beneficial than a more sceptical approach"
]
Personally I assume that God expects me to get on with it - and I leave the gifts he might or might not equip me with entirely up to him.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Chris, I don't disagree with you that the gifts that God gives us are entirely up to Him. How could it be otherwise. But we have to be open and receptive in order to recognise those gifts and know how and when to utilise them. If we set out with a presupposition that God gifts us only in the most unusual circumstances, and only with the most spectacular of giftings, can you not see that this would lead to us discounting things of which He really wants us to take notice?
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmm ... I'm not sure that there's a dichotomy here, Jolly Jape. I can't speak for Chris Stiles but in my case I don't see it as a case of, 'Uh-oh, I'd better continue speaking in tongues despite my reservations about the practice just in case I otherwise miss out on the tools that God wants me to use to do the job ...'
I'm not sure it works like that. If God wanted to give any of us a 'supernatural' tool to do whatever job it was that wanted doing then he's more than capable of doing so.
I've got a very full-on charismatic friend from days of yore who is badgering me at the moment because he thinks that I'm not 'seeking the miraculous' or trying to get involved with people who are.
My response - that if Jesus's 'Depart from me, I never knew you, evildoers!' - is anything to go by (addressed to apparent wonder-workers) Matthew 7:22 - then it doesn't seem that this is his first priority either.
Of course, there is a balance here. William Carey the 18th century pioneer missionary was famously told, 'If God wishes to convert the heathen he is more than capable of doing so without your aid, young man ...
But it keeps coming back to this 'what's-the-point-of-it-all?' issue.
Churches which encourage the use of charismatic gifts do seem to grow. Is this because of the gifts or inspite of them?
By and large, charismatic churches have lively music, a warm and welcoming atmosphere, engaging and accessible preaching and all manner of things that make them attractive. They also tend to have more young people around - and this can be attractive too - many young charismatics meet their future partners as such churches.
The 'gifts' are in there as part of the package, but by and large, I'm not sure what they actually offer beyond a certain frisson, some spice and a sense (real or imagined) that God is somehow more intimately involved with these churches than he is with other kinds of churches which might be seen as dry or boring in comparison.
I'm still struggling to think of a 'picture', interpretation of a tongue or a prophesy or word-of-knowledge that I've heard that has actually made that much difference ... I'm sure I could think of a few if I racked my brains hard enough but nothing's springing unbidden to mind.
Further upthread, I think, I referred to Andrew Walker's study where he interviewed attendees from a mass rally where there'd been tongues/interpretations and prophecies. Few people could actually remember what the 'messages' or the content was. For them the most important thing was that these things had happened and that this, in and of itself, irrespective of any cognitive content decoded or derived from what was going on - was sufficient.
These things purely reinforced people's belief that God was immanent an interacting with them in a special way. That was the point of it.
That might be fine in and of itself and I, for one, whatever EE thinks, wouldn't be out to stop them.
But it hardly sounds like 'tools for the job.'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
While I think on't ...
'If we set out with a presupposition that God gifts us only in the most unusual circumstances, and only with the most spectacular of giftings, can you not see that this would lead to us discounting things of which He really wants us to take notice?'
We already KNOW what things God wants us to take notice of - 'to act justly, love mercy and to walk humbly with our God'.
To feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison ... as the Gospels tells us, alleviate the distress of widows and orphans and keep ourselves 'unspotted from the world' as James puts it ...
How many of us are doing those things consistently? Or at all? ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Well, the answer to your question is, of course, not enough of us not enough of the time, but I struggle to see what that has to do with spiritual gifts. If anything, then an increased awareness of them is likely to encourage rather than discourage the Gospel work of doing justly and loving mercy.
But the point, surely, is that, whilst the strategic commission is, as you say, clear, that does not mean we are always clear on the specific tactics we ought to employ in the furtherance of the strategic aims. In a world where resources, both human and material, are stretched, do we put our efforts into, say, ministry in the prisons, or food banks, or street pastors.... All these are perfectly in line with the manifesto which you outlined, but that tells us nothing about where we should be placing resources, given that we can't do everything. ISTM that, alongside working cooperatively with other Christians, and using sanctified common sense, revelatory gifts are much needed is setting such tactical goals.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see what you're getting at but don't see how this follows:
'If anything, then an increased awareness of them is likely to encourage rather than discourage the Gospel work of doing justly and loving mercy.'
Why should this be?
I know plenty of people who are big on charismatic gifts who apparently do very little of these things and vice-versa.
I tend to think that an emphasis on charismatic gifts bears very little relation to how much or how little we commit ourselves to acts of mercy. There are plenty on non-overtly charismatic Christians involved with that sort of thing - and equally many charismatic Christians who are too.
I don't see the correlation.
As to whether we need revelatory gifts alongside the common sense, the planning, discussion, debate and everything else - well yes ... although in my experience I've never really seen charismatic gifts in this way either. If anything they've tended to obscure sensible descision-making and led to over-egged expectations that have subsequently been dashed.
