|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Speaking in tongues
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
What is your interpretation of 'speaking in tongues'? I have always thought that at the coming of the Holy Spirit the crowd heard what was said in their own languages, not in some different special language such as most people use the term nowadays. The modern speaking in tongues is to me incomprehensible babble which always sounds indulgent and artificial. Some may then claim I haven't been touched by the Spirit and therefore am not open to speaking in and understanding tongues, but I ask where is the proof? Surely it is preferable to share the Gospel in language with which the listener is familiar. It was wonderful that the crowd heard Christ's message in their own translation and I feel that it is beholden on us to share the message in language that the listener understands.
[ 20. September 2012, 13:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I'm an ex-charismatic.
I still do it, in private. It's a great way to pray when you have no words.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
What is your interpretation of 'speaking in tongues'? I have always thought that at the coming of the Holy Spirit the crowd heard what was said in their own languages, not in some different special language such as most people use the term nowadays. The modern speaking in tongues is to me incomprehensible babble which always sounds indulgent and artificial. Some may then claim I haven't been touched by the Spirit and therefore am not open to speaking in and understanding tongues, but I ask where is the proof? Surely it is preferable to share the Gospel in language with which the listener is familiar. It was wonderful that the crowd heard Christ's message in their own translation and I feel that it is beholden on us to share the message in language that the listener understands.
Quite. Modern tongues is anti-intellectual, semi-hysterical, self-indulgent showing-off - and I write as one who did it for 15 years or so, at a charismatic church, before I came to my senses and realised what a dangerous, self-indulgent perversion of Christianity charismaticism is.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
A straightforward reading of the text in Acts 2 indicates that as bib says, the miracle on the day of Pentecost was more of a gift of interpretations than of tongues. Everyone heard the praises of God in their own language.
An alternative explanation is that this was an example of xenoglossy, ie the ability to speak in a language unknown to the speaker.
Either of these is different again to the phenomena of glossolalia, ie making sounds that are unintelligible. It seems fairly clear, though, that this is what the Corinthians and perhaps the Ephesian disciples in Acts were up to.
I have witnessed something that looked like xenoglossy on two occasions, one involving two people I know and for which I have no adequate natural explanation, and one involving preacher David Carr, previously discussed here, who spoke what sounded very much like Old French or Québecois (which I understand). I'm not convinced now that this wasn't faked (ie he had learned bits of the language).
Glossolialia is present in other religions besides christianity and the question of whether NT christians would recognise what 21st century charismatics do is moot. If 1 Corinthians is anything to go by, though, I suspect that Paul would remind them that intelligible speech is to be preferred over unintelligible speech.
All of that said, I can't see any reason why glossolalia cannot at least be used in some supernatural way in private intercession or praise in much the way Paul decribes, also in 1 Corinthians and possibly Romans.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
It looks very much as if tongues in Acts 2 are speaking in a way that could be understood by the crowd as speaking in their own languages.
But it looks as if tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is something different.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I think that Paul had a rather sensible attitude towards it. IIRC, he said he was all for glossolalia for private devotions (he used it himself on his own time), but it was only good for public worship if the congregation had an interpreter so they could be involved.
Do most communities who encourage the speaking of tongues on a regular basis at worship have someone who interprets?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Do most communities who encourage the speaking of tongues on a regular basis at worship have someone who interprets?
In my experience yes, but bizzarely, the "interpretation" often (although not always) comes out as a "prophecy".
In other words, it sounds more like something God is supposed to be saying to the congregation than something somebody in the congregation is saying to God (hence the frequent and non-biblical use of the term "message in tongues").
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Do most communities who encourage the speaking of tongues on a regular basis at worship have someone who interprets?
In my experience yes, but bizzarely, the "interpretation" often (although not always) comes out as a "prophecy".
Yes, this is my experience too! I don't remember a message in tongues with accompanying interpretation in my current church but at a previous church it happened quite often; and the interpretation was almost always a message from God. But the Biblical description of speaking in tongues is indeed (ISTM) that it is addressed to God, not a message from God. I wonder where this seemingly clear misunderstanding came from...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I remember seeing an interview Melvyn Bragg conducted with the author Jeanette Winterson, author of 'Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit' - a largely autobiographical novel about her Pentecostal childhood in Lancashire which was turned into an impressive BBC drama back in the late 1980s.
In the course of the interview she said that as a teenager she was recognised in her Pentecostal assembly as someone who had the gift of interpretation and that she would regularly 'interpret' glossalalic utterances.
When asked whether she could really do this, she said, 'No, I was making it up ...'
