Speaking in Tongues, from God, or something from Satan? Options

[Clay]

the things you all say when I am gone for a bit..... let's call a time out and pick this back up in 24 hours or so....

[Clay]

Topic reopened.... if it deteriorates into flaming it will be closed permanently....

[SoulEspresso]

NOTE: The contents of this post is intended only for those among us who are grateful to God for the gift of the Spirit of Phopecy and who believe in its manifestation in the ministry and writings of Ellen G. White and are willing to accept guidance and counsel and insight and correction and help for our spiritual life and growth from God through her writings even if some of our dearly held views are contradicted by her testimonies. All others are welcome to simply ignore it.
Please read also SELECTED MESSAGES, BOOK 3, PP. 362-379; BOOK 2, PP. 40-47

I'm grateful for two things. One, I was gone for a few days so I couldn't get mad, and two, Clay closed the thread for a day. It's better for all of us to cool down. I hope I can post today without getting personal.

There are two disagreements I respectfully present to saharafan. One has to do with the point at hand; the other has to do with the use of Ellen G. White's writings. Let me begin with the latter.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seemed like your post was intended to close off the possibility of discussing ecstatic speech as a legitimate spiritual experience, by using quotations you gleaned from the writings of Ellen White. Let me respond in two ways. First, with a passage from Mrs. White herself:

Whenever the people of God are growing in grace, they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His word. They will discern new light and beauty in its sacred truths. This has been true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it will continue to the end. But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God's word and discourage any further
investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative and seek to avoid discussion.

The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition and worship they know not what.

-- Testimonies for the Church Volume 5, pp. 706-707.

While the above quotation doesn't address the issue, it does tell us that just because we've always believed something, or disbelieved something, doesn't make it true or false. Adventists hold to Present Truth, not tradition, which dictates that we must always be re-examining ourselves and engaging in open discussion. It also tells us our primary source of authority is not Ellen White, but the Bible. Ellen White herself says this; I hope that we don't need her permission. She knew she was not infallible.

What kind of hurt my feelings is that the comment that preceded the quotations implied that if we all didn't agree that the quotes in question were presently and universally applicable, we don't believe in the Spirit of Prophecy. That's unfair. I believe Ellen White was inspired; I hope I'm right in believing we're to submit her to Scripture, because if not, we've got some major problems we need to address as a church.

If we can agree that Ellen White is subordinate to the Bible, I respectfully submit a passage from the writings of Paul:

1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3 But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified. 6 Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?

9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.

13 For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. 16 If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.

18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

This passage is a lot different from Acts 2; there, it's clear the tongues in question were foreign languages. This one, to me, is clearly ecstatic speech. If you take the plain meaning of the Bible, you come out with two things. One, speaking in unintelligible languages was a practice at the church in Corinth, and to Paul himself. Two, Paul didn't think it was that important.

It's from 1 Corinthians 14 that I figure, hey, speak in tongues if it gets you closer to Jesus--and do so at home so you don't disrupt the rest of us in church. If you can't speak in tongues, that has nothing to do with your salvation.

Does this mean I think Ellen White was wrong? I have no idea regarding the specific situations she was addressing. She was a prophet, after all. But if she condemned ecstatic speech across the board, then, yes, according to 1 Corinthians 14, because the Bible does not condemn ecstatic speech--it places limits on it. If she was capable of error, we have to watch for it just like we have to watch everybody--you and me included.

Frankly there are more important things at hand. If we're going to talk about the legitimacy of tongues, perhaps we should ask for this to go to another thread?

Tongues or no tongues is not the issue at 3abn--it's whether other things are bringing a bad reputation to the message or not.

[inga]

If we can agree that Ellen White is subordinate to the Bible, I respectfully submit a passage from the writings of Paul:
This passage is a lot different from Acts 2; there, it's clear the tongues in question were foreign languages. This one, to me, is clearly ecstatic speech.

How so?

Try substituting "foreign language" for "tongue" and see if it doesn't make just as much sense as "ecstatic speech."

The gift of foreign languages was exclusively from God on the Day of Pentecost. By contrast, ecstatic speech was (and is) commonly practiced "among the Gentiles" -- i.e. among the pagans of Paul's world and our world.

