Speaking in Tongues

[Icarus Fallen]

All,

Having been raised in an especially charismatic denomination of Christianity (Oneness Pentecostalism), to which the doctrine of speaking in tongues is foundational, Im still fascinated by this charismatic phenomenon.

Before describing some relevant experiences from my youth, Ill provide a brief explanation of the doctrine (as it was taught to me).

The bible speaks of two kinds of SPIRITually-inspired tongue-speaking:

• -- First, in the second chapter of Acts: on The Day of Pentecost, Christs apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as everyone present in the crowd that gathered (this reportedly included Parthians, Medesians, Elamites, Mesopotamians, Judeans, Cappadocians, Pontusians, Asians, Phrygians, Pamphylians, Egyptians, Libyans, and others) were somehow able to understand, as if the Galilean apostles were speaking in various languages simultaneously.

• -- Secondly, in the twelfth chapter of 1 Corinthians: there are varieties of activities mentioned (including but not limited to the speaking and interpreting of various kinds of tongues), which are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses. This describes the practices that were common in early Christian churches as well as those that remain in effect (to a lesser extent, in certain charismatic denominations) to this very day.

Both were identified in the scriptures as works of the Holy Spirit; but for the purposes of this discussion, Id like to focus on the latter type of tongue-speaking.

In my experience with this very strange doctrine, the gift of tongues was promoted as a manifestation of salvation (or as evidence of the in-filling of the Holy Spirit). As such, and in line with certain other teachings involving the consequences for failing to attain salvation, it was a gift after which I sincerely and frantically sought! The closest I ever got to receiving this gift (and to manifesting the evidence of reception) happened for me at the age of ten. While praying in earnest for the Holy Ghost to come into my heart, I began to tremble and rapidly mumble something to the effect of, Bubba-bubba-bubba-bubba-bubba-bubba. But even though everyone else seemed absolutely convinced that Id succeeded in my endeavor, I couldnt help but remain skeptical. You see, having witnessed the elaborate (though often repetitive) tongue-speaking rifts of others for nearly as long as I could remember, my simple blubbering just didnt quite cut the mustard. Plus, none of the resident interpreters (and we had a couple of prolific ones among the modest congregation) were moved to interpret to my relatively colorless gibberish. To make matters worse, this early embarrassment and second-guessing led to an inability for repeated instances of the manifestation of my personal salvation. So, the issue of my ultimate place in eternity remained a source of great distress into my late pre-teenage years.

To give you an idea as to some of the fancier rifts at the root of my childhood doubt (yes, they were generally so repetitive that I actually memorized many), one dude routinely belted-out something like, Hundala Shunda Keta, hunda-lala Shunda key (rinse and repeat with slight variations). Another sounded more like, Hasad-diddio-hasund-diddity-hasaya (etc.). As you can see, my pitiful bubba-bubbas really did pale in comparison.

Questions for debate:

1) Does anyone have similar experiences to share and discuss regarding this doctrine?

2) How are some of the more 'charismatic' denominations viewed by 'mainstream evangelicals' today?


Full disclosure: due mainly to my severely twisted upbringing (most of which will not be disclosed in this thread or elsewhere), Im as vehemently anti-Christian in my beliefs and principles as anyone you could possibly imagine -- including Satan himself! But I hope that won't hamper anyone's desire to engage me on this or any other topic across (and around) the board.

[cnorman18]

The phenomenon is called glossolalia, and it seems to be pretty well established as (1) a learned behavior, (2) essentially meaningless, and (3) of relatively recent origin, appearing virtually nowhere after the New Testament was written and before the advent of modern Pentecostalism. The "language" spoken is invariably made up of syllables drawn from the native language of the speaker and only imitates the structure of actual languages.

I have seen it. Though some (but not all) of the speakers appeared to be in some sort of ecstatic state, I heard nothing that resembled an actual language. The sounds seemed to me to be gibberish and no more. The "interpretations" were repetitious, routine, and predictable. I was eager at the time to receive the "baptism of the spirit" myself, but even in that situation I found the whole thing phony -- not in a deliberate sense; the people involved in it were clearly sincere -- but in the sense that they were only fooling themselves and each other. I consider it just another odd religious practice. I'd speculate that it might have some relationship to chanting mantras or the Rosary, a way to access an altered state of consciousness -- when it isn't being done just pro forma, to fit in with the expectations of the group.

Though there are a few intriguing examples of apparent xenoglossia, or use of an actual language unknown to the speaker, none are associated with Pentecostalism or with the Christian religion.