That's the whole problem with the standard charismatic interpretation of the activity described in 1 Corinthians. Unless there is some objective test - 'That guy was speaking Portuguese ...' then who knows whether the 'tongue' is an actual language or simply gobbledegook?
It's more likely to be the latter, of course and even in the single instance where an example of xenoglossy is known to science - in an occult setting as it happens - the evidence is disputed.
The whole 'tongues of angels' thing which is the fall-back position adopted by glossolalists to account for the incomprehensibility of their utterances strikes me as a rather far-fetched gloss on some Pauline rhetoric: 'Though I speak with the tongues of angels ...'
Even IF I could speak in angelic languages, the Apostle says, but had not love ...
Even IF I gave my body to be burned ...
He's exaggerating to make a point, not saying that he can actually speak angelic languages, were such a thing possible.
I'm with Eutychus on this one. I have heard of instances where known languages were apparently used in glossalalic prayer - indeed, my own brother-in-law is supposed to have been overheard reciting parts of Psalm 23 in Afrikaans by a South African member of the congregation at a house-group meeting one evening.
I know one or two other people who would make similar claims.
I remain open to the possibility but highly sceptical as to whether what passes for 'tongues' among 21st century charismatics is exactly what the Apostle Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians.
Those are difficult passages to understand and rather like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We have to fill in the gaps and make exegetical leaps of faith. That's fine, because the same holds true for other parts of the NT. It isn't an issue as long as we realise that what we are doing is trying to make the best from tantalising but fairly limited NT evidence.
Personally, I don't think there's sufficient information there to build an entire edifice of regular practice on - certainly not enough to suggest that it's a blue-print for how we conduct church services.
But there is sufficient evidence to suggest that these things can happen.
As for Boogie's comment about wordless praise or prayer - well yes, in that sense I suspect 'tongues' are rather like 'scat' singing in jazz. You can improvise and freewheel and there's a sense of 'release' involved - but whether it actually amounts to anything beyond the harmless release of endorphins is a moot point.
Some tongues-speaking and tongues-singing (does that still happen these days?) can be mellifluous and hauntingly beautiful and does evoke a sense of the numinous. Not all 'tongues' I've heard have been along the 'angabangarabangara' lines - 'shecameonahonda', 'aveabacardi', 'untiemebowtie' and the usual suspects ...
But I don't reckon it's any big deal.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Boogie posted:
quote:
I'm an ex-charismatic.
I still do it, in private. It's a great way to pray when you have no words.
I'm totally with Boogie on this one. Having found prayer difficult for some long time, I'm finding that praying in tongues (as I used to many moons ago) is giving me a great deal of help.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Without wishing to rain on anyone's parade or deny the reality of anyone's experience, I'm interested to know how 'tongues' can 'help' in prayer.
I can still 'speak in tongues' but no longer find it particularly helpful. I'd rather use 'set' or liturgical prayers interspersed with my own extemporary prayers (which have inevitably taken on a more 'liturgical' flavour themselves to some extent).
Ok, so my mind wonders at times, but the same thing used to happen when I 'prayed' or spoke more regularly in 'tongues'.
You can freewheel in tongues, but whether you are actually conveying any meaning through them is a moot point. You can inject some expression and emotion into them, though, and I s'pose this could count as 'praying with my spirit' rather than 'with my mind' (ie. intelligibly).
There's also the 'groans that words can't express' thing that the Apostle Paul refers to and for which I've not heard any very convincing exegesis.
Perhaps I'm answering my own question here, if intelligible prayer or set forms are proving dry or difficult then it might help to switch over to a form of wordless babble - but is it any more than that? Wouldn't reciting the two times table or singing 'One man went to mow, went to mow a meadow ...' or a nonsense rhyme ('Far and few, far and few is the land where the Jumblies live ...') have a similar effect?
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
As it's one of those phenomena that has been experienced to a greater of lesser degree throughout the history of the church I would suggest that at its core it is entirely genuine.
Of course we have seen its abuse - as with anything there are those who take it too far or who 'make it up' but that doesn't negate or nullify the genuine experience of those who have 'enjoyed' its use.
I would if anyone could point to its use by the catholic mystics or early church fathers...
As far as the difference between a prayer language and public utterance/messages/prophecy is concerned, I would simply say that Paul speaks about the person who speaks in an unknown tongue edifying himself whereas the one who prophecies edifies the church. He then says that there should be an interpreter of the unknown tongue so that the church may indeed by edified - which rather suggests that Paul is saying that an interpreted tongue is a message, a prophecy for the edification of the church.
I think it is right that no one despises any of the gifts - let the person who has practical gifts not despise the more 'ecstatic' gifts. Likewise, I would like those who enjoy the gifts of tongues, interpretation, discernment, healing and deliverance, to regard gifts of service, helps, administration(!) as just as 'spiritual' and God-inspired and 'evidence' of the Spirit's infilling as those more spectacular ones.
