Christian only : Modern tongues movement

[roger1440]

I mean ,explain further.

The person or persons who wrote the book of Acts was Jewish. It was written for a Jewish audience. The book uses Jewish themes and Jewish theology to make a point. Most importantly an understanding of 1st century Judaism is required to understand the message of “speaking in lounges”. The book must be examined through a Jewish lens. That is my starting point.

Are you with me so far?

 

[David1967]

The person or persons who wrote the book of Acts was Jewish. It was written for a Jewish audience. The book uses Jewish themes and Jewish theology to make a point. Most importantly an understanding of 1st century Judaism is required to understand the message of “speaking in lounges”. The book must be examined through a Jewish lens. That is my starting point.

Are you with me so far?

Im with you and I agree.

 

[Windwalker]

With the first part of your reply, I agree 100%. On the day of Pentacost the people heard their language from the Apostles whatever their language was. To the second part I agree partially. (to agree 100% would get me in so much trouble with my Pentacostal wife .) I have looked into the speaking in tongues phenomenon culturally and it is nothing new. I seen a Tibetan Shaman speak in tongues. A voodoo priestess speak in tongues and a Spiritist channeling a spirit speak in tongues....and truthfully it didn't sound much different than what I have observed in Charismatic Pentacostal churches. I guess my question to the Pentacostals would be how they know the differences.

I'm going to try to expand this discussion a little to some other points of view on it not commonly brought up. First, I've heard the point of view that speaking in tongues as recorded in the book of Acts is the standard of all of what speaking in tongues is. I disagree with that on a number of levels. Paul speaks of it in the book of 1 Corinthians which was written much earlier than Luke/Acts.

When Luke describes the day of Pentecost he casts the phenomenon of speaking in tongues into the miracle camp, a miraculous acquisition of another actual language spoken through you like someone channeling which then any native speaker will instantly recognize. The tongues in Luke is not for the purpose of preaching, as everyone in that day could understand Greek as well as their native tongues, but as a miracle sign so the people would interpret as a sign from God, like changing water to wine, or raising the dead. When you contrast this miracle setting in the story told by Luke with that of Paul's mention of it, it has a different flavor. It's not a miracle sign, but an actual common practice that Paul describes as "self-edification".

What Paul's description of tongues in the church at Corinth parallels what you see in all other religious and spiritual practices which predate Christianity by at least 400 years as it is mentioned by Plato. His description of it is not the "miracle sign" of Luke, but one of personal edification. It is a private affair to him, not to convince others a miracle is happening. He clearly states, "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries." This is not a known language, the miracle story of Luke. He does not speak to men as no one understands (or can), but to God, in his spirit. This is what the phenomenon of glossolalia is in all religions with those who practice it. I can explain more on this later as to what it does, its effects, and so forth.

What Paul emphasizes by contrast however, is that in the church body, in the congregation of assembled members, it is better to edify one another than to simply engage in personal spiritual practices, potentially crossing the line in "showcasing" your gifts to impress others with them displaying how spiritual you are (an ego exercise). He stresses the gift of "prophecy" over tongues, because in speaking utterances another can understand, they are built up with the mind. There is mention of the gift of "interpretation", but in all honesty I think that is really more a type of "prophetic utterance" that someone may feel inspired to share in the context of religious ecstasies, of which tongues is associated with. I do not believe it is an "actual" interpretation, but itself a form of ecstasy, a type of channeling.

Prophecy, by the way, which Paul is speaking of I do not believe is anything along the lines of predicting the future, or a "Thus saith the Lord!," sort of utterance. Rather, it is inspired speach, like a poet, or a musician who sings from the heart with the clarity of divine insight. Others receive inspiration for this, and are edified or built up. This is what Paul is wanting to see in the congregation, rather than just one big spirit-fest.

I'll share some more thoughts later as I think there is a great deal of confusion about it, as well as these ideas of "counterfeit tongues" and whatnot. This is a common religious phenomenon, and it did, and does exist in Christianity too, because people do in fact have religious experiences. I've know people who have never been exposed to it had it happen spontaneously in deep prayer and meditation. It's not magic, but it is common in religious experience. Not everyone experiences it, but may do.

 

[Johnlove]

As a man raised in a church that does not practice speaking in tongues, that is married to a woman who is very much Pentacostal, I am interested in your thoughts concerning the modern tongues movement. Its origins as well as its pactice.

I was raised in the Catholic Church, and was never exposed to the gifts of the Holy Spirit by anyone in the church. But in my late thirties Jesus called me into his ministry. I was then exposed to the gift of prophesy, tongues, knowledge, discernment, miracles, and healing.

Jesus used the gift of tongue, and prophesy to help teach me for the first year of my ministry. Jesus used tongues in a very special way with me. I would have a question of Jesus, and would then often get a tongue. My wife who had the gift of interpreting tongues would give me the answer to my question. By the way I did not express my question to Jesus audibly.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

tongues simply means languages like French or Spanish or German. the modern tongues movement is just jibberish that has no meaning. The apostles were able to speak to people in their own language not some meaningless nonsense.