[Icarus Fallen]

Norm,

Thanks, for the informative contribution.

In order to play the devil's advocate here, I'd prob'ly only take issue with you on a couple of points.

First of all, regarding the claim that the phenomenon is "of relatively recent origin":

...appearing virtually nowhere after the New Testament was written and before the advent of modern Pentecostalism.

Looking past the cessationist implications of what you're saying there, the NT writings themselves may be reasonably held as evidence of an Apostolic Age "origin" for both stripes of the tongue-speaking phenomenon (xenoglossia in Acts 2, and glossolalia in 1 Cor. 12). Whether or not the practices "ceas[ed]" entirely after the first century CE ...is really immaterial to the question of their respective origins.

Furthermore, the timeline of references provided in your own link (however few and far between some of those references may seem to you) shows a pretty clear succession of a tongue-speaking tradition that reaches all the way back to the earliest Christian churches!

Though there are a few intriguing examples of apparent xenoglossia, or use of an actual language unknown to the speaker, none are associated with Pentecostalism or with the Christian religion.

Well, the "Cessationists" mentioned in the article from your own link apparently disagree with you:

Cessationists [I.E. many skeptical Christians] believe that all the charismatic gifts of The Holy Spirit ceased to be early in the Christian history, and therefore that the speaking in tongues practised today is simply the utterance of meaningless syllables. It is neither xenoglossia nor miraculous, but rather learned behavior, possibly self-induced. However, they believe that what the New Testament describes is xenoglossia, a miraculous gift of the Spirit through which the speaker could communicate in languages not previously studied. [emphasis and bracketed interpolation IF's]

I realize it's a lengthy article, Norm, but a good rule of thumb is simply this: if you're gonna reference even part of it, you'd better read all of it!

[cnorman18]

Norm,

Thanks, for the informative contribution.

In order to play the devil's advocate here, I'd prob'ly only take issue with you on a couple of points.

First of all, regarding the claim that the phenomenon is "of relatively recent origin":

...appearing virtually nowhere after the New Testament was written and before the advent of modern Pentecostalism.

Looking past the cessationist implications of what you're saying there, the NT writings themselves may be reasonably held as evidence of an Apostolic Age "origin" for both stripes of the tongue-speaking phenomenon (xenoglossia in Acts 2, and glossolalia in 1 Cor. 12). Whether or not the practices "ceas[ed]" entirely after the first century CE ...is really immaterial to the question of their respective origins.

Furthermore, the timeline of references provided in your own link (however few and far between some of those references may seem to you) shows a pretty clear succession of a tongue-speaking tradition that reaches all the way back to the earliest Christian churches!

Though there are a few intriguing examples of apparent xenoglossia, or use of an actual language unknown to the speaker, none are associated with Pentecostalism or with the Christian religion.

Well, the "Cessationists" mentioned in the article from your own link apparently disagree with you:

Cessationists [I.E. many skeptical Christians] believe that all the charismatic gifts of The Holy Spirit ceased to be early in the Christian history, and therefore that the speaking in tongues practised today is simply the utterance of meaningless syllables. It is neither xenoglossia nor miraculous, but rather learned behavior, possibly self-induced. However, they believe that what the New Testament describes is xenoglossia, a miraculous gift of the Spirit through which the speaker could communicate in languages not previously studied. [emphasis and bracketed interpolation IF's]

I realize it's a lengthy article, Norm, but a good rule of thumb is simply this: if you're gonna reference even part of it, you'd better read all of it!

Oh, I did; but since I am no longer a Christian, and didn't believe in this phenomenon even when I was - and I didn't believe it was real even in NT times -- I don't think ANY of it is or was real, then or now. "Cessationists"? How about "never-was-ists"? There's a lot of stuff in Acts that I don't buy. I don't think flames appeared over anyone's heads, either. If this phenomenon was around in the first century, I think it was pretty much the same as it is now: "Look, I've got it too, look how spiritual and blessed I am, just like the rest of you guys."

If you want to think there's anything to this, I have no objection to that; whatever floats your boat. But I had the impression that you don't.

[Icarus Fallen]

Norm,

If you want to think there's anything to this, I have no objection to that; whatever floats your boat. But I had the impression that you don't.

You had the right impression.

Just perpetrating a touch of the advocatus diaboli funk.

Could there be a more diabolical Devil than Christianity itself?

[cnorman18]

Norm,

If you want to think there's anything to this, I have no objection to that; whatever floats your boat. But I had the impression that you don't.