Instead of us firing shots at each other decrying this gift or that, maybe the church would succeed better in its unity if we stopped trying to tell others their gifts are not real, can be explained away 'because I knew someone who didn't do it right', and celebrated the fact that in the church there are different gifts, different ministries, different abilities, but the same Lord - one faith, one baptism.
Just because you don't speak in tongues, or just because they don't know how to be celibate, or she doesn't know how to be a good administrator or he doesn't know how to preach, doesn't mean that we are not part of the Body.
Let the tongues speakers do it in private and in church with an interpreter.
Let the preachers preach.
Let the administrators keep the doors open,
Let the servers serve others, let the givers be generous.
In fact, let us all be generous about the gifts of others and value what people bring to the table.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
Part of the issue, I think, is the shift in English from the time of the KJV. Then the word 'tongue' was equally the flappy thing in your mouth and 'language' (as the word 'langue' still does in French). However, the second meaning has largely been lost in English, so that "speaking in tongues" is not understood to be the same as "speaking in languages". So tongues has largely become something other than speaking in a language unknown to the speaker (and 'interpretation' has become something different from translation).
This is not to dismiss the private use of 'tongues'. I myself find it good at times. But I am always a bit unsure if it really corresponds to what the NT refers to. When hearing others, perhaps naughtily, I try to gauge if what is being said could be sentences in a real language. It rarely is.
On the 'tongues of angels', a friend related that the late Rev. Dr Henry Hart, of Queens' College Cambridge - a Hebrew scholar - when reading 1 Cor 13 in college chapel, interpolated "and the tongues of angels is, of course, Hebrew". So, that's settled.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Without wishing to rain on anyone's parade or deny the reality of anyone's experience, I'm interested to know how 'tongues' can 'help' in prayer.
You might as well ask "how does prayer help?". It defies rational explanation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
It looks very much as if tongues in Acts 2 are speaking in a way that could be understood by the crowd as speaking in their own languages.
But it looks as if tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is something different.
Yes, when I was in a church where 'speaking in tongues' sometimes occurred, it was interpreted as meaning two different things in those different passages.
I have heard at least one report of a person speaking in a language unknown to them but known to the hearer, but don't recall witnessing such a thing. I was much more likely to witness the 'speaking in a totally unknown language' phenomenon.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think 'suggests' is the strongest term that can be used in relation to any of this, Mudfrog. The fact is, with this sort of thing we can't ever possibly know for sure - 'we know in part and we prophecy in part'.
I'm not sure I see people decrying genuine spiritual gifts nor firing shots at each other on this thread. Steve H might be, he's a 'recovering charismatic' with an axe to grind.
If it sounds as if I'm doing that, then it certainly isn't my intention.
I may differ in the way I think this stuff 'works' - but it's only on the level of my own personal opinion. I tend to think that if there were to be an interpretation of a tongue it would be more along the lines of a prayer than a 'message' to the church in the way that a prophecy might be ... but hey, I wouldn't go to the stake over it.
If people find glossolalia helpful in their own devotions, then that's fine. I certainly wouldn't be out to stop them. I am interested in how and why they find it useful and helpful though, as it is a practice I have largely abandoned myself.
That doesn't mean that others should also abandon it or allow it to slide into the background, but it does strike me as grounds for discussion.
And as for the importance of practical gifts alongside the more 'supernatural' endowments, then yes, absolutely ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for Boogie's comment about wordless praise or prayer - well yes, in that sense I suspect 'tongues' are rather like 'scat' singing in jazz. You can improvise and freewheel and there's a sense of 'release' involved - but whether it actually amounts to anything beyond the harmless release of endorphins is a moot point.
To be fair, it often doesn't even cheer me up - what it does do is give me focus, like any chant would do. I have a 100% distractable mind, so need some way of 'switching off' the noise. I have tried many things - and this is what works for me.
As far as singing goes I agree - it can be hellish. But when it's not so it is just beautiful. I can't sing a note in normal words - but when singing in tongues with a group I harmonise like a pro!
I still go to some CCR (Catholic Charismatic Renewal) services just to experience it.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Eutychus - I don't often disagree with you, but I think you've got the wrong end of my stick on this one.
'You might as well ask "how does prayer help?". It defies rational explanation.'
Of course, I'm not suggesting that we can 'explain' prayer anymore than we can 'explain' music or art or the effect of a beautiful sunset or something transcendent in a spiritual or religious context.