 

[Johnlove]

tongues simply means languages like French or Spanish or German. the modern tongues movement is just jibberish that has no meaning. The apostles were able to speak to people in their own language not some meaningless nonsense.

(1 Corinthians 14:2-3) “Anybody with the gift of tongues speaks to God, but not to other people; because nobody understands him when he talks in the spirit about mysterious things.”

Scripture tells us one who is praying in tongues is speaking to God. One’s spirit is giving praise to our Lord and God in a more perfect way.


(1 Corinthians 14:4-5) The one with the gift of tongues talks for his own benefit, but the man who prophesies does so for the benefit of the community. While I should like you all to have the gift of tongues, I would much rather you could prophesy, since the man who prophesies is of greater importance than the man with the gift of tongues, unless of course the latter offers an interpretation so that the church may get some benefit.”


Paul told us that talking in tongues benefits those that do so. I for one want to receive all the benefits from God that can be given to me.


Now I have, and my wife was given the gift of interpretation of tongues, and that was a great blessing also.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I would be much more convinced if a stranger did the interpreting. Your wife can say anything and who can tell if it is right or not. Of course you will always agree with whatever she says.

 

[Johnlove]

I would be much more convinced if a stranger did the interpreting. Your wife can say anything and who can tell if it is right or not. Of course you will always agree with whatever she says.

I would be much more convinced if a stranger did the interpreting. Your wife can say anything and who can tell if it is right or not. Of course you will always agree with whatever she says.

If the answer given to me by my wife’s interpretation of my tongue was not scripture then it would have been wrong. But one the ways to know if a word is from God or not, is if the fruit it bears is good or not.

Also Jesus would have personally told me if my wife’s interpretation was ever not of him. Tongues was only one of God’s methods of communicating with me. During the time that God used tongues, he was communicating with me audibly, and in two or three other ways including prophesy.

The Holy Spirit once told me to tell others that no matter who ever told them anything about God, be it a priest, bishop, or anyone they were to ask Jesus if it was right or wrong.

A Christian who has been called out by name knows Jesus’ voice.

(John 10:1-5)"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."

 

[029b10]

While I am aware that Christians that believe in 'the gift of speaking in tongues' consider it to be a supernatural manifestation of the Spirit. Thus some believe the time of 'speaking in tongues' is past, while others consider that it still manifests today.

However, I would suggest that ' gift of speaking in tongues' is the ability to communicate using the spoken word which was only given to the spirit of those the Gods who said, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness." (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) So if God is a Spirit, then the Word is a Spirit also, thus Gods.

According to the linguistic experts, the ability to speak is acquired during a certain time of a child's development, called the "critical period" However, the ability to speak results from not only hearing the spoken word, but by interaction from actually being spoken to. The LSA (Linguistic Society of America) claims that the scientific data supports the theory that that unless a child develops the ability to speak during that critical period, that the child will never be able to develop the ability to communicate using the spoken word. The research were derived from not only historical cases of language deprivation such as those which can occur with feral child and reported experiments in conducted in history, including the ability of deaf children to even communicate by sign language. While today it is considered the 'forbidden experiment' since it is unconscionable to subject a child to language deprivation due to the known or potential effects such experiment would cause to the child.

Which raises the question, if man evolved from a primate that could not speak, then how did man acquire the ability to communicate using the spoken word if there was no one there to speak to them?

But to those Christians that claim that the ability to speak comes from the flesh and not the spirit, then why is it written seven times in Revelations, " He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; " Rev 2:2, 2:11, 2:17, 2:29, Rev 3:6, 3:13 and 3:22.

 

[Shiranui117]

As a man raised in a church that does not practice speaking in tongues, that is married to a woman who is very much Pentacostal, I am interested in your thoughts concerning the modern tongues movement. Its origins as well as its pactice.

I don't believe that the modern tongues movement (i.e. falling over babbling and frothing at the mouth) is anything remotely close to what was meant by "speaking in tongues" in the days of the Apostles. I personally see little to no spiritual benefit in this practice. I can't see how it would be edifying in any way. To me, it seems like self-induced hypnosis because people think that worshipping God means that they have to feel a certain way, so they unconsciously try to induce such a state in pursuit of "holiness". They may feel close to God when they do that, and I'll never take that away from them, but I don't think that this is something Biblical, or traditional, in any way.

 

[David1967]

I don't believe that the modern tongues movement (i.e. falling over babbling and frothing at the mouth) is anything remotely close to what was meant by "speaking in tongues" in the days of the Apostles. I personally see little to no spiritual benefit in this practice. I can't see how it would be edifying in any way. To me, it seems like self-induced hypnosis because people think that worshipping God means that they have to feel a certain way, so they unconsciously try to induce such a state in pursuit of "holiness". They may feel close to God when they do that, and I'll never take that away from them, but I don't think that this is something Biblical, or traditional, in any way.