Sure, I know plenty of people who feel they've been 'led' by particular Bible verses or prophetic words and so on - but equally I've known 'visions', dreams and apparent prophetic words cause havoc when serious decisions were required - I've already outlined the debacle over the purchase of a building.
I'd love to be able to go along with what you're saying but either my own experience has been dramatically different to yours or else you've been extremely fortunate ...
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
From the 'Tongues and Testing' thread in Kerygmania:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
From memory, I don't think I responded to EE's citation of the linguist who discerned no cognitive content in 'tongues' - probably because Komensky and others had used similar sources - although arriving at different conclusions. I couldn't see why we needed to respond to that evidence as we'd already discussed it and concluded that tongues weren't a 'real' language in any observable, verifiable sense.
Who are the 'we' in "we'd already discussed it and concluded..."? Where is the evidence that led up to this 'conclusion'? I don't remember seeing it, and especially considering that I asked you for the linguistic parameters by which 'tongues' is supposed to be analysed. You never responded with this information. So, in the absence of any hard evidence, how can you conclude anything?
I presented evidence that showed that linguistic validity is not dependent on phoneme inventory (the main charge against 'yabadabadoo' type utterances). You never responded to this with any kind of evidence or coherent argument.
Also, what do you mean by "'real' language in any observable, verifiable sense"? Please could you back this comment up with some proper evidence. Thank you.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I really like how EE reads 'keep silent' as 'not keeping silent'.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, I'm supposed to be keeping silent too, with a self-imposed ban on pontificating about matters charismatic ... unless I've got anything new to say.
As EE has challenged me, though, I feel I have to respond but I'm not sure I've got anything new to add.
To be perfectly blunt, though, do we REALLY need to call on linguistic experts when the 'yabaddababba doo' type 'tongues' are clearly just that - nonsense syllables uttered along a fairly predictible rhythmic pattern:
'Sheeand-a-carr a barr-dannah ...' and so on and so forth.
It's fucking obvious that this isn't a language in any conventional sense of the term. It's an insult to anyone's intelligence to suggest otherwise.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
That said, yes, EE does have a point when he cites whistling languages and musical notation and other non-verbal ways of conveying 'meaning' and I thought I'd already conceded that point.
Surely one of the key aspects of language is that is something that has to be learned - children learn to talk, people learn to speak other people's languages. They have to go to school or college or listen to tapes or pick it up from interacting with people in another country or culture.
Surely the whole point of the accounts in Acts 2 etc is that, miraculously, this process was suspended at that/those instances and that without having been trained the disciples were 'declaring the works of God' in languages unknown to themselves but known to others present.
Ok, as we've been discussing in Kerygmania, there are places in the scripture where this pattern doesn't seem to quite fit and this is where it has been suggested/conjectured that what is happening are instances of glossolalia.
The feature of glossolalia is that it is 'unknown' - linguists and others can't find any cognitive content nor map it across to known languages or even discern any form or shape that would indicate that it is a language in the first place.
That's fairly clearly established in the literature. All EE is asking me to do is to focus on one particular aspect - that of phoneme patterns - because he has a vested interest in maintaining that 'yabbadaba doo' type tongues might be actual languages - because this fits both his experience (although there's no way of telling whether his own tongues are 'yabadaba doo' ones or something more complex and apparently convincing) and his superimposed kerygmanic schema on a few verses in 1 Corinthians 14.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that phoneme patterns are the only criteria, there are lots of other criteria that we might use to identify that something is a 'real' language or not.
Without any discernible cognitive element is obviously more difficult to establish - but surely EE is answering his own question when the linguist he cites ALSO concluded that glossolalic tongues couldn't be considered an actual language in any true sense of the term.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmm ... I'm not sure that there's a dichotomy here, Jolly Jape. I can't speak for Chris Stiles but in my case I don't see it as a case of, 'Uh-oh, I'd better continue speaking in tongues despite my reservations about the practice just in case I otherwise miss out on the tools that God wants me to use to do the job ...'
I don't think that's what JJ was saying at all, just that we should at least be ready for God to do as he wants (same as I was saying a few pages back about being 'open'). I guess being somewhere between dismissive and naive - too close to either extreme is unhelpful.
quote:
I tend to think that an emphasis on charismatic gifts bears very little relation to how much or how little we commit ourselves to acts of mercy. There are plenty on non-overtly charismatic Christians involved with that sort of thing - and equally many charismatic Christians who are too.
I don't see the correlation.
Totally agree with this. But it's generally been the anti-charismatic 'side' that has brought the topic up, as if a non-increase in the social gospel somehow proves charismatics are wrong. To me, the point is totally irrelevant. As you say, the two aspects of Christian life aren't connected (other than both being aspects of Christian life).
It's like saying having the sacraments more often will mean that church buildings will be more structurally sound (or less structurally sound, depending on which side you're on). I don't think they have anything to do with each other. I do think that serving the poor is eminently more important than spiritual 'gifts'. But I'd doubt anyone here would disagree with that.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
The idea of whistling languages, for example is not an apt comparison. Those 'languages' are built upon other spoken languages. They could not exists if it weren't for the proper language upon which they are built. This is also the case for intoned languages.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky
The idea of whistling languages, for example is not an apt comparison. Those 'languages' are built upon other spoken languages. They could not exists if it weren't for the proper language upon which they are built. This is also the case for intoned languages.