All I was angling at is how 'tongues' might help when other forms of prayer apparently don't. Nicodemia says that she is finding prayer difficult (we all do to a greater or lesser extent, I'm sure) and that tongues helps her through this.
I'm interested in unpacking how and why ... that won't take the 'mystery' away from it or reduce it to a set of intellectual propositions - but these things are worked out on a human stage and are therefore, I submit, legitimate for us to lay open to human scrutiny ...
Am I making sense?
Or am I speaking in Gamalian tongues?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I have heard at least one report of a person speaking in a language unknown to them but known to the hearer, but don't recall witnessing such a thing.
Stanley Frodsham's classic With Signs Following, of which I have a copy somewhere, has an entire book of such stories.
Unfortunately, they are presented as just that: stories.
Recent experience with Bethel has helped confirm my strong conviction that a lot of what passes for the miraculous in contemporary christian circles is simply down to poor reporting standards.
Christians are not the only ones to suffer from this but they do seem to be especially prone as a group in which trust is automatic, enthusiasim frequent, and the prospect of divine judgement for stepping out of line often abused by those in authority.
People want testimonies that reinforce their beliefs. Add to that the idea that healthy doubt is somehow equivalent to the mortal sin of unbelief (or at the very least "letting the side down") and you have a climate in which, for every genuine story there might be, there are hundreds of badly distorted ones and perhaps not a few deliberately made up to mislead.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've cross posted with Boogie, but she's attempted to answer my question and in a way that I can follow and relate to.
I might be churlish and suggest that the ability to harmonise in a 'tongues' context rather than other contexts doesn't necessarily 'prove' anything. My wife is musical and can explain exactly what happens 'technically' when people start to extemporise around a set of notes or musical phrases when 'singing in tongues.'
It has a melding effect that is very evocative and beautiful but also very easy to achieve. She believes that you could achieve the same effect very quickly and just as convincingly in a context where there isn't any faith involved whatsoever.
That said - I would agree with Boogie that I have known occasions where 'singing in tongues' has lifted a congregation to a level of numinousity - if that's the right word! that I have rarely - if ever - encountered in any other context.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Wouldn't reciting the two times table or singing 'One man went to mow, went to mow a meadow ...' or a nonsense rhyme ('Far and few, far and few is the land where the Jumblies live ...') have a similar effect?
No, it doesn't.
I just tried.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My wife is musical and can explain exactly what happens 'technically' when people start to extemporise around a set of notes or musical phrases when 'singing in tongues.'
It has a melding effect that is very evocative and beautiful but also very easy to achieve. She believes that you could achieve the same effect very quickly and just as convincingly in a context where there isn't any faith involved whatsoever.
Yes, I agree with her 100%. My husband is musical and says the same. In the days when I was a full on charismatic he was very patient in waiting for me to get over it - I did!
quote:
That said - I would agree with Boogie that I have known occasions where 'singing in tongues' has lifted a congregation to a level of numinousity - if that's the right word! that I have rarely - if ever - encountered in any other context.
I would suggest that this is due to the focus and purpose of the singing - worship. So we are not, primarily, thinking of ourselves - but reaching out to worship.
So we sense 'God' through that.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would suggest that this is due to the focus and purpose of the singing - worship. So we are not, primarily, thinking of ourselves - but reaching out to worship.
So we sense 'God' through that.
I think I agree with that.
My take on just about any physical thing that we do as christians, from prayer through to communion via falling on the floor or speaking in tongues, is that these practices themselves have no inherent moral or spiritual value in and of themselves. They are morally neutral. What counts is what one does with or during them and with what intent.
I guess that's what I think Jesus means by worshipping God "in Spirit and in truth".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Boogie: No, it doesn't.
I just tried.
What if you'd repeat the same nonsense rhyme a hundred times?
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
FWIW, I remember being advised, when revising for my GCSEs, to listen to ethnic radio stations. Allegedly, the music would help me concentrate, but because I wouldn't understand the words, I wouldn't be distracted by thinking about them.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H
Modern tongues is anti-intellectual, semi-hysterical, self-indulgent showing-off...
I am not quite sure exactly what you mean by "modern tongues", but I can't see how the use of tongues in private prayer and worship can be "showing off", unless one is showing off to God!
As for being "anti-intellectual", yes, it's true that speaking in a language that is not understood bypasses the faculty of comprehension, but then I suppose we could say the same about the "language" of sexual experience, or the "language" of the taste of strawberries and cream. Are these also "anti-intellectual"? And the same examples can be used to rebuff the charge of "self-indulgent". Is the experience of the Holy Spirit "self-indulgent", in that He comes with joy and peace and a deep sense of fulfilment and spiritual reality? These are all wonderful experiences. Are they also "self-indulgent"?
