Speaking in tongues

philologos

Hey all. I just want to open a thread on this topic. What does speaking in tongues mean exactly? It probably has been discussed on here before for several times. However, I've just watched a documentary on Channel 4 about the Alpha Course, and I was quite surprised to see a COE pastor speaking in tongues while giving the Alpha Course. I've never personally seen that happen at all in the COI church I attend.

I personally hold the view that speaking in tongues refers to a divinely ordained gift in which those who inherit it are capable of speaking in languages different than their own. The event in Acts chapter 2 seems to characterise this most for me. The Apostles come down from the upper room when they were waiting on the Holy Spirit and praying. They came down and there were Jews of all nations there, each heard the Apostles speaking in their own language.

This has been my interpretation. Then I come across verses about speakers of tongues, and interpreters of tongues. This makes me think that the two events mightn't be all that similar. However, Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 14 that speaking in regular speech is far more beneficial than speaking in tongues. This leads me to question why do people bother speaking in the modern version of what we refer to as tongues (from the Great Awakening in the US, and the Charismatic movement).

What the real issue is for me is, who is to say that such a modern revival, or reemergence of a practice is actually what it says on the tin rather than being contrived?

I'd prefer if this was kept in a Christian spirit, feel free to post if you do not believe in the gift of tongues at all, but please respect those who are trying to find out the true meaning of it like I am.

studiorat

It's not just a christian practice, btw.

Snake handlers do it during their thing aswell. IMO it's learned, linguists who have studied it have noticed that the vowel sounds and the construction of the "words" always bear a similarity to the speakers native tongue.

The University of Philadelphia studied people who speak in tongues as part of its faith and science research. MRI scans revealed that the speech portion of the brain is not very active during a “speaking in tongues” experience.

The results of those who speak in tongues were remarkably different from the brain patterns of Buddhists and Franciscan Nuns who were praying. The frontal lobe was highly active during Buddhist and Franciscan prayer.

reference

It's very similar to chanting I'd imagine. In as much as it clears the mind of thought thus helping the onset on the spiritual state.

I jumped in here btw because of a quote someone sent me today:

"In which language shall I pray, O Lord?" Babuji says sit in silence and have this question in your mind in utter stillness; and in that utter stillness, you will receive the answer.

Babu is a Raja Yoga walla in case you were wondering.

philologos

Right studiorat. That's a fair enough view. You consider what is commonly known in modern Christianity as speaking in tongues to be learned, and not from God. That's fair enough.

The logic of my objection is this.

1. I personally believe there was a practice in the 1st century church that was referred to as speaking in tongues.
2. However, I have doubts on whether the modern practice of speaking in tongues which came into being after the 1904 Great Awakening was actually the same practice as was employed in the early Church.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

Right studiorat. That's a fair enough view. You consider what is commonly known in modern Christianity as speaking in tongues to be learned, and not from God. That's fair enough.

The logic of my objection is this.

1. I personally believe there was a practice in the 1st century church that was referred to as speaking in tongues.
2. However, I have doubts on whether the modern practice of speaking in tongues which came into being after the 1904 Great Awakening was actually the same practice as was employed in the early Church.

Personally, I'd ask, 'of what value is it'? Genuine or not, if it contributes nothing, ignore it. If its interpreted and it is discerned as prophec or great wisdom etc, then give it creedance. All these frenzied folk though blabbering away aimlessly, I'd turn on my heels personally. I'll remain the skeptic until I see some value from it.

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

1. I personally believe there was a practice in the 1st century church that was referred to as speaking in tongues.

The word "charisma" in Greek means a spiritual gift, or gift from the holy spirit if you like. The Oricales at Delphi would regularly go into a trance and speak in tongues, where an aide would translate. The practice went on right up to Roman times. Members of the Greek church and the church in Asia Minor would have been very aware of how this worked.

The Gnostics also took part in the practice. The Nag Hammadi has some transcriptions of speaking in tongues.

