|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Speaking in tongues
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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 ...)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
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. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 02. June 2012, 10:46: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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 ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
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?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
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 ...'
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@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 ]
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@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?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@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....
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waterchaser
Shipmate
# 11005
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 310 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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 ... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
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?)
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
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!!
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waterchaser
Shipmate
# 11005
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 310 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waterchaser
Shipmate
# 11005
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 310 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Waterchaser
Shipmate
# 11005
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 310 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
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
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
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
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
cliffdweller: agh. My mistake. "Physiological" works just as well as "neurological".
Must have coffee.
Is this need psychological or physiological?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 05. June 2012, 07:45: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Question for the class: "Now, it this good Biblical exegesis or barmy old cack?"
--------------------
"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
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
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.
--------------------
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