From my experience there is absolutely nothing hysterical or "semi-hysterical" about speaking in tongues. There is certainly the counterfeit (as there is for everything in the Christian life), which may involve trances and hysteria, but genuine tongues do not involve this at all. So don't reject the genuine because you have experienced and / or observed the fake.
Coming back to the charge of "anti-intellectualism": given that our minds are finite, it follows logically that there are many aspects of life that defy analysis. God understands very many things that we do not, and indeed cannot. Anyone who denies this denies simple logic. How can finite minds possibly encompass the mind of God? They obviously cannot. So therefore it would seem very strange indeed that it is God's will that the entire spiritual life should be reduced to the merely intellectual. That speaks of a deeply impoverished life. There are times when the words of the vernacular fail, and we may need to express ourselves to God (usually privately) as the Holy Spirit leads in a way that goes beyond the intellect (but does not subvert the intellect). I am not suggesting that this is the only way to engage with mystery, and there are other ways of doing this, but I have found that it helps. But there is no hysteria, no trance, no weirdness about it at all.
Having said all this, I can thoroughly understand your concerns about the charismatic movement (if that phrase is not too "old hat" now). I have the same strong reservations, and there is indeed a huge amount of abuse, general crassness and conceited self-obsession within that form of churchmanship
--------------------
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
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Does it really matter if the gift of tongues experienced by the Pentematics is the same gift as was given to the disciples on the day of Pentecost.
Yes. It does matter to some, because they see the early church as a template to be copied. So they make explanations of what they do which explain how it fits in with the utopia of the early church. Everything was fine until Constantine.
But the early church was not a utopia. Many of the Epistles were written to combat heresies that were springing up. A literal reading of the Epistles and Acts shows a church which was every bit a screwed up as the modern one.
Are tongues, as practised in the modern church the same gift that was given to the Apostles at Pentecost? We have no way of telling.
But what if we do not take the early church as a template. If we don't limit the Holy Spirit to doing only those things mentioned in the Bible. If we believe that the Holy Spirit is God, and that God can do whatever he wills. If we believe that God is capable of doing a new thing, then what?
Then the question about tongues changes from, "Is this the same gift the Apostles experienced," to, " Is this God's gift to the Church now." If it is God's gift to the Church now, and I believe it is, then the matter of whether it is the same gift becomes less significant. I don't have any reason to believe that the list of gifts in the Bible is exhaustive, we are only told in the epistles of those which were being used badly. There could have been others.
Yes we have to be careful. The Spirit is God and has the nature of God. If he were to lead someone to do or say anything that was against God's nature as revealed in scripture we would do well to be at least highly sceptical. And if the Spirit should give a gift that is not mentioned in the Bible then the rules in the Bible on the use of gifts still apply.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree with both Eutychus and Boogie upthread ...
@EytemologicalEvangelical - how do you KNOW that the tongues you've experienced are the genuine article and not 'fake'? Because you haven't gone into a trance-like state and it feels normal and not wierd?
Well, it seems that from experiments into these things that even people with no faith whatsoever can 'speak in tongues' with a modicum of training. Heck, I could probably induce someone who was fairly susceptible to 'speak in tongues' in just five or ten minutes with a wee bit of counselling and suggestions as to how to make 'it' happen ... no trances, no goose-bumps, not altered states of consciousness ...
How do you KNOW that what you've experienced isn't the same as what I've just described?
As for the sense of peace, joy and so on - well, there are lots of ways that we can experience those things and they are by no means the sole province of ecstatics or charismatics (I'd suggest that most charismatics are not 'ecstatic' in the altered state sense).
In that respect, I don't see any difference between charismatic and non-charismatic Christians. You can find the same depth of spiritual contentment, joy and so on - and the reverse - in any of the Christian traditions. We can all think of people who exemplify the sense of having a particularly deep 'walk with God' - 'it is well with my soul' and so on - be they Anglicans, Baptists, Brethren Catholics, Pentecostals, Salvationists or whatever else ...
That's not to decry the use of spiritual gifts - far from it - but I often wonder what some of the more extravagant claims add to the party.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Boogie: No, it doesn't.
I just tried.
What if you'd repeat the same nonsense rhyme a hundred times?
That's my problem with things like Taize and other meditations - I can't, the repetition means my thoughts can begin to wander. Tongues helps because (in my case) it's not repetitive. So I can pray/meditate without getting distracted by my own thoughts. It gives me focus.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
how do you KNOW that the tongues you've experienced are the genuine article and not 'fake'? Because you haven't gone into a trance-like state and it feels normal and not wierd?