I agree with you 100%. I've always thought that a Heavenly language would be a bit more than the gurgling, constipation sounding grunting and jabbering that I have heard people pass off as tongues.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't believe that the modern tongues movement (i.e. falling over babbling and frothing at the mouth) is anything remotely close to what was meant by "speaking in tongues" in the days of the Apostles.

Why do you say that? Because Luke portrayed it as a miraculous acquisition of human languages? When Paul speaks of it, written much earlier than Luke, he doesn't cast it that way at all, but rather as ecstatic speech that one does in prayer. "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries." Note he says in his spirit he speaks mysteries? Also note he says it is for his own edification, or building up? Clearly he saw use to it for personal practice. His criticism was of its usage in the congregation where it should be about building each other up, not time for your private practices.

I personally see little to no spiritual benefit in this practice. I can't see how it would be edifying in any way.

The Apostle Paul did. "Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves". In fact, he says of himself, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all". In other words, he practiced it.

To me, it seems like self-induced hypnosis

It's actually not. It's actually part of ecstatic religious states that is common in many religions. "Self-hypnosis" is a badly misunderstood view by Westerners of meditative states, comparing meditation to "self-hypnosis". In scientific research of the comparison between hypnosis and meditation there are clear and notable differences. They are not the same at all. If you are interested in some of the details of that read here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/cttart/art...me+kind+of+(self)hypnosis+-+a+deeper+look.pdf

because people think that worshipping God means that they have to feel a certain way, so they unconsciously try to induce such a state in pursuit of "holiness".

Granted some in fact try to "whip themselves up" in these Pentecostal churches, and that badly mistakes what are frankly natural responses for many in these states of religious devotion as the goal, the thing to seek, the peak or pinnacle of spiritual connectedness. To seek the experience, is self-gratification. One shouldn't seek an experience. One should seek God. But in the various mystical states one may go through as they seek God, tongues or ecstatic speech may be part of it.

I would be cautious not to broad-brush stroke all those who speak in tongues as those who are experience-seekers. People may abuse these spiritual phenomena for self-gratification, but that does not mean all phenomena are the result of narcissism. Hardly. That's like saying all people who make love with their spouse are "just trying to get themselves off". You could try to reduce it to that, but I don't think that accurately seeks to understand anything.

They may feel close to God when they do that, and I'll never take that away from them, but I don't think that this is something Biblical, or traditional, in any way.

Other than the fact Paul speaks of it at length in 1 Cor 12 - 14 and says he practiced it "more than you all"?

 

[atpollard]

Read 1 Corinthians 12 through 1 Corinthians 14 as suggested above.
There are several chapters on it.

If you are going to completely reject even the concept of Tongues apart from the manifestation in Acts 2, then you may need to expunge all of Corinthians as non-inspired writings and push it into the Apocrypha.
If you accept 1 Corinthians as Scripture, then you owe Paul a more open mind.
[I agree that the modern tongues movement contains abuse, but complete rejection of Gifts of the Spirit is not Biblical.]

 

[Sleeppy]

Speaking in tongues is an attempt to relate to brothers and sisters apart from language (apart from the division of the Babel event). Is there understanding, even when the words are not being understood?

 

[Windwalker]

The best description I have heard of speaking in tongues is it is essentially a "Jazz mantra". I like that a lot. It fits quite well in its use and effect.

 

[Sleeppy]

The best description I have heard of speaking in tongues is it is essentially a "Jazz mantra". I like that a lot. It fits quite well in its use and effect.

Yep.. Music. Another universal language.

 

[Windwalker]

What I like about the "jazz mantra" way of talking about speaking in tongues, is the function of a mantra which the repetition of a prayer, or affirmation of sorts, is that in the practice of chanting you are drawn into the mantra itself. You let yourself go and move inside the utterances. The utterances are not about ideas. They are about the activity itself. A vocal activity such as the mantra, which could be the Lord's Prayer, or the Hail Mary, or other chants, have the effect of the mind relaxing in the repetitive task. It doesn't "think" about the words, but the mind sinks into them, and thus the heart becomes more open, active, and receptive while the mind is distracted doing a 'mindless' task.

Glossolalia, or speaking in tongues, has this exact same effect, going just a step beyond it. Like music where you learn a song, a certain pattern of notes and play them, there is a part of the mind that pays attention to following the pattern. But in jazz music, it is about spontaneity. It is much more about the felt impulse of the moment without as much concern with stricter forms. It flows and goes. It is still notes. There are still patterns and repetitions. But they are spontaneously created on the fly. Therefore, the playing of jazz is a much more fluid expression of music.

Same thing with speaking in tongues. It serves the purpose to get the "juices flowing", so to speak. It "raises the energy". But as in any meditation practice, the "raising the energy" part must give way to "doing the work". It helps transport the person into that space which is the Source of inspiration itself. The work is inhabiting that space. Tongues is not the end point, the arrival, any more than chanting a mantra is the point of the practice. Once in meditation, "tongues cease". It's too bad Christianity's renewed interest in tongues wraps all sorts of mystique about it that misses the point, that misses the function. It becomes misinterpreted as some "magical" happening. Whereas in reality, it all comes from what is already within all of us. It happens in religions the world over.