Jakkass wrote: »

2. However, I have doubts on whether the modern practice of speaking in tongues which came into being after the 1904 Great Awakening was actually the same practice as was employed in the early Church.

Prior to the Revivalists... I believe Joseph Smith did it, apparently at the begining of his Ministry, and may have set an example for those who came saw his success. Charles Parham was one of those who took note of the Latter Day work. ***

Given the struggle at the time by the various christian groups in the states for new members in their congregation. (There were serious political issues at stake too remember.) It wouldn't surprise me if some of the new ministries introduced it to give more gravity to their sermons and intice new members. Especially bearing in mind that they were more concerned with salvation than religious education.

Of course they could just have been speaking Welsh!!!;)

*** Parham was a teacher of William Seymore.

philologos

Yes studiorat, I don't doubt that there was a practice called "speaking in tongues". What I'm interested to know is there any reason to believe it was the exact same in the 1st century as it is now. That's my point.

studiorat

Not unless you really believe the holy spirit is speaking through them. There's been no continious tradition of it so I doubt if it is the same.

How would the they know who it sounded 2,000 years ago. Unless it was a continous tradition handed down through the generations. Even then I suppose it would gradually change.

As an analogy: I worked with some Sufi musicians last year, their village in Morocco is 1,100 years old and the stories of the man who founded the village all refer to the music that they still play today. It has been a tradition in the village since. It's used daily in their prayer and ritual, even so I can't help thinking that it has changed from performer to performer over time. As would the practice of speaking in tongues if it had been a continous tradition.

So unless it really is divine it's hardly going to be the same is it?

crotalus667

Jakkass wrote: »

I've just watched a documentary on Channel 4 about the Alpha Course, and I was quite surprised to see a COE pastor speaking in tongues while giving the Alpha Course.

If I recall correctly he was not COE it was an evangelical organisation that where based out of an old COE church . (you can rewatch it via the C4 website)


The act of speaking in tongues (when not clearly put on like in the documentary and when not the result of a mental illness) is simply a form self/ group hypnosis Given the right subjects and environment it can be induced rather easily(Think benny hinn)

philologos

Nicky Gumbel is an Anglican minister though, and he is the one who spearheaded the Alpha course and found that speaking in tongues was a hugely spiritual thing after seeing people in Toronto rolling on the floor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Blessing

By evangelical it is possible that they are referring to Evangelical Anglicanism.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Hey all. I just want to open a thread on this topic. What does speaking in tongues mean exactly? It probably has been discussed on here before for several times. However, I've just watched a documentary on Channel 4 about the Alpha Course, and I was quite surprised to see a COE pastor speaking in tongues while giving the Alpha Course. I've never personally seen that happen at all in the COI church I attend.

In the Church of England 26% of congregations are Evangelical, of which about one third (or 8% of the whole) are Charismatic. However, in terms of worshippers, 34% are Evangelical and 13% are Charismatic. (The disparity between the percentage of congregations and worshippers are consistent with the general trend in North America and Western Europe where Evangelical churches grown faster than other churches and Charismatic/Pentecostal churches grow faster than other forms of Evangelicalism. For example, among the largest CofE congregations that exceed 350 in Sunday attendance Evangelicals compose 83%.)

I personally hold the view that speaking in tongues refers to a divinely ordained gift in which those who inherit it are capable of speaking in languages different than their own. The event in Acts chapter 2 seems to characterise this most for me. The Apostles come down from the upper room when they were waiting on the Holy Spirit and praying. They came down and there were Jews of all nations there, each heard the Apostles speaking in their own language.

Not just the apostles. It was 120 believers who were speaking in tongues. If they were all speaking different languages then how on earth would anyone hear the one that was speaking their own language over the noise of the other 119 who were shouting in languages you didn't understand? I think Acts Chapter 2 is explained much better by suggesting that the 120 spoke in tongues and God gave the hearers a gift of interpretation so each person, of whatever language, could hear them all in his own language.