One could ask the same question about one's own relationship with God. How does any Christian "know" that he is in contact with God and not the devil or just some hallucination? Is God or the Holy Spirit only "safe" when He is a construct that can be fully explained in some entirely intellectual way? Is there no such thing as spiritual experience that we can actually come to recognise as genuine and therefore trust?
The experience of speaking in tongues cannot be isolated from one's whole experience of God through the Holy Spirit. And therefore it is through my own relationship with and experience of God that I judge the validity of particular spiritual gifts. I know that this may sound subjective (in one sense it is), but I have no need to convince anyone else that my experience of speaking in tongues is valid. It's an issue for me and me alone. I have resolved it within myself to my own satisfaction.
quote:
Well, it seems that from experiments into these things that even people with no faith whatsoever can 'speak in tongues' with a modicum of training. Heck, I could probably induce someone who was fairly susceptible to 'speak in tongues' in just five or ten minutes with a wee bit of counselling and suggestions as to how to make 'it' happen ... no trances, no goose-bumps, not altered states of consciousness ...
Of course that's true. But this goes back to the point I made above: you cannot isolate any spiritual gift from the general spiritual experience of the Holy Spirit, and therefore naturalistically fabricating the effects of the work of the Holy Spirit is irrelevant.
quote:
As for the sense of peace, joy and so on - well, there are lots of ways that we can experience those things and they are by no means the sole province of ecstatics or charismatics (I'd suggest that most charismatics are not 'ecstatic' in the altered state sense).
I quite agree. I can't see how that point contradicts anything I wrote earlier.
quote:
In that respect, I don't see any difference between charismatic and non-charismatic Christians. You can find the same depth of spiritual contentment, joy and so on - and the reverse - in any of the Christian traditions. We can all think of people who exemplify the sense of having a particularly deep 'walk with God' - 'it is well with my soul' and so on - be they Anglicans, Baptists, Brethren Catholics, Pentecostals, Salvationists or whatever else ...
Again I agree. I have never said otherwise. In fact, I am quite critical of much that goes by the name of "charismatic", and I don't think I would like to identify myself with charismatics, to be honest. But something does not become invalid just because there are many people who can happily and joyfully live without it. I am sure there are many very fulfilled celibates. Does that mean that.... (I think you can guess how to complete this sentence) ...?
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
But what if we do not take the early church as a template. If we don't limit the Holy Spirit to doing only those things mentioned in the Bible. If we believe that the Holy Spirit is God, and that God can do whatever he wills. If we believe that God is capable of doing a new thing, then what?
That might be ok, except that I think it can be a disingenuous line of reasoning.
In my experience many of those arguing for newfangled phenomena such as gold teeth and angel feathers also attempt to attach legitimacy to these things by appeal to the Bible as an authority.
If people don't in practice actually view the Bible as having much authority "in matters of faith and conduct" (and when all's said and done, I think many contemporary charismatics don't) then it would be more honest to stop pretending they do.
To put that another way, if it is argued that "tongues" experienced today do not need to be compared to the NT record in any way, then there's no scriptural basis for claiming they are inspired by the Spirit at all.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Boogie: That's my problem with things like Taize and other meditations - I can't, the repetition means my thoughts can begin to wander.
I thought that this was the point?
To me, these things are basically about achieving some of the preliminary stages of a trance state.
When you repeat the same text or chant over and over again, your mind drifts away from the actual text of the chant. But in my case, it doesn't go to "Do I have to buy potatoes this afternoon?" either. It goes into some kind of meditative state.
I haven't done it, but it seems to me that speaking in tongues is a lot like playing an improvised jazz solo. In the first seconds, you have to think consciously about choosing the syllables or the notes, but after a while it becomes a self sustaining process, and your mind starts to wander in the same meditative way.
So to me, repetition and speaking in tongues are quite similar in their effects. But I guess it depends on the person.
--------------------
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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I'm dubious of the claim that 'tongues' has been a regular part of the Church for 2000 years. I really doubt it. I know a bit about the 16th through 18th-century church in much of Europe and can't think of a single example—let alone a congregation going 'shama-shama-kawai', as you hear these days.
I don't get it. Is 'speaking in tongues' a Spiritual gift as Paul writes? In other words, from the Holy Spirit? In which case the whole idea of practicing it or 'trying it out', as Nicky and Sandy regularly encouraged at HTB, seems preposterous. I guarantee that Derren Brown could officiate a service at one of these kinds of churches (HTB, Vineyard, etc.) and get them to bark like dogs and go 'lippy, scooby, shabba, shabba, ker-ding' and convince them they were 'speaking in tongues'. They've left little or no room for discernent.
As with so many of these things emerging from Charismania, they create a new paradigm to deflect scepticism.