By what logic do you arrive at the conclusion that in this particular passage the same expression that previously referred to foreign languages (Pentecost and several other experiences chronicled in the book of Acts) now refers to the same ecstatic speech practiced by the heathens around them and that this involuntary, unintelligible and unintelligent (i.e. without intelligent direction/communication) is a way of communicating with God?!

It makes absolutely no sense to me, but obviously you see things differently.

Is it possible that your interpretation of this passage is conditioned by the beliefs of those around you --i.e. charismatic Christians?

For eight years I worked shoulder to shoulder with charismatic Christians while teaching in a school sponsored by a charismatic church. They did believe in ecstatic speech, but some (my principal, in particular) were well aware that ecstatic speech was even more common in the occult than among Christians. Somehow some Adventists seem to be missing that understanding ...

If you take the plain meaning of the Bible, you come out with two things. One, speaking in unintelligible languages was a practice at the church in Corinth, and to Paul himself.

Hardly. If you take "the plain meaning of the Bible," comparing Scripture with Scripture, one can conclude that Paul likely spoke more foreign languages than anyone else in the church in Corinth. (That makes perfect sense because he traveled and spoke to many foreigners.) It also seems that some were likely "showing off" their language-speaking abilities, and this was causing disruption in the church.

It's from 1 Corinthians 14 that I figure, hey, speak in tongues if it gets you closer to Jesus--and do so at home so you don't disrupt the rest of us in church. If you can't speak in tongues, that has nothing to do with your salvation.

Sure, if you substitute the usual NT meaning of "tongues," [i.e. languages] I can agree with you. If I feel more comfortable praying in German, I should do so at home, because God understands me, but when I'm praying in my English-speaking church, I had better speak in English. If my English isn't very good, and I wish to speak in German, I should make sure I have an interpreter or keep quiet.

Makes perfectly good sense.

If in doubt, I figure it's safe to conclude that the most "sensible" meaning is the correct one. The Bible isn't nearly as difficult and abstruse as some folks would like to make it.

Does this mean I think Ellen White was wrong? I have no idea regarding the specific situations she was addressing. She was a prophet, after all. But if she condemned ecstatic speech across the board, then, yes, according to 1 Corinthians 14, because the Bible does not condemn ecstatic speech--it places limits on it.

I'm sorry, but I see it as a bit of a stretch to use your interpretation of this passage in Corinthians as a possible example Ellen White making a mistake!!

Granted, this passage doesn't prove that ecstatic speech is sinful, but neither does it prove that ecstatic speech was approved by Paul in the Corinthian church. At best (giving you the benefit of the doubt), the passage is ambiguous.

However, following the rule of earlier usage setting the pattern for later usage of the same terminology, this passage refers to irresponsible use of foreign languages -- perhaps languages supernaturally given through the Holy Spirit -- in the church at Corinth.

That the gift of languages should be supernaturally given in Corinth also makes a lot of sense, since Corinth was an international sea port and had a rather cosmopolitan population. In order to reach the local population made up of many ethnic groups speaking various languages, as well as travelers passing through, it was helpful for the believers to be able to speak a number of foreign languages. The precedents in the book of Acts indicate that every time the gift of tongues (i.e. foreign languages) was given, it was in a situation where it would enable the receivers to evangelize their neighbors.

That's always the way the Holy Spirit works: He empowers us to do the work that Christ gave us to do. By contrast, the "gift" of unintelligible utterances contributes nothing to the work Christ gave us to do. It contributes nothing to our relationship with Christ -- i.e. getting to know Him better. I understand that it does "feel good," but so does taking opium or morphine. That makes neither practice particularly Christian, nor is "feelling good" any evidence of being close to Christ. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, ecstatic speech is by no means a Christian practice, but common in all branches of the occult, as well as Eastern religions. (The ancient oracles at Delphi are some rather famous examples of "ecstatic tongues.")

As for me, I am firmly committed to forego the experience of having some other power take over my body and my vocal chords -- especially since I know that the most abundant examples are of unfriendly powers doing this very thing.

(Note: I am not saying that ecstatic speech is the same as devil possession. though it can be and sometimes is. The examples of ecstatic speech that I have witnessed among Christians can be explained by the power of suggestion and/or hysteria. It is quite possible to get used to "letting go" of conscious control of one's vocal chords and uttering repetitious syllables in the pattern typical of one's usual language -- which is exactly what ecstatic speech sounds like. I.e. If you listen closely, the "speech" contains a limited number of sound combinations/syllables repeated apparently at random. Speakers from different language backgrounds will have different ecstatic speech patterns -- i.e. their "lanugage of God" (as some claim ecstatic speech to be) sounds different than the "language of God" from another language background. Go figure!