This has been my interpretation. Then I come across verses about speakers of tongues, and interpreters of tongues. This makes me think that the two events mightn't be all that similar. However, Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 14 that speaking in regular speech is far more beneficial than speaking in tongues. This leads me to question why do people bother speaking in the modern version of what we refer to as tongues (from the Great Awakening in the US, and the Charismatic movement).

What Paul says is that, in public worship, it is more beneficial to others to speak so that everyone else can understand what you are saying, therefore tomgues should not be used in public worship unless someone interprets it into the lingua franca. He also adds that he spoke in tongues more than anyone (presumably referring to his private prayers).

BTW, I think you are confusing the Great Awakening (a non-Charismatic revival in the 18th Century in the US featuring Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield) with something like the Azusa Street Revival (which popularised modern-day Pentecostalism).

What the real issue is for me is, who is to say that such a modern revival, or reemergence of a practice is actually what it says on the tin rather than being contrived?

Jesus said, By their fruit you will know them."

For me, the test of any religious movement or revival is whether it glorifies Jesus Christ and benefits the Christian Church. Does it result in unbelievers coming to Christ? Do the participants become more like Jesus, or do they become prideful or bad tempered? Does it result in greater faithfulness to the Bible or to wishy-washy compromise?

Overall (and I freely confess my bias) I would say that the modern Pentecostal movement has produced good fruit. It has proved to be the fastest growing religious movement (indeed the fastest growing non-militaristic movement of any description) in history, and has brought hundreds of millions of people into a living faith in Jesus Christ. It has also, in the former Soviet Union and in China, stood the test of severe persecution.

Some Pentecostal/Charismatic movements have failed to meet the standard of producing good fruit - I am thinking of the recent fiasco in Florida with a fraudulent hypocrite called Todd Bentley, and I would strongly disagree with Nicky Gumbel's positive assessment of the Toronto Blessing.

You would rarely hear tongues being spoken in my own church in Sunday services, but I personally find praying in tongues to be an enormously beneficial practice.

wolfsbane

While I respect many Pentecostal brothers, I have no reason to think their 'experience' is other than psychological and not the same as the Biblical experience. I have personally encountered nothing profitable from it in the brethren I meet - any good in them is similiar to that in their non-Pentecostal brethren.

But I have observed a lot of harm:
1. Gullibility to false teachers/scandalous practices (false healing claims, Toronto Blessing howling and barking, etc. ).

2. Personal mental instability.

To get a good overview of what I mean, no better place to check than the book produced by leading Pentecostal brethren on the origin and conduct of their movement:
http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Pentecostal-Charismatic-Movements-Stanley/dp/0310441005

This is the 1988 version, which I have. There is an updated one:
httw.amazon.com/International-Dictionary-Pentecostal-Charismatic-Movements/dp/0310224810p://ww

I see Pentecostalism (and its Charismatic offspring) as a major disaster for the true church - but one which God over-rules in many places for the salvation of many. Its main problems are that it opens Christians up to delusion and false preachers, and is a stumbling block to many unbelievers by its acceptance of money-makers and false healers.

Just a general question on this topic (I don't mean to drag this off the course you wanted, Jakkass):

When somebody speaks in tongues (in the modern sense, that is), is it a language in and of itself? I've seen/heard it in a few documentaries, and I didn't notice any discernable languages; I've only noticed various randomly spoken syllables: babel, basically.

Has anybody ever spoken in another (real) language while under the same influence which results in people speaking in tongues? If so, has it ever happened in a case where it was proven that the individual didn't actually speak that language - or at least have a semi-proficiency in that language - beforehand?

philologos

PDN wrote: »

In the Church of England 26% of congregations are Evangelical, of which about one third (or 8% of the whole) are Charismatic. However, in terms of worshippers, 34% are Evangelical and 13% are Charismatic. (The disparity between the percentage of congregations and worshippers are consistent with the general trend in North America and Western Europe where Evangelical churches grown faster than other churches and Charismatic/Pentecostal churches grow faster than other forms of Evangelicalism. For example, among the largest CofE congregations that exceed 350 in Sunday attendance Evangelicals compose 83%.)