K.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
It looks very much as if tongues in Acts 2 are speaking in a way that could be understood by the crowd as speaking in their own languages.
But it looks as if tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is something different.
Acts 2 says that all of the 120 disciples spoke in tongues. Luke tells us that at least some of those 120 utterances were xenolalia but that does not discount the possible presence of glossolalia amongst the 120 also. In this respect it is possible to see perfect continuity between Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 13:1 where the Apostle Paul identifies two broad categories of tongues: those of men (xenolalia) anne those of angels (glossolalia).
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Without wishing to rain on anyone's parade or deny the reality of anyone's experience, I'm interested to know how 'tongues' can 'help' in prayer.
....There's also the 'groans that words can't express' thing that the Apostle Paul refers to and for which I've not heard any very convincing exegesis.
IMO you might have answered your own question there with that Rom 8 ref. One certainly can exegete it that way...
[Although my hermeneutic might equally be along the lines of "Shiiiiit, Lord!!! Faaaarrk!" (Which I hope will be viewed as sincere rather than blasphemous! )]
[ 30. May 2012, 11:57: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
When you repeat the same text or chant over and over again, your mind drifts away from the actual text of the chant. But in my case, it doesn't go to "Do I have to buy potatoes this afternoon?" either. It goes into some kind of meditative state.
Painting does that for me - but it's meditation/relaxation - so it doesn't matter what my mind does!
If I want to keep focussed on God in prayer then tongues works for me.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
@Gamaliel The Apostle Paul said this: quote:
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.
If an Apostle as great as Paul was grateful to God for this charism then I would suggest that gratitude is the appropriate response.
It seems to me that expressing gratitude to God tongues are closely linked in Paul's thinking. quote:
Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.
Tongues therefore is something to be grateful for because it enables one to privately give supernatural thanks to God. There is a circularity there, I think.
[ 30. May 2012, 12:06: Message edited by: Daron ]
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
It looks very much as if tongues in Acts 2 are speaking in a way that could be understood by the crowd as speaking in their own languages.
But it looks as if tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is something different.
Acts 2 says that all of the 120 disciples spoke in tongues. Luke tells us that at least some of those 120 utterances were xenolalia but that does not discount the possible presence of glossolalia amongst the 120 also. In this respect it is possible to see perfect continuity between Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 13:1 where the Apostle Paul identifies two broad categories of tongues: those of men (xenolalia) anne those of angels (glossolalia).
You seem to be overlooking one very important word in 1 Corinthians 13:1: If I speak in the tongues…
K.
--------------------
"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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Boogie: Painting does that for me - but it's meditation/relaxation - so it doesn't matter what my mind does!
If I want to keep focussed on God in prayer then tongues works for me.
I guess it depends on your theology. To me, whenever we humans transcend ourselves, in love, in art, in caring, in music... then God is there, and we manage to get a little bit closer to Him.
Of course, this doesn't mean that I can do my religion by watching art or playing music alone. I need the intellectual, communal etc. sides as well. But personally, art and music form one of the ways in which I can try to experience God.
--------------------
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
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
What type of conditional 'if' do you think is in view in 1 Cor 13:1?
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
To me, these things are basically about achieving some of the preliminary stages of a trance state.
...
So to me, repetition and speaking in tongues are quite similar in their effects. But I guess it depends on the person.
But speaking in tongues does not necessarily cause a trance like state. That is certainly not my experience (in fact, the very opposite - the mind is not subverted in any way at all). The focus in worship and prayer is God, and there comes a point where the words of the vernacular fail. This is understandable, unless we really want our worship of God to be entirely limited to the verbal constructs that we can devise. I think sometimes it's good to be reminded that God is much bigger than "Christianity" with all its formulations, caveats and provisos. I find tongues helps me in this regard.
--------------------
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
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't get it. Is 'speaking in tongues' a Spiritual gift as Paul writes? In other words, from the Holy Spirit? In which case the whole idea of practicing it or 'trying it out', as Nicky and Sandy regularly encouraged at HTB, seems preposterous.
They are operating according to the idea that the Father gives good gifts to those who ask, and that if the Father chooses to grant such requests then an utterance in tongues becomes a distinct possibility.
It's the same with my children. If my child asked for a painting set for his birthday, I would likely give it to him. Upon receipt of that gift he would have the choice to try it out or not. The same principle applies with charismata.
He would be a peculiar kid if upon receipt of the gift that he'd asked for he simply shoved it to the back of the cupboard and carried on as before.
[ 30. May 2012, 12:19: Message edited by: Daron ]
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Ditto with preaching. Clearly a spiritual gift. Clearly meant to be tested, practised and so on.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
What type of conditional 'if' do you think is in view in 1 Cor 13:1?