This post has been edited by inga: Sep 28 2006, 01:38 AM

[SoulEspresso]

Hi There, Inga.

Let me back up a bit. What I'm about to say isn't original, but I found for me it provided a "handle and carrying case" to different ways of looking at the Bible. Now, these are the ideas that provide a backdrop for my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14. If you know this stuff already, I beg your pardon--maybe someone else here will find it helpful.

There are three ways of arriving at belief using the Bible. There is
1) exegesis
2) biblical theology, and
3) systematic theology.

Exegesis is attempting to understand, to the best of our ability, what a Bible writer is saying in a given text, in this case, of course, 1 Corinthians 14. My question to the text was, "What was Paul referring to by the word 'tongues' in this passage?" To do exegesis, you study the words, the passage of the book, and how it fits into that book--but no farther out. You might also do word studies, historical studies, and so forth.

Biblical theology is asking, "What did Paul (or Jesus, or John, or whoever) believe about a given subject?" This examines all the passages from a particular writer to draw out themes. I didn't do this, in this case, because it wasn't my purpose.

Most of us (Adventists I mean) are used to living and working in the realm of systematic theology. This attempts to harmonize not just individual passages or the thoughts of individual Bible writers, but the whole of Scripture, and apply them to our lives today. This aspect is absolutely necessary because without it, we don't have anything practical for the Bible. The teacher who gave me these different approaches used the example, "Should a Christian smoke?" as an example of a question for systematic theology. The Bible doesn't address the issue--but it does tell us to take care of our bodies, so the answer to that particular question is "No."

Since most of the time we live in the third approach, the systematic approach, we have a tendency to gloss over issues in the Bible that don't fit in with what we believe. This isn't an indictment; it's a reality. Nobody likes tension, least of all when various Bible texts seem to be saying opposite things (Romans 4:4-5 vs James 2:16-18) but instead of living with the tension, we deny it.

What's worse is that instead of starting with exegesis, moving through biblical theology to systematic (present-day) theology, we start with what we think we know now, and use that to do exegesis. This isn't an accusation, either. Every one of us has to fight this temptation. What we ought to do, is study the individual texts thoroughly before succumbing to systematization.

If we assume we know what the Bible means before we read it , we're not likely to learn anything new. I say that about myself as much as you, Inga, or anyone.

*deep breath* So ... when it comes to tongues, we have traditionally extrapolated the obvious use of the word "tongues" to mean "languages" as in the book of Acts, as you rightly noted, and (IMHO) applied them to 1 Corinthians 14. Which brings us to the present, where you said this:

Try substituting "foreign language" for "tongue" and see if it doesn't make just as much sense as "ecstatic speech."

Cool. Let's try this. (I'll do this with the best examples, because this post is already really long.)

1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a foreign language does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

This is makes the text nonsensical. You have a completely different experience from Acts.

Acts 2:6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
7 Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?
8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?

I don't know if you see the contrast, but to me it's day and night. 1 Corinthians 14:2 says, nobody but God understands a person speaking in tongues. Acts 2, gift of tongues, has people from all over the world understanding the tongues.

1 Corinthians 14: 4 He who speaks in a foreign language edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

This doesn't make sense either--if a person is speaking a foreign language, he must be giving greeting or information to someone who speaks that language. It's one person to another. But here, Paul expects someone speaking in "tongues" to be speaking only to herself, or himself. I mean, pot sa te scriu in alta limba, dar nu intelegi nimic si am facut nimic pentru ti. I just "typed" in "tongues" but since you didn't understand me, you weren't edified, and frankly I wasn't either.

(To follow verse 13, here's what I wrote: "I can write you in another language, but you don't understand anything so I've done nothing for you.")

9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your foreign language, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.

This doesn't work either--foreign languages are understood by some people. The assumption here is that no one understands.