I'm not surprised at the presence of Evangelicalism within the Church of England, or indeed the Church of Ireland. It has been a tradition of Anglicanism ever since it began. As for charismatic, I am also not surprised that some Church of England churches encourage playing contemporary music or the like, and I would consider that to be a positive development in the church.

However, I have so many questions about speaking in tongues I just don't know where to begin. Indeed Acts chapter 2 does seem as if the people were speaking which was rendered into another language on hearing it. So I would agree with you there.

Other Pauline scriptures do suggest that there were both interpreters and speakers of tongues and this was a gift. What is clear from my post is that I neither have the gift of interpretation or of speaking in tongues It's something that has intrigued me, and it is something that has caused me to question it. However, I can't seem to get past the doubt of authenticity, that the "speaking in tongues" of the modern age could well be a rather different thing to the speaking in tongues of the New Testament. It is during times like these I wish I had a time machine so I could find out myself.

PDN wrote: »

Not just the apostles. It was 120 believers who were speaking in tongues. If they were all speaking different languages then how on earth would anyone hear the one that was speaking their own language over the noise of the other 119 who were shouting in languages you didn't understand? I think Acts Chapter 2 is explained much better by suggesting that the 120 spoke in tongues and God gave the hearers a gift of interpretation so each person, of whatever language, could hear them all in his own language.

I appreciate this, but my main question would revolve around what were they speaking in the first place. Was it a certain phrasing of an already accepted language, which God transformed into the hearing of people of many languages by the grace of God? This was the view that seemed to be advocated to me as a child when I was in school learning about this.

Believe me, I'm curious as to what speaking in tongues is and I would love someone to be able to ease my doubts on the issue, but I think it may well be unresolved. Perhaps the cessation that was referred to in 1 Corinthians 13 happened far before the Pentecostal revivals of the 20th century.

PDN wrote: »

Jesus said, By their fruit you will know them."

For me, the test of any religious movement or revival is whether it glorifies Jesus Christ and benefits the Christian Church. Does it result in unbelievers coming to Christ? Do the participants become more like Jesus, or do they become prideful or bad tempered? Does it result in greater faithfulness to the Bible or to wishy-washy compromise?

It isn't Pentecostalism that I doubt. I don't doubt the view that Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism as a form of Evangelicalism has been very successful and I personally would see this development as encouraging. I don't intend this as an attack on Pentecostalism / Evangelicalism. Even in Pentecostal / Evangelical churches I have never experienced speaking in tongues in the church at all.

However let's be more particular about it. What are the fruits of the modern "speaking in tongues"?

PDN wrote: »

Overall (and I freely confess my bias) I would say that the modern Pentecostal movement has produced good fruit. It has proved to be the fastest growing religious movement (indeed the fastest growing non-militaristic movement of any description) in history, and has brought hundreds of millions of people into a living faith in Jesus Christ. It has also, in the former Soviet Union and in China, stood the test of severe persecution.

I'm in complete agreement.

PDN wrote: »

Some Pentecostal/Charismatic movements have failed to meet the standard of producing good fruit - I am thinking of the recent fiasco in Florida with a fraudulent hypocrite called Todd Bentley, and I would strongly disagree with Nicky Gumbel's positive assessment of the Toronto Blessing.

Likewise I agree.

PDN wrote: »

You would rarely hear tongues being spoken in my own church in Sunday services, but I personally find praying in tongues to be an enormously beneficial practice.