I suspect, to judge from the rest of the sentence, that it is the first conditional. But in the larger context, the possibility of it being realised isn't clear. Shortly after this Paul admonishes them for speaking in tongues (of what sort, I don't know) in 1 Corinthians 14:15-16. So I suspect that Paul is telling them that love should be a bigger concern and that their 'speaking in tongues' isn't helping anyone.
K.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't get it. Is 'speaking in tongues' a Spiritual gift as Paul writes? In other words, from the Holy Spirit? In which case the whole idea of practicing it or 'trying it out', as Nicky and Sandy regularly encouraged at HTB, seems preposterous.
They are operating according to the idea that the Father gives good gifts to those who ask, and that if the Father chooses to grant such requests then an utterance in tongues becomes a distinct possibility.
It's the same with my children. If my child asked for a painting set for his birthday, I would likely give it to him. Upon receipt of that gift he would have the choice to try it out or not. The same principle applies with charismata.
He would be a peculiar kid if upon receipt of the gift that he'd asked for he simply shoved it to the back of the cupboard and carried on as before.
Right. So learning to paint and speaking in tongues are learned in the same way? Receiving a gift from God (whether you asked for it or not) has little or nothing to do with you ('you'/'me' the obsession of the charismatics). If it is supernatural, then you don't need to learn it—that's the point. What is (mostly) happening is that people make up (though conditioning) their own gobbledygook and then declare it a 'gift of God'. In that sense, you are dead right about comparing it with learning to paint.
K.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Cedd
Shipmate
# 8436
|
Posted
I once helped on an Alpha Course "Holy Spirit weekend" and I witnessed a terrible abuse of 'speaking in tongues'.
One of the leaders was of the view that you were simply not a Christian in any meaningful sense unless you could produce meaningless babble (without interpretation) on demand and she got people to do this by holding their shoulders and making them copy her babble. It was bad theology and spiritual abuse and I fell out with the leaders of that course shortly thereafter.
--------------------
Cedd
Churchmanship: This week I am mostly an evangelical, catholic, orthodox with both liberal and illiberal tendancies. Terms and conditions apply.
Posts: 377 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Daron, I've always thought of you as a fairly competent exegete on these boards, but you've displayed a fair few hermeneutical leaps in your posts above.
There is a conditional in the Pauline declaration - 'IF I speak in the tongues of angels ...'
It's a rhetorical flourish. He's saying 'Look folks, even IF I could speak in the tongues of angels and have not love ...'
Same as the thing about giving up his body to be burned.
Sure, the Apostle also says that he DOES speak in tongues - but does that mean it's the 'tongues of angels'? I'm not sure it does.
Where in the Bible does it say that glossolalia = 'the tongues of angels'?
We have an instance of xenoglossy in Acts 2 but we don't know whether the other occurrences in Acts were xenoglossy or glossolalia.
In fact, we know very little about the Biblical phenomena at all. Which is why I'm suggesting that we aren't in a position to create an elaborate interpretative framework upon it.
As for the father giving good gifts thing, I've heard that a million times as though that in and of itself is proof positive that the ability to speak in tongues is something God given in some kind of unmediated way rather than, as appears so often to be the case, a form of 'learned behaviour' that people are socialised into.
Sure, I've heard of instances where people have apparently spontaneously spoken in tongues without any peer-pressure or instruction - or even being aware that there is such a thing.
But by and large these things are 'taught' rather than simply 'caught' and it's this which gives me pause.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'm dubious of the claim that 'tongues' has been a regular part of the Church for 2000 years. I really doubt it. I know a bit about the 16th through 18th-century church in much of Europe and can't think of a single example
You're quite right that an unbroken tradition of tongues-speaking throughout church history cannot be demonstrated.
As regards the specific era to which you refer, there is some evidence of the phenomenon amongst the Huguenot "Camisards" in the Cevennes region between the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) and the first decade of the eighteenth century.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
We had "tongues" and "interpretation" in our church a couple of weeks ago.
The "tongue" was russian, the speaker was our Archbishop who isn't that fluent in english, and the "interpreter" was one of the congregation who spoke both russian and english.
All in all it was very edifying!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
*sigh* there are actually some non-charismatic evangelicals that explain the NT phenomena in precisely that way: a straightforward interpretation of someone speaking their native language that is unknown to the listeners.
It obviously wasn't this going on in Acts otherwise there would have been nothing to report.
Mind you in my pre-charismatic (as opposed to post-charismatic) days I once got very worried by what sounded like a "message in tongues" in our little French church. It took some while for me to realise it was a prayer in English with a heavy Geordie accent.
[ 30. May 2012, 13:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