It's interesting that you should say that, and, in fact, you could be right. However, that doesn't alter the fact that meaningful communication is possible without phonemes (unless you count the 'notes' of the whistling as phonemes).
As I mentioned on the other board, I heard something on Radio 3 yesterday evening, which was a programme called "Where Have We Come From...And Where Are We Going?". I wanted to link to it, but could not, so if you want to listen to this, you will have to find it on iPlayer, and it might be available for a week.
The programme featured Sue Perkins and Tom Service, and here is a transcript of part of their conversation (Tom was attempting to answer questions from listeners about the earliest known music):
quote:
Tom: "Now, one of the things I like is what an anthropologist, Steven Mithen, has come up with and he posits that the whole story of our development as human beings is tied up the development of music. That because we were communicating with one other as Neanderthals and very early hominids, the frontal lobe at the front of our brains developed in a much smaller period of time than the rest of our cerebellums. Now he says that might have been to do with the way that language suddenly sprouted out of these societies. And how did that happen? Well it happened through a thing that he calls 'musilanguage', which is that, instead of language being something do with individual words, it's to do with intonation, to do with phrases; in other words, to do with a kind of interzone between music and language."
Sue: "So it's tonal at this point?"
Tom: "Tonal, yeah. And in fact there's a psychologist called Colwyn Trevarthen, who sort of backs this up: the way babies learn language is not by learning words, you know. They don't really learn Mum, Dad, jumper, headphone, microphone, were they in this studio. They learn, instead, the intonations of mothers' voices and the lullabies that they sing. Effectively they learn the melodies of speech before they learn what the words are."
Clearly there is a school of thought that sees language originating in music, and not vice versa.
So I don't think we can be too dogmatic about what constitutes a proper language, and therefore I am still intrigued by Gamaliel's comment about 'real' languages that are observable and verifiable. I am still waiting for him to set out the criteria or parameters by which we judge whether a language is valid according to this method.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Without any discernible cognitive element is obviously more difficult to establish - but surely EE is answering his own question when the linguist he cites ALSO concluded that glossolalic tongues couldn't be considered an actual language in any true sense of the term.
What do you mean that I am answering my own question? I cited a linguist, that is true. That is hardly the same as agreeing with that linguist. In fact, I can neither agree nor disagree with him without having sight of his evidence. I suppose I could just "put my faith" in this linguist and believe him in the absence of evidence. Trouble is, though, that this kind of faith can hardly be called knowledge.
quote:
It's fucking obvious that this isn't a language in any conventional sense of the term. It's an insult to anyone's intelligence to suggest otherwise.
That, of course, is not an evidence based answer, but an emotionally based one (that latter being driven by experience, which is apparently my great failing!!)
[ 29. January 2013, 17:50: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't take Genesis as literal historical fact, but it is interesting, and perhaps pertinent to this discussion, that music appears to have developed early on, alongside the domestication of live-stock and bronze and metal working and so on - Genesis 4:19-22.
Of course, this is all part of the 'glue' that holds communities and civilisation together and part of what makes us human. So I don't have a great deal of issue with the idea of music somehow being 'primal' and tonality and sonority coming into play early on in a child's linguistic development before cognitive content etc.
In fact, some early studies of glossolalia suggested that it was 'infantile' behaviour and some kind of reversal to a pre-language, womb-like condition - some kind of comfort-blanket 'language' as it were.
I understand that later studies dismissed this notion - partly because it was too judgemental and value-laden. Early studies of tongues came at the issue from the perspective that it was 'abnormal' and perhaps pathological - that therw was something 'wrong' with the practitioners.
More recent studies have taken a more positive view and by and have concluded that tongues-speakers are no more or no less 'pathological' than anyone else. They also seem to suggest that it is a fairly 'normal' activity in that anyone can do it - it doesn't take special skill and it's easy to pick up the 'skills' to do it ... which is one of the reasons why I'm more sceptical these days.
It's just so easily done. You don't need faith to speak in tongues. Anyone can do it.
On the phonemes thing that EE keeps mentioning, I can't cite chapter and verse and would need to go back and read the studies I've referred to. But what does strike me is that languages do tend to conform to discernible patterns and also to fall into categories that evolve over time - so there are Brythonic strands - Goidelic (Gaelic) and Brythonic (Welsh, Cornish, Breton) - Anatolian strands, Germanic strands and so on and so forth.
From what I've read, there doesn't seem to be any discernible language 'groups' of that kind in glossolalia - other than 'dialects' that seem to develop in particular congregations or groups of congregations under the influence of dominant leaders - ie. people consciously or unconsciously 'copy' the tongues that the leaders use.
The only universal pattern that has been discerned - from the Yucatan to the Sudan - as it were ('Hit me with your rhythm stick) - is the common presence of the 'shondera' or 'hondera' construction - and variations of it 'honder', 'shonder', 'shunder' etc.