Interesting. Thanks for addressing my post so comprehensively. It is clearly something that I need to give more thought.

prinz

I was wondering on the same point. I have yet to see or hear of someone speaking in tongues.. which was an actual discernible language. tbh any clips I've seen, admittedly only on tv or the internet, have been just a mish-mash of discordant sounds. Whereas the way I see it in the Bible the receivers of the Spirit were able to speak actual languages, i.e. gained the ability to preach the Gospel abroad. While there is neurological evidence to show the area of the brain activity etc. the whole thing just leaves me bewildered tbh, IMO if God wants to get a message across he has fantastic orators at his disposal, why would it involved the whole show of convulsions/"speaking" in tongues etc?. I'd rather listen to some of the posters on here sharing the fruits of their faith.

robindch

prinz wrote: »

I have yet to see or hear of someone speaking in tongues.. which was an actual discernible language. tbh any clips I've seen, admittedly only on tv or the internet, have been just a mish-mash of discordant sounds.

As it happens in so many evangelical (and other) places, how come nobody's ever recorded it and tried to establish what language is being spoken in a systematic and foolproof manner?

I must say that it would be pretty convincing evidence of something really quite amazing happening if people would suddenly become fluent speakers of languages they'd never encountered before.

If it's no language at all then obviously it's less speaking in "tongues" and rather more just a lot of shouting.

PDN

prinz wrote: »

Whereas the way I see it in the Bible the receivers of the Spirit were able to speak actual languages, i.e. gained the ability to preach the Gospel abroad.

I can't think of anything in the Bible that would give that impression. However a number of biblical passages would lead us to the opposite conclusion - that tongues was for a different purpose other than preaching abroad.

On the Day of Pentecost tongues operated as a sign to show people something amazing was taking place, but Peter then preached the Gospel to them in one language without using the gift of tongues (Acts 2).

On other occasions in Acts we see people speaking in tongues as after they had just had the Gospel preached to them in one language (eg in Cornelius' household in Acts 10).

When Paul teaches about tongues in 1 Corinthians he also refers to people receiving a spiritual gift of interpretation, otherwise no-one would understand the message.

Splendour

To me speaking in tongues is like the Tridentine Mass-what's the point if ya don't understand it? I've heard people talk in tongues before but have never heard any interpretation. This then to me is unbiblical...

fitz0

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

When somebody speaks in tongues (in the modern sense, that is), is it a language in and of itself? I've seen/heard it in a few documentaries, and I didn't notice any discernable languages; I've only noticed various randomly spoken syllables: babel, basically.

Has anybody ever spoken in another (real) language while under the same influence which results in people speaking in tongues? If so, has it ever happened in a case where it was proven that the individual didn't actually speak that language - or at least have a semi-proficiency in that language - beforehand?

You're referring to Xenoglossy of which there is very little supporting evidence as opposed to religious "speaking in tongues" glossolalia. Personally Im very skeptical of both.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

You would rarely hear tongues being spoken in my own church in Sunday services, but I personally find praying in tongues to be an enormously beneficial practice.

In what way beneficial?

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

In what way beneficial?

When I pray in tongues I see a greater proportion of my prayers answered. I also have confidence that I can pray about situations where my knowledge of the situation is insufficient to pray intelligently in English.

For example, I have had instances where I feel a strong urge to pray for somebody, but I don't know why. Therefore I pray for them in tongues. Later those people have told me of crises they were experiencing at the time when I was praying for them.

So I frequently pray in tongues, I prayer as much or more in English, and some of my prayers are silent. The Bible says we should pray in diverse ways in diverse situations.

Fanny Cradock

Interesting stuff, PDN.

I've always taken a standard approach to prayers: thank first, ask second. Could you expand on these diverse methods you speak of and maybe recommend some reading on the matter.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Interesting stuff, PDN.

I've always taken a standard approach to prayers: thank first, ask second. Could you expand on these diverse methods you speak of and maybe recommend some reading on the matter.

I'll maybe stick something in another thread (to avoid derailing the discussion on tongues) but it'll be in a few days time due to travelling. It would be good to hear ideas from various Christian traditions - providing people can restrain themselves enough to simply express disagreement without turning it into a jihad!

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

When I pray in tongues I see a greater proportion of my prayers answered. I also have confidence that I can pray about situations where my knowledge of the situation is insufficient to pray intelligently in English.