14 For if I pray in a foreign language, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

I have prayed in a foreign language, and I found it very tough because my grasp of the language was (and is) quite minimal. My mind was working hard--it was a way of establishing a last bit of common ground with the people I had been working with. Or perhaps, I was attempting to "cement" the work I'd done with them. In other words, praying in a foreign language, for me, that time, was a kind of witnessing.

19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a foreign language.

Well, if the person you're talking to speaks another language, you'll have to get it translated if you want to instruct them... and in that case the words will be intelligible. Are foreign languages inherently unintelligible? No--they're just unintelligible to us if we haven't learned them.

You yourself noted,

If you listen closely, the "speech" contains a limited number of sound combinations/syllables repeated apparently at random. Speakers from different language backgrounds will have different ecstatic speech patterns -- i.e. their "lanugage of God" (as some claim ecstatic speech to be) sounds different than the "language of God" from another language background.

Linguists have studied glossolalia and have found exactly this. It has no structure or pattern, from person to person at the least, that they can recognize. In other words, it is nonsense--except that those who practice it, do so to get into a mode of spiritual receptivity. In other words, the ecstatic words don't symbolize ideas or cognition; they symbolize that Christian's desire to be with God in the present moment.

The gift of foreign languages was exclusively from God on the Day of Pentecost. By contrast, ecstatic speech was (and is) commonly practiced "among the Gentiles" -- i.e. among the pagans of Paul's world and our world.

Regarding the second half of this statement, I noted this in an earlier post. Followers of other religions also pray and meditate, and for many of them, study their holy writings. Should we, then, give those practices up?

I went back just now to look at Acts 2, and I realized Peter interprets the situation not so much as the gift of tongues but as the gift of prophecy. See v16 and following.

By what logic do you arrive at the conclusion that in this particular passage the same expression that previously referred to foreign languages (... chronicled in the book of Acts) now refers to the same ecstatic speech practiced by the heathens around them and that this involuntary, unintelligible and unintelligent (i.e. without intelligent direction/communication) is a way of communicating with God?!

Different Bible writers, for that matter different passages by the same writer, use the same words to mean different things. I didn't realize this for a long time. The Bible is God's Word, but it was written by human beings who got to choose the words to express that message.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Sep 28 2006, 05:24 PM

[SoulEspresso]

Is it possible that your interpretation of this passage is conditioned by the beliefs of those around you --i.e. charismatic Christians?

For eight years I worked shoulder to shoulder with charismatic Christians while teaching in a school sponsored by a charismatic church. They did believe in ecstatic speech, but some (my principal, in particular) were well aware that ecstatic speech was even more common in the occult than among Christians. Somehow some Adventists seem to be missing that understanding ...

I can assure you that you have much more exposure to charismatic Christians speaking in tongues than I have. I know a few, casually. My point is that, in my opinion, it's obvious the Bible uses the word "tongues" in different places for both "foreign languages" and "ecstatic speech."

My larger point is to get Adventists to quit kicking other Christians for practices we consider strange--and I'm definitely not accusing you of this, Inga. I'm just afraid people will read these posts and get the impression that we think we're superior to charismatics.

Personally, I admire their fervor. But I'm with Paul--speaking in tongues really isn't all that helpful for the larger body of Christ, and as far as I'm concerned, it belongs in a person's individual devotional time and nowhere else.

I'm sure it would creep me out if I actually saw it.

If you take "the plain meaning of the Bible," comparing Scripture with Scripture, one can conclude that Paul likely spoke more foreign languages than anyone else in the church in Corinth. (That makes perfect sense because he traveled and spoke to many foreigners.) It also seems that some were likely "showing off" their language-speaking abilities, and this was causing disruption in the church.

Maybe you've spent time in churches where two or three languages were broadly spoken by most of the congregation, so maybe your experience is different from mine. But when I was in them, regularly, I can assure you I never saw something like this. If languages was a common gift in Corinth, there would be no way to show off without being obviously and pointlessly ostentatious.

If in doubt, I figure it's safe to conclude that the most "sensible" meaning is the correct one. The Bible isn't nearly as difficult and abstruse as some folks would like to make it.

The main message of the Bible is plain, but if you want to get into the details, it's a lot more abstruse than we want to admit. If it weren't, why should we study it? (By the way, I love it that you used the word "abstruse." I'm "into" unusual words.)