You had the right impression.

Just perpetrating a touch of the advocatus diaboli funk.

Could there be a more diabolical Devil than Christianity itself?

Sure. Lots. Straight-up manipulative, sociopathic and predatory hedonism, for starters. Think "serial rapists."

Christianity itself isn't the problem; it's the more toxic varieties of it. You were involved with one of the more poisonous ones available. Try not to judge all Christians on the basis of the rather odd and cultish ones that you were once surrounded by. I wouldn't judge all Jews by the "settlers" in the West Bank, either, or all Muslims by Al Qaeda, or all atheists by Pol Pot.

[Icarus Fallen]

Norm,

As I see things, Christianity as a whole can and should be held accountable for its long and storied influence on society at large; from the buck-naked overtness of the thousand-year retardation of scientific inquiry (more commonly referred to as "The Dark Ages"); to the far more subversive political MO favored by the so-called 'mainstreamers' of today.

I swear to God, if I could, I'd personally wipe the slate clean of any trace of that blood-stained religion and its perverted notions of deity.

[led by the spirit]

So what's the big deal about speaking other languages?

[cnorman18]

Norm,

As I see things, Christianity as a whole can and should be held accountable for its long and storied influence on society at large; from the buck-naked overtness of the thousand-year retardation of scientific inquiry (more commonly referred to as "The Dark Ages"); to the far more subversive political MO favored by the so-called 'mainstreamers' of today.

I swear to God, if I could, I'd personally wipe the slate clean of any trace of that blood-stained religion and its perverted notions of deity.

Sorry, but I disagree; rationality demands that one discriminate between the evil produced by those who manipulate and pervert a religion or philosophy from those who remain true to its ideals and do good. Even in the "Dark Ages," Christianity -- as opposed to the Church, though the two were not and are not mutually exclusive -- was responsible for the development of hospitals, orphanages, organized charity efforts of all kinds, scientific (yes) agriculture, the preservation of classic texts, and literacy itself. The abolition of slavery in Europe and North America was the direct result of Christian opposition to that institution, and the Civil Rights movement in the United States in the early- and mid-60's was sparked and supported by Christian commitment as well. Dr. Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister, and never claimed or pretended to be anything else. Christianity and its influences have not been wholly and entirely evil, and the claim that they were or have been is simply irrational as well as objectively and factually incorrect.

The usual objection is that those things could have been accomplished without reference to religion; but "could have been" translates directly to "were not" in this case, as in so many others.

Note this carefully: I am not a Christian; I am a Jew, and if there is any one group that has warrant to condemn and deride Christianity as a whole, it is MY people. I can speak for virtually all Jews when I say that we don't. Even in the darkest and most oppressive times, there have been Christians who stood up for us, even giving their lives in our defense and on our behalf -- and those Christians did those things precisely because of their dedication to the authentic principles of the Christian faith; that is, to the teachings of Jesus, and not to the perversions and distortions of that faith that have, tragically and all too frequently, plagued and warped and misled that community over the centuries.

One more note: "They're all alike" is the universally accurate marker of bigotry. If you condemn all Christianity, you condemn all Christians, and it is rather out of character for anyone who claims to be a liberal to condemn all members of any group without distinction. ANY religion or philosophy can be misused to serve the xenophobia, prejudices, fears, and hatreds of ANY group. Take care that you do not misuse the principles of humanism to do the same to the individual noble Christians and the good and beneficial Christian communities of the past, present and future in that same way.

You, personally, were involved with a rather bizarre and toxic variant of the Church. Don't let that inarguably bad experience warp your own views of the religion as a whole. That would be rather like my allowing my own early experiences with dentistry to warp my views of that profession. To explain that remark: My dentist, when I was a child and an adolescent, did not use anaesthetics of any kind. I had many teeth drilled and filled without so much as an aspirin. I find it hard to imagine a worse torture for a kid. I am missing a lot of teeth today because I was extremely unwilling to visit a dentist for some decades after I became an adult.

Then I discovered Novocain -- and nitrous oxide! Now I look forward to trips to the dentist. Back to the 60's, man. Far out. (snifffff...)

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning

Please review the Rules.
7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.

Could there be a more diabolical Devil than Christianity itself?

I swear to God, if I could, I'd personally wipe the slate clean of any trace of that blood-stained religion and its perverted notions of deity.

These comments are clearly inflammatory. Try to tone down the rhetoric.

_________________
When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.