Its the spirit leading you in prayer isn't it? Thats what tongues is about? Its actually Gods Holy Spirit in you coming from a spirit filled heart?

For example, I have had instances where I feel a strong urge to pray for somebody, but I don't know why. Therefore I pray for them in tongues. Later those people have told me of crises they were experiencing at the time when I was praying for them.

Taking you up on the part in bold, is it that you can 'decide', 'I'm going to pray in tongues now'. Also, is it that your tongue becomes controlled by the spirit? If so, do you know after the prayer what you have said?
[/QUOTE]

philologos

JimiTime wrote: »

Its the spirit leading you in prayer isn't it? Thats what tongues is about? Its actually Gods Holy Spirit in you coming from a spirit filled heart?

Taking you up on the part in bold, is it that you can 'decide', 'I'm going to pray in tongues now'. Also, is it that your tongue becomes controlled by the spirit? If so, do you know after the prayer what you have said?

I don't think the Spirit interceding in prayer is that nuts Biblically.

Romans 8:14-16 wrote:

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry 'Abba, Father!' it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

More clearly:

Romans 8:26-27 wrote:

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And God, who searchest the heart knows what is the mind of the Spirit because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

I just find myself so unsure about whether modern tongues are the same thing as was originally intended in the New Testament.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think the Spirit interceding in prayer is that nuts Biblically.

Absolutely. I'd never say it was nuts. My issue is with what I see people calling tongues these days. Biblically, I'd never deny the practice at all if thats how it sounded.

I just find myself so unsure about whether modern tongues are the same thing as was originally intended in the New Testament.

TBH, I don't think there is such thing as 'modern tongues' and new testament tongues. I think there is just genuine and false. Anytime I've seen 'tongues' on TV, which is the only place I've seen them, I would be quite certain that its bogus. That does not mean I don't believe genuine tongues occur. I just keep a skeptics hat on until I see merit. Baring fruits as it were.

ChocolateSauce

I'd call it babbling really. Whether a person does it because they go into a frenzy or because they're full of it, it tends to sound the same.

DTrotter

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'd call it babbling really. Whether a person does it because they go into a frenzy or because they're full of it, it tends to sound the same.

Like in Borat?

JimiTime

Hi PDN. Just curious about the questions I asked in post 23. I'm not sure if you missed it or not? I think Jackass misunderstood me to be saying I thought tongues was nuts, so just in case thats how I came accross, I really do not think that way. My position is that I'm skeptical about folk I've seen these days saying they are praying in tongues. I consider you a trustworthy source, so I would be very interested in how the process occurs in you.
Cheers.

r3nu4l

I'm confused by 'speaking in tongues'. To be honest I've seen it in the Charismatic movement in the Roman Catholic Church but never seen it in a traditional Roman Catholic mass or prayer group. Why is that? If it's a divine gift then why do we only see it in evangelical-type situations and never during a sermon from the pulpit in a traditional service?

I'll be honest and say that I have my doubts as to whether there is any real meaning in it at all other than working oneself into a hysterical frenzy of prayer that tips one over the edge. It reminds me of groups of screaming schoolgirls who collapsed in screaming babbling fits when seeing the Beatles or the Rolling Stones in person.

I've experienced huge fervour when praying in the past and a sense of clarity and peace by very focused prayer and it engendered a state of heightened spirituality but not tongues.

I do believe that in speaking in tongues but I believe that much of what we see and hear about today is not divine, simply hysterical.

thetoken

robindch wrote: »

As it happens in so many evangelical (and other) places, how come nobody's ever recorded it and tried to establish what language is being spoken in a systematic and foolproof manner?

I must say that it would be pretty convincing evidence of something really quite amazing happening if people would suddenly become fluent speakers of languages they'd never encountered before.

If it's no language at all then obviously it's less speaking in "tongues" and rather more just a lot of shouting.

Its right up there with moving statues and tree stumps.