I'm sorry, but I see it as a bit of a stretch to use your interpretation of this passage in Corinthians as a possible example of Ellen White making a mistake!! Granted, this passage doesn't prove that ecstatic speech is sinful, but neither does it prove that ecstatic speech was approved by Paul in the Corinthian church. At best (giving you the benefit of the doubt), the passage is ambiguous.

I do appreciate the benefit of the doubt. I'm taking what is, to me, the obvious meaning of this particular text: Paul was ambiguous on ecstatic speech and discouraged its public use. I don't know whether EGW made a mistake or not; I've seen other mistakes she made, so another one doesn't freak me out. I still believe in her as a prophet.

Blessings,
SoulEspresso

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Sep 28 2006, 05:25 PM

[PeacefulBe]

There are three ways of arriving at belief using the Bible. There is
1) exegesis
2) biblical theology, and
3) systematic theology.

SoulEspresso, that was an awesome study. I really appreciate your presentation and the graceful way you stated and supported your difference of opinion on the subject.

[Clay]

there are a couple of approaches that have been left out.....

Eisegesis:

Eisegesis is the approach to Bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to "force" the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine. People who interpret the Bible this way are usually not willing to let the Bible speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may. They set off with the up-front goal of trying to prove a point they already believe in, and everything they read and interpret is filtered through that paradigm. Stated another way, they engage in what the Bible refers to as "private interpretation".

http://www.creationists.org/eisegesis.html

and Proof-text:

But first let me define what I mean by proof-texting. By proof-texting I mean the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances. I do not include the use of texts for illustration or the use of texts which are properly taken in context and limited appropriately in what one tries to prove from them. In particular, I'm referring to the creation of entire doctrines which one demands that others believe or commands which one then demands that others obey, taken from a tissue of the words of texts but ignoring the meaning of those texts in their original contexts.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14435.htm

[inga]

Hi Espresso


Like I said earlier, the passage is not necessarily clear on its own (i.e. as in "exegesis"), but in the context of other passages (comparing Scripture with Scripture), ecstatic speech is not the most likely meaning. ...

If we assume we know what the Bible means before we read it , we're not likely to learn anything new.

Indeed. Furthermore, I see the primary purpose of Scripture as a means of getting better acquainted with God, His character and His purpose for us. Thus the purpose is not so much a matter of learning "facts" as it is in building relationship.

1 Corinthians 14:2 says, nobody but God understands a person speaking in tongues. Acts 2, gift of tongues, has people from all over the world understanding the tongues.

The accunt in Acts was of folks coming from all parts of the world on the day of Pentecost. So people with various native languages were all listening to the apostles preaching .. probably outdoors.

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is addressing the practice of a particular congregation. It is possible and even likely that those in the congregation spoke the same language. Thus someone speaking in a language foreign to the rest of the congregation would be speaking only to God.

Note that I'm not saying that this is the interpretation, but that it is a possible interpretation, since Paul is addressing the folks directly and thus doesn't describe the local situation which we have to infer.

"1 Corinthians 14: 4 He who speaks in a foreign language edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church."
This doesn't make sense either--if a person is speaking a foreign language, he must be giving greeting or information to someone who speaks that language. It's one person to another. But here, Paul expects someone speaking in "tongues" to be speaking only to herself, or himself. I mean, pot sa te scriu in alta limba, dar nu intelegi nimic si am facut nimic pentru ti. I just "typed" in "tongues" but since you didn't understand me, you weren't edified, and frankly I wasn't either.

It does make sense if we assume that the Corinthians -- who seem to have been a bit of a wild lot -- were speaking up in languages unknown to others in the congregation. Sure, it's not a smart thing to do, but then ecstatic speech isn't such a smart thing to do either in that situation. (Those charismatics I've known who do speak in "tongues" firmly believe that their "spirit" is communing with God during that time. They do not see the practice as "ecstatic speech." Some believe they're speaking the language of heaven. I have no reason to condemn these folks. They were sincere Christians whose lives testified that they had been with Jesus. However, from what I know of what can happen when we voluntarily give up conscious control of our minds -- as in glossolalia, hypnotism, Eastern meditation and even rock concerts when participants just "go with the flow"/empty their minds instead of keeping their judgment alive -- this is an open invitation for "outside entities" to influence our minds. I do believe that the Lord protects misguided Christians who do this in the mistaken notion that they are exercising a "gift of the Spirit.")