No-one has explained why this is, as far as I know, but it does explain why the common caricature of tongues goes 'Shecameonahonda ..' etc.
It could well be that is an easy sound combination to form when uttering non-cognitive speech patterns. Who knows? For all I know it might be more difficult to say these things in some languages rather than others.
It doesn't 'prove' anything - ie. that the root of 'shonder' or 'honder' is some kind of glossolalic 'term' for God or for 'praise' or 'glory' or anything ..
So yes, there mysteries and things that haven't been explained. I'm happy with that. I'm comfortable with that.
In answer to EE's constant cavil that I've not supplied 'evidence' for what should constitute a 'real' language - well, I'm no expert (and neither is he) but some discernible cognitive element is clearly one of them - although in the absence of that we can still suggest certain patterns and characteristics. The fact that none of the linguists who have studied glossolalia have so far discerned any consistent pattern or commonality of features that would suggest a fully-orbed language in the accepted sense should surely give us pause?
The get-out clause on that one, of course, is that EE regards these people as agnostics at best and atheists at worst so there's no point in listening to what they have to say.
It reminds me of a Young-Earth-Creationist friend who is continually trying to undermine the spiritual credentials of theistic evolutionists by suggesting that they don't have sufficient faith or they don't 'know God' as well as he does and so on and so forth.
If we leave the cognitive elements aside, then what we are left with are the structural elements and patterns. No linguist has so far identified these as having the required elements to qualify as a language.
But these linguists don't count, evidently ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
The only universal pattern that has been discerned - from the Yucatan to the Sudan - as it were ('Hit me with your rhythm stick) - is the common presence of the 'shondera' or 'hondera' construction - and variations of it 'honder', 'shonder', 'shunder' etc.
No-one has explained why this is, as far as I know, but it does explain why the common caricature of tongues goes 'Shecameonahonda ..' etc.
It could well be that is an easy sound combination to form when uttering non-cognitive speech patterns. Who knows? For all I know it might be more difficult to say these things in some languages rather than others.
It doesn't 'prove' anything - ie. that the root of 'shonder' or 'honder' is some kind of glossolalic 'term' for God or for 'praise' or 'glory' or anything ..
Well, I've got news for you, Gamaliel. This construction is not universal, because I know of at least one "tongues speaker" who has never used it!
quote:
In answer to EE's constant cavil that I've not supplied 'evidence' for what should constitute a 'real' language - well, I'm no expert (and neither is he) but some discernible cognitive element is clearly one of them - although in the absence of that we can still suggest certain patterns and characteristics. The fact that none of the linguists who have studied glossolalia have so far discerned any consistent pattern or commonality of features that would suggest a fully-orbed language in the accepted sense should surely give us pause?
...
But these linguists don't count, evidently ...
Well, I suppose over ten years' professional experience in a job involving foreign languages (and not just the common ones) doesn't count. But, hey, if you want me to just put my faith in someone's word, then I guess we ought to forget about the concept of 'evidence'.
Actually, if you want me to put my faith in linguists, then I might as well just put my faith in God. What's the difference?
The internet is chock full of peer reviewed papers on scientific topics, and the experts are not shy about presenting THEIR EVIDENCE, so that even thickos can try to evaluate it. But no! Not Gamaliel's great army of expert linguists. They seem incredibly coy about presenting their data, because, of course, the masses won't be able to understand it. Their message is (according to Gamaliel): "we just ask that you trust us in the absence of evidence".
No. I want FACTS. HARD DATA. LINGUISTIC PARAMETERS.
And don't think I won't be able to understand it.
So come on, Gamaliel. Stop bluffing and answer my simple question:
*WHAT ARE THE LINGUISTIC PARAMETERS BY WHICH TONGUES ARE DEEMED NOT TO BE PROPER LANGUAGES?*
Is that clear enough for you?
You brought up all this stuff about tongues not being proper "observable, verifiable languages", so why don't you have the guts to follow through on your own little project, eh?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Wasn't the significant point the one I made pages ago that everyone seemed to ignore, that the speech sounds and their mapping to phonemes used by tongues speakers are apparently the same as the languages they know, given that real languages do differ massively in what speech sounds they contain and how these map to phonemes
?
For example, if I understand what I've read correctly, an English speaking tongues speaker will, for example, use the dark and clear 'l' sounds in exactly the same distribution as is found in English. On its own that doesn't mean anything, but when most such distinctions are taken into account, it is significant. What you don't tend to get are truly foreign speech sounds - clicks, common in some African languages but absent from Indo-European; difficult (for English speakers) sounds like the French 'u'.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, I've got news for you, EE ... I know plenty of tongues-speakers who probably don't use the 'shondera' or 'hondera' construction either.
When I said that these constructions have been found to be 'universal' it doesn't mean that I'm saying that every single tongues-speaker in the world uses them. That would be silly. No, what the data seems to suggest is that these particular constructions have been found in all parts of the world where linguists have studied the available data.
It's interesting.
As to what one concludes from that, I don't know.
This thread it beginning to get Hellish again. I don't like your gloating tone, EE and I'm tempted to call you to Hell because you irritate the shit out of me.