"9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your foreign language, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air."
This doesn't work either--foreign languages are understood by some people. The assumption here is that no one understands.

Again, that depends on our assumption. If we understand these "tongues" to be foreign to the rest of the congregation, it is gibberish to them and not intelligible. (Just demonstrating that there is a perfectly reasonable alternative reading to yours. It is not as cut and dried as you implied in your original post.)

I have prayed in a foreign language, and I found it very tough because my grasp of the language was (and is) quite minimal. My mind was working hard--it was a way of establishing a last bit of common ground with the people I had been working with. Or perhaps, I was attempting to "cement" the work I'd done with them. In other words, praying in a foreign language, for me, that time, was a kind of witnessing.

Understood. But my mother could likely pray in a language that is foreign to you (total gibberish), and she would be talking to God, but you wouldn't be edified. I see it likely that Paul was addressing that sort of practice in Corinth. Unfortunately, when I visit my daughter-in-law's family, they're all talking gibberish!!

Well, if the person you're talking to speaks another language, you'll have to get it translated if you want to instruct them... and in that case the words will be intelligible. Are foreign languages inherently unintelligible? No--they're just unintelligible to us if we haven't learned them.

You are here assuming that Paul is making pronouncements about foreign languages in general. In fact, he was addressing a situation in a particular local congregation. In that case it makes perfect sense. A language unfamiliar to the listener is unintelligible, as you note. Paul didn't say that tongues were "inherently unintelligible."

Linguists have studied glossolalia and have found exactly this. It has no structure or pattern, from person to person at the least, that they can recognize. In other words, it is nonsense--except that those who practice it, do so to get into a mode of spiritual receptivity. In other words, the ecstatic words don't symbolize ideas or cognition; they symbolize that Christian's desire to be with God in the present moment.

Indeed, it is for the purpose of experiencing a certain feeling. Now, I wouldn't want to go on record for saying that feelings are unimportant (but that's another subject), but there is no biblical precedent for getting close to God/into a mode of spiritual receptivity in this manner. The biblical model is to pray to God as one would speak to someone face to face. Basing the practice of glossolalia/ecstatic speech on such slim evidence is not a wise move, IMO.

Regarding the second half of this statement, I noted this in an earlier post. Followers of other religions also pray and meditate, and for many of them, study their holy writings. Should we, then, give those practices up?

The difference is that praying and meditating in purposeful fashion (in sharp contrast to Eastern meditation and mystical experiences) and studying of Scripture are recommended in the Bible. Ecstatic speech is not, even if we choose to believe that this is what was happening in this instance. (To tell the truth, I used to think like you on this matter, but I have changed my mind on the basis of reaons I present here.)

I went back just now to look at Acts 2, and I realized Peter interprets the situation not so much as the gift of tongues but as the gift of prophecy. See v16 and following.
Different Bible writers, for that matter different passages by the same writer, use the same words to mean different things. I didn't realize this for a long time. The Bible is God's Word, but it was written by human beings who got to choose the words to express that message.

Indeed.

[Green Cochoa]

Alright, no "proof texts" but I'd like to submit one for contemplation, and then a few questions to consider:

"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Matthew 6:7

1. What would you think, if you were God, to hear a stream of non-sense gibberish?

2. Would you like it, if/because it had no repetition?

3. What do you think God understands from such "talk"? Do you presume to believe that an apparently random utterance contains an un-random message?

4. If God does not like repetition, because He is an intelligent being who is insulted by hearing the same thing over and over again, how would He view random utterance?

[västergötland]

I have been told that one who speaks in the unknow tounges in prayer communicates with God in pictures rather than in words.

And we have all heard that one picture tells a thousand words

[SoulEspresso]

Alright, no "proof texts" but I'd like to submit one for contemplation, and then a few questions to consider:
1. What would you think, if you were God, to hear a stream of non-sense gibberish?

2. Would you like it, if/because it had no repetition?

3. What do you think God understands from such "talk"? Do you presume to believe that an apparently random utterance contains an un-random message?

4. If God does not like repetition, because He is an intelligent being who is insulted by hearing the same thing over and over again, how would He view random utterance?

Well, how about this ... God is farther above us than we are above ants or amoebas.

"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9

Our words, in comparison with God's thoughts, are only a step above gibberish anyway. I think God loves us enough that presenting ourselves before Him in any fashion, it pleases Him.