There are lots of available studies on-line and whole books and theses have been written on these issues. It's a good while since I've read them and there have been more up-to-date studies done since.
There are no secrets in these issues. No-one is concealing the findings.
In answer to your question, I would suggest that 'speech' is different to language, in that speech is a generic term whilst language is a more specific one - and has a cognitive or symbolic element.
No-one has so far demonstrated that these elements are present in recordings of glossolalia.
The most likely inference then, is that they are a form of patterned speech but not a language - unless they happen to be examples of actual, documented languages that have for some reason escaped the notice of the investigators.
I'm a lay-man but I would suggest that the constituent components of a language would include:
- The ability to be spoken, written or signed.
- They are acquired by learning or study or exposure to hearing them spoken.
- There are discernible phonological patterns and not simply random sounds.
- It has vocabulary, syntax and grammar.
- It can refer to abstracts and deal, however basically, with concepts such as past, present and future (although I'm told some human languages don't have those particular concepts but, nevertheless, they will be capable of 'displacement' -ie. the ability to refer to things that aren't immediately available or present when the speakers are conversing).
- They evolve and diversity over time hence the development of language groups.
- They need a socio-communal context in which to function - they are means of communication and through interaction and useage will see the 'coining' of new words and phrases, the borrowing of loan words and so on.
- As opposed to 'animal' languages - the symbols and so on used by bees etc - human languages are not a closed system with a finite number of options but 'open' systems capable of further development.
- They are modal - ie. they can be spoken, transcribed, reproduced by use of letters and symbols etc.
Is that sufficient for now?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
This thread it beginning to get Hellish again. I don't like your gloating tone, EE and I'm tempted to call you to Hell because you irritate the shit out of me.
The only reason I irritate you is that I try to defend myself against your constant accusations. You really don't like that, do you?
quote:
There are lots of available studies on-line and whole books and theses have been written on these issues. It's a good while since I've read them and there have been more up-to-date studies done since.
There are no secrets in these issues. No-one is concealing the findings.
Links, please.
quote:
I'm a lay-man but I would suggest that the constituent components of a language would include:
- The ability to be spoken, written or signed.
Tongues can be transcribed.
quote:
- They are acquired by learning or study or exposure to hearing them spoken.
Therefore you would have to accept that the tongues of Acts 2 were not proper human languages, even though they were, because they were understood by bystanders.
quote:
- There are discernible phonological patterns and not simply random sounds
But you have already cited a "universal phonological pattern" in tongues. How is that therefore a "random sound"? In fact, what do you mean by "random sounds"?
quote:
- It has vocabulary, syntax and grammar.
Indeed.
quote:
- It can refer to abstracts and deal, however basically, with concepts such as past, present and future (although I'm told some human languages don't have those particular concepts but, nevertheless, they will be capable of 'displacement' -ie. the ability to refer to things that aren't immediately available or present when the speakers are conversing).
Indeed again. An elaboration of your previous point.
quote:
- They evolve and diversity over time hence the development of language groups.
That is not essential to the definition of a language. When Esperanto was first invented, was it a legitimate language? I don't think anyone can dispute that. I have an Esperanto dictionary and it is full of abstract concepts and a rich vocabulary.
quote:
- They need a socio-communal context in which to function - they are means of communication and through interaction and useage will see the 'coining' of new words and phrases, the borrowing of loan words and so on.
That is a sociological definition of language, but not technically a linguistic one. So not necessarily relevant. Again, when Ludwig Zamenhof first invented Esperanto, was there a socio-communal context to the language? Admittedly, Esperanto was based on already existing languages, but it need not have been. For example, suppose I decided to invent a new language, and here is the conjugation of the verb "to be" in the present tense (with appropriate pronouns):
I am = A bonga
You (sing.) are = U bongu
He / She / It is = O bongo
We are = Ava bongava
You (pl.) are = Uva bonguva
They (pl.) are = Ova bongova
This stuff that I have just made up has a grammatical structure. It is also phonologically valid. But there is no sociological context in which it functions. Does it therefore qualify as linguistically valid? I don't see why not.
After all, the charge against tongues is that it is gibberish, based on repetitive syllables and inadequate phoneme inventory. This is an analysis based on the internal structure and form of the utterances. Now I don't see how you can change the argument to sociological context, which is an external factor, without shooting your first argument in the foot. To mix metaphors: that is a case of moving the goalposts.
quote:
- As opposed to 'animal' languages - the symbols and so on used by bees etc - human languages are not a closed system with a finite number of options but 'open' systems capable of further development.
Yes, that is true, but some languages develop new terms by drawing on their own resources, and thus gain the appearance of repetitiveness and sameness or even monotony. Such are synthetic and agglutinating languages, and some of them can have the appearance of a 'closed system'. I once gave an example of this, but since I was accused of showing off (and may now be accused of 'gloating'), then I will leave it there. Of course, your argument doesn't prove that instances of tongues are closed systems.
quote:
- They are modal - ie. they can be spoken, transcribed, reproduced by use of letters and symbols etc.
You've already said that in point one.