All words are symbols. The word "frog" is not a four-legged amphibian who ribbits, but the sound you make when you say "frog" refers to that creature. When I pray, "Father in heaven," I address the words that follow to the Infinite Personality who loves me infinitely--Someone Who woud be completely beyond me if He didn't stoop to hear my prayers.

The words I say during my prayer signify other things--things I desire, mostly and unfortunately , sometimes gratitude. Sometimes the sounds I make with my mouth refer to actions and activities, events during the day, or ones yet to come.

Those sounds, coming out of my mouth when I pray, would not have meaning except as assigned by the consensus of English speakers in 2006.

The gibberish that occurs in ecstatic speech does not have a a series of direct referents (assuming it isn't really a genuine language--I personally don't think it is). But I do think it has meaning: it's an expression of the desire which that charismatic Christian has to be in God's Presence. That's not a bad thing, is it?

Then there's this:

Matthew 22:37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'"

Turning off your brain doesn't glorify God. The way I understand the mental mechanics of glossolalia, you sort of have to do this.

I believe that God meets people where they are. Heaven help us if we have to be theologically correct, or correct in all our worship practices, before He'll have a relationship with us. I have no reason to question whether God meets charismatics during ecstatic speech; I know He does that sort of thing in other contexts. (Hey, He sent Nebuchadnezzar a dream of an idol, Neb's own religious symbol, to convey the importance of what He was going to reveal. )

Biblically speaking (okay, in my interpretation), glossolalia is not helpful for the larger church, and it's the community that matters more than the individual. Inga and I may never come to a consensus on the referents of 1 Corinthians 14, but that doesn't matter unless it begins to affect the body of Christ negatively.

Actually, Green, I did try repetitive praying once based on what I explained here--the repetitive prayer as symbol of my desire for God. I can't guarantee it was God's voice, but I received this impression: "Can't we just talk like we used to?"

[västergötland]

What I have seen and been told about tounge prayer around the church, it doesnt seem to turn off the brain. As I was told, it was some kind of picture communication, and the one praying was at the recieving end aswell as giving.

[Richard Sherwin]

As a child living up in the Southern Appalachian Mountains I remember a church service held at the local nursing home one Sunday. The preacher started his sermon preaching in a normal voice but then his words started to not make any sense and pretty soon were just meaningless sounds, before long audience members started to stand up, almost dancing, and make those same type of noises. I don't know how to describe what I felt and saw, but suffice to say it was as if a cold darkness descended over the service, a chill of some sort. Even though I'd never been warned about such a thing I knew instinctively that their "speaking in tongues" was very evil, like some sort of possession. Those people were in a trance of some sort, they had no idea what they were saying and when it was over they were totally exhausted and had no remembrance of what had taken place. It's a memory I had pretty much suppressed but on occasion I'm reminded of it. It made quite an impression on this 12 or 13 year old kid.

Richard

[SoulEspresso]

I don't know how to describe what I felt and saw, but suffice to say it was as if a cold darkness descended over the service, a chill of some sort. Even though I'd never been warned about such a thing I knew instinctively that their "speaking in tongues" was very evil, like some sort of possession. Those people were in a trance of some sort, they had no idea what they were saying and when it was over they were totally exhausted and had no remembrance of what had taken place. It's a memory I had pretty much suppressed but on occasion I'm reminded of it. It made quite an impression on this 12 or 13 year old kid.

I've argued here that glossolalia might be okay under certain circumstances.

It's also been noted here by others (rightly) that it occurs more in occult religions than in Christianity.

It would really concern me were I to witness this, but that's more because of the cold descending at the same time. People in the presence of evil spirits describe temperature drops like that.

I'm a bit at a loss, honestly, because I totally take what you're saying seriously. It just doesn't square with what I'm used to thinking about churches in general. It would seem to me like you'd have to have a critical mass of people in the congregation who have inwardly turned over to a spirit they know is not from God ...

Has anyone else had experiences like this? I stand by what I was saying about 1 Cor 14, on its own grounds, and I know I'll never convince saharafan and inga (which is okay, we're still in Christ together) ... but I for one want to hear other perspectives on this. I'd ask Richard to elaborate on this but It sounds like he'd rather not and I don't blame him.

SE