So you still haven't really made your case against tongues.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
Wasn't the significant point the one I made pages ago that everyone seemed to ignore, that the speech sounds and their mapping to phonemes used by tongues speakers are apparently the same as the languages they know, given that real languages do differ massively in what speech sounds they contain and how these map to phonemes
?
For example, if I understand what I've read correctly, an English speaking tongues speaker will, for example, use the dark and clear 'l' sounds in exactly the same distribution as is found in English. On its own that doesn't mean anything, but when most such distinctions are taken into account, it is significant. What you don't tend to get are truly foreign speech sounds - clicks, common in some African languages but absent from Indo-European; difficult (for English speakers) sounds like the French 'u'.
I know of one particular tongues speaker who uses a phoneme that is not in his native language or even in the two foreign languages of which he is most familiar.
But, of course, that may not be sufficient evidence to refute your argument.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
EE, there's a lot more to it than one isolated foreign phoneme.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
EE, there's a lot more to it than one isolated foreign phoneme.
Too true.
There is a lot more to language than some of the sweeping statements and dogmatic claims we've heard.
Language is insanely complex, IMQOGO*
(* In my quite obviously gloating opinion)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I'm not irritated because you are fending off my so-called 'attacks', I'm irritated because you keep seeing 'attacks' where none are intended.
As for links - there are loads on-line, Google is your friend.
Here's one that suggests that tongues are language-like to some extent and that they can be unlike the speaker's own language - which rather goes against the prevailing orthodoxy and inclines towards the view that you're taking - apart from the assertion in the abstract that these things may eventually be resolved through further psycholinguistic analysis:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01463378209369424
There are plenty more like it and you can also look up some of the early 1970s investigations by Samarin - which I've been referring to, by memory because I don't have a copy.
http://www.worldcat.org/title/tongues-of-men-and-angels-the-religious-language-of-pentecostalism/oclc/308527
On the issue of Acts 2 and 'learned languages' - well, yes, the languages were unlearned on that occasion - which suggests a miracle. Something that doesn't appear to be the case when people are apparently induced into speaking in tongues in charismatic circles today.
Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopaedia suggests that tongues were intelligible to both speakers and their hearers ... which is not something I've come across before:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14776c.htm
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
EE, there's a lot more to it than one isolated foreign phoneme.
Too true.
There is a lot more to language than some of the sweeping statements and dogmatic claims we've heard.
Language is insanely complex, IMQOGO*
(* In my quite obviously gloating opinion)
Indeed. But that doesn't mean that a linguist cannot analyse a recording of an utterance and form some informed opinions on whether it's a real foreign language or not. Proving a negative is always a challenge, shall we say, but what linguists have not found is the sort of evidence they'd expect to find within these utterances, were they bona fide languages. What they do find are lots of elements of the speakers' own languages. The parsimonious explanation is that in the main, glossolalia is a string of syllables, made up of sounds from the speaker's own languages, plus other sounds that they are aware of, plus some learnt from other practitioners, generally displaying the same contextual distribution of phonemes as found in their own languages. If it is a foreign language, it's very much like an early learner of French saying "Ill ay don ler sall der bann", in a manner that an actual French speaker would scarcely recognise.
It just doesn't look very convincing.
Yours and your mate's may be the real deal, of course, but that does invite the question, to go with the one about why the Holy Spirit didn't really bother about granting this gift for around 1800 years, of why all the samples that get analysed apparently aren't.
[ 30. January 2013, 12:11: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[QB]
Here's one that suggests that tongues are language-like to some extent and that they can be unlike the speaker's own language - which rather goes against the prevailing orthodoxy and inclines towards the view that you're taking - apart from the assertion in the abstract that these things may eventually be resolved through further psycholinguistic analysis:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01463378209369424
I found that one as well, but thirty years have come and gone and there's been neither corroboration of that abstract (full text is behind a paywall as bloody usual) nor further study that I can find, so it's a bit of an outlier.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd heard that they have been studies of tongues that take a more 'positive' view of the apparent language-like properties of some of the utterances that have been recorded - and I think that first link I posted must have been the one I had in mind.
On the whole - I'm saying this in the interests of balance and so that EE doesn't keep thinking that I'm getting at him - my impression is that successive studies have been getting progressively more 'positive' than the phenomenon - whilst not, obviously, going as far in its favour as its proponents would like.
At one time psychologists thought that glossolalists were deviant to some extent or other, that is no longer the case in terms of the prevailing orthodoxy on the subject.
Nevertheless, whilst I can't pretend to have read all the literature - but there's plenty out there if EE cares to look - my impression is that the consensus is that these things are approximations at best.
The reason I introduced the sociological dimension wasn't because I felt that these HAD to be there - as in your example of a made up phonological system - but that we should generally expect them to be there because we operate in a social context.
Generally speaking, whether we believe tongues to be 'real' languages or not, they do seem to serve some kind of social or culturally reinforcing purpose ... for the individual speaker they may act as some kind of 'comfort' or reinforcement - convincing them that they are somehow in communion with the divine - and for the gathered community they are seen as 'evidence' that the Holy Spirit is at work among them.
So I'm not sure we can take these things out of the sociological context in which they occur.
I would posit that their 'meaning' is subjective rather than objective and more to do with impressions and feelings than 'information' in any cognitive sense. It's a bit like one of these prayer labyrinths - I did one the other week. This particular one had no symbols or textual elements. Any 'meaning' I brought to it, I brought with me as I walked my way prayerfully around it.
I'm quite prepared to accept that 'tongues' fulfil a similar kind of 'freewheeling' or meditative function - and I'm not 'anti' tongues at all ... despite what EE asserts. What I AM against is more being claimed for them than the current evidence - and the biblical evidence - might suggest.
So these things act as mutually agreed 'cues' and 'signs' that have particular value within a particular socio-cultural context.
They may have no intrinsic value or meaning in-and-of-themselves beyond that.
A pound coin only has legal tender value because we all agree that it does.
Perhaps I ought to go back to Kerygmania, with my tail between my legs, on my next point ... but I've never quite understood what tongues-speakers mean by their interpretation of I Corinthians 14:4 - 'The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself ...'
It would seem to me, on re-reading it, that it might suggest that the speaker CAN understand what they are saying and are edified by it and that the others aren't because they don't understand the language he is speaking.
In fact, I'll take that to Kerygmania now ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
No, I'm not irritated because you are fending off my so-called 'attacks', I'm irritated because you keep seeing 'attacks' where none are intended.
Oh, I am sorry. I didn't realise that the following was not an intended attack: "Your argument is a circular one and based purely upon your own experiences. You want these things to be true and so you find evidence that they are."
Presumably you know more about me than I do about myself.
Well done.
Anyway... thanks for the links. I will look those up and try to find any hard data, rather than conclusions based on evidence that is not actually presented in the reports.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - fair call, EE, but I was irritated by what I took to be a hectoring tone - with capitals and bold and so on - and also your apparent refusal to engage with some of the points I've been raising ... but then that's probably been the case on both sides - you've been challenging me about not supplying links and definitions and so on.
So yes, apologies for that.
But stripping away any personality clashes and so on then my point still stands.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Kerygmania thread has been closed because we've all been naughty - fair enough.
We've probably run out of steam on this one and it might be time for a kindly host to put this thread out of its misery.
Meanwhile, there were a number of issues that EE raised in Kerygmania that I would like to respond to. It's up to him whether he responds here and I promise not to fall out with him whether he does or not.
It was simply an observation on the thing about the tongues-speaker cited in 1 Corinthians 14 (wouldn't it sound different if it were translated as 'language-speaker'? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) and why they would need to pray that they could 'interpret.'
I'm wondering aloud whether this might have something to do with the point Josephine raised about the medieval understanding of these verses that suggest that the 'gift of tongues' had to do with a particular facility with languages - the tongues-speaker then, might be praying that he might be assisted to gain the natural ability to translate his own language into that of his hearers.
Just a thought.
It might not fit the data - but then I'm still not entirely convinced that traditional charismatic praxis fits the scriptural data either - but rather works 'backwards' from a particular experience - to find justification in the text. I'm not saying this makes it 'wrong' but just making an observation.
I'm open to the possibility all ways round.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
It's a pity about Kerg thread--anyone have the energy to start (another) tongues thread in Purg?
EE has repeatedly brought up the idea that the non-cognitive tongues *could* possible have content of some sort even if they bore little or no resemblance to existing languages or language structures and systems. He followed this up by mentioning whistling languages. This seems to be argued without awareness that the scientific testing of many examples of 'tongues' not only reveals their lack of content, but also (and this is the crux of my post) brain scans have shown the language faculty isn't even engaged in these tongues. So not only do they not convey content to the outside world (God, has EE has argued one could do, following St Paul's epistle), but that the brain of the speaker does not even recognise them as bearing content.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think EE has indicated that he no longer wants to pursue this argument - he feels he's said what he has had to say.
I think there's more that can be said, but the topic is easily side-tracked as people invest a great deal of emotional/spiritual energy into these things so it's a difficult one to address without practitioners feeling got-at or undermined.
For what it's worth, from the Kerygmania thread I was coming to the conclusion that there's something in the medieval 'take' on this issue - that the 'gift of tongues' refers to a particular ability with languages rather than a personal 'prayer-language' as such - but it could be both/and of course. Either way, the jury's out.
My own view now is that I've heard sufficient testimonies from people who have apparently started to speak in tongues spontaneously - without direct pressure or coaching and encouragement - to keep an open mind and not write the whole thing off as learned behaviour or response to platform-cues and so forth.
That said, virtually all other instances of speaking in tongues that I've come across - including my own - can very easily be accounted for as responses to cues and expectations and an apparent ability that comes with practice and which flourishes in a particular milieux.
Once out of that milieux it begins to lose currency ... unless one takes a 'second-naivety' approach - which would seem to be the stance that Boogie and Edward Green - in their respective ways - have come to. Boogie finds 'tongues' to be a helpful meditative practice even though she no longer believes that there is any supernatural element there.
Edward Green, as a very sacramentalist Christian, sees these things as having value - in the eye of the beholder as it were - but wouldn't necessarily see them as direct, unmediated gifts of the Spirit in the objective sense.
My own view is that the linguistic evidence is pretty conclusive - that we do not appear to be dealing with actual languages here in any way, shape or form - although EE would undoubtedly challenge me to prove that chapter and verse from particular studies and examination of phoneme patterns and so forth. All I can do is point him to the available literature on-line.
That doesn't mean that I would condemn or forbid the practice. But on a personal level, it's not one that I see a great deal of value in pursuing in my own personal devotions - I'd much rather use liturgical material, silence and set prayers as well as normal extemporary prayers that make no special claim to inspiration or authority.
I'm open to the possibility of my own and other people's 'tongues' being genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the balance of probability seems to incline towards a form of psycho-spiritual behaviour that is 'caught' or taught by hanging around with people who share the same world-view.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel
Edward Green, as a very sacramentalist Christian, sees these things as having value - in the eye of the beholder as it were - but wouldn't necessarily see them as direct, unmediated gifts of the Spirit in the objective sense.
I'm not sure what you mean here, Gamaliel. I wouldn't say I believe that tongues, or, indeed, any other spiritual gift, is a direct and unmediated manifestation of the Spirit of God. I regard them all as a synergy of both Divine and human activity. It is precisely for this reason that we can grow in maturity in exercising these gifts. I would have thought that to be pretty much common ground.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, so would I - and I think there would be a lot of common ground.
What I mean is that some people talk as if it is the Holy Spirit who is doing the 'speaking' in such instances - without wishing to dredge up old spats, EE often sounds like this when he's defending the practice. 'It's the Spirit speaking, I tell you!'
Edward Green, if I understand him correctly, would be more inclined to suggest that it is a perfectly natural phenomenon but one which - to the speaker concerned - 'becomes' a spiritual gift because they regard it that way.
Does that make sense?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
What I mean is that some people talk as if it is the Holy Spirit who is doing the 'speaking' in such instances - without wishing to dredge up old spats, EE often sounds like this when he's defending the practice. 'It's the Spirit speaking, I tell you!'
I feel sure you could have made that point without mentioning me (and, yet again, misrepresenting me).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, EE, that's fair enough.
Perhaps I ought to present my point again without any reference to your good self?
What I was trying to say, of course, was that the mileage varies when it comes to the degree of divine/human synergy involved in these things.
I was too idle to go looking for quotes from your back-catalogue which I felt demonstrated rather more of an emphasis on the divine rather than the human aspects. Hence I laid myself open to the charge of misrepresentation - a charge I can accept and will correspondingly withdraw anything that sounds like an accusation.
What I would say, is that certain posters, Truman White for instance, seem so keen to defend the divine source of putative spiritual gifts that they almost - in my view - end up arguing that black-is-white.
'Why can't God still give someone a genuine prayer-language even if it looks like there's peer-pressure and manipulation involved ...'
Well, yes, but surely that's a case of special pleading. A bit like saying, 'Well, perhaps God did use the Spanish Inquisition to bring people to repentance even though there was torture and coercion involved ...'
Ok - I know they're not the same thing in order of magnitude, but you take my point.
It's like the linguistic argument. Whenever anyone comes up with evidence from brainscans or from phoneme patterns and so on that suggest that 'tongues' probably aren't languages in any discernible sense, the charge is brought back (and I'm using general arguments here, not EE's in particular):
- There are actual languages in use that don't correspond to the expected patterns. So why shouldn't 'tongues' be any different?
- The investigators are secularists and agnostics/atheists so aren't to be trusted. Does that apply to archaeologist and geologists too when it comes to evolution/creation etc etc?
- These things are spiritual and supernatural and so do not lend themselves to investigation by scientific means nor by the 'natural man' who is unable to 'spiritually discern' the things of the Spirit.
Consequently, any attempt to assess the evidence using our God-given faculties and common-sense hits the buffers of obscurantism.
It's a bit like those extreme transubstantiationists who insist that the bread and the wine are miraculously changed and that God performs a secondary miracle to make the outward aspects 'appear' to be still bread and wine.
There is a way of understanding the Real Presence in the Eucharist that doesn't get tied up in those kind of knots and I submit that there is a similar way to understand the exercise of spiritual gifts that takes full account of human/divine co-operation.
I have no doubt that Jolly Jape, Truman White and EE and other proponents of charismatic gifts as commonly understood in contemporary charismatic evangelical circles are fully cognisant of that.
Consequently, for my own part, I am quite prepared to accept that there is such a thing as 'tongues' and that people do, from time to time, exercise that gift.
Whether it permits the level of emphasis and praxis place upon it by many charismatics is the moot point as far as I'm concerned. I'm not convinced that the scriptures used to justify and prescribe the practice and the way it 'ought' to work in church gatherings and services are as clear-cut and unambiguous as exponents suggest.
I believe that there is something 'there' but just as firmly believe that a greater proportion of what we see done in the name of spiritual gifts today just doesn't pass muster.
But you've heard my views on that time and time again.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
