??? I would like to know a word that means "excessive or constant talking". It could be a clinical term for a mental health condition but I think it has the same root as the word glossary or the word that means "speaking in tongues".
Katy has come through for you there.
Seeing as you asked a question about glossalalia on the feast of Pentecost (Shavuot), the original Greek of the Acts of the Apostles describes glôssai hôssai pyros on the disciples - literally, fire-like tongues. Then it says kai êrxanto lalein heterais glôssais, or "And they began to speak in other tongues".
What an apt question for today!
Have fun in the Agora, Deb.
You’ll find more fundamentalists, especially Pentecostals, speaking in tongues than you will, say, Anglicans or Catholics—although there are quite a number of Anglicans and Catholics that do.
And if I’m not mistaken, Baptists are reluctant to acknowledge it being directly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as talking in tongues may be influenced by denomic, satanic, entities.
But I would not classify talking in tongues as being excessive talking. That, to me, is just endless chatter.
The Pentecostal movement’s name is inspired by the Jewish/Christian festival of Pentecost - celebrated by Christians as the day on which God sent the Holy Spirit on the apostles. The traditional beginning of modern Pentecostalism (a radical reaffirmation of the place of the Holy Spirit in Christian life) is said to be in 1906 in an Azusa Street church, Los Angeles, USA.
The adoption of some Pentecostalist doctrine by other churches was called Charismatic Renewal. The word charismatic is directly related to charisma and charisms - the Greek word for ‘gift’. In chapter 12 of Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (just before the love poem of chapter 13) there is a discussion about charisms, or spiritual gifts. Verse four reads, diaireseis de charismatôn eisi, to de auto pneuma - "There are varieties of gifts, but the same spirit". Paul lists some spiritual gifts that the church in Corinth is experiencing, including: heterô de genê glôssôn, allô de hermênia glôssôn - "To another [is given] kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues". There is no indication what is meant by ‘tongues’ apart from being the gift of being able to speak in different languages. It is important to read these texts in context because Paul warns the church in Corinth that they are overly interested in charisms and have neglected love. I think I know some religious people and some dabblers who are so interested in mystical stuff that they don’t see what’s really important.
During the singing of our next hymn, an offering will be collected for the repair of the roof of the Agora.
Generally, glossolalia occurs in congregations where it is expected or encouraged. After years and years of Roman- and Anglo-Catholicism, I have never personally observed this at mass, regardless of the fervor of the congregation. Nor has it been reported by friends in any mainstream Christian denomination, or in alternative religions. I can’t rule it out, but this subjective evidence leaves me with a strong degree of skepticism.
On the other hand, I have seen documentaries of various group ecstatic experiences. Perhaps we have more say in which spiritual gifts we "receive" than is normally thought.
Garzo
During the singing of our next hymn, an offering will be collected for the repair of the roof of the Agora.
How about a nice gargoyle to alleviate future rain damage.
baldachin
Great word, Garzo! I think it would go in the apse, behind the rood screen (if the agora has one, which I doubt).
Katy: I didn’t mean to imply that it is a freak show! I’m just saying that if any of us had uttered glossolalia during daily mass at Blessed Sacrament Grade School, the Holy Spirit would have had to show up in person, with a note from God the Father, to spare us from the wrath of the Dominican principal. And that’s only partially a joke.
I believe that this phenomenon tends to occur where it is, no judgement implied, accepted. I have read reports from young people in my diocese who attended events which are focused on "being slain in the spirit" (another term I find very difficult). Some of the younger, and in this case, probably more impressionable girls wrote breathless stream-of-consciousness reports about how NEAT it was. Others wrote about being frightened by seeing kids next to them erupt in ecstatic behaviour. If this had been a common experience at home, they might have felt less anxiety. A few admitted, anonymously, to faking it due to the peer pressure that failure to participate indicated a lack of divine approval. I think all this ties into Garzo’s post:
It is important to read these texts in context because Paul warns the church in Corinth that they are overly interested in charisms and have neglected love. I think I know some religious people and some dabblers who are so interested in mystical stuff that they don’t see what’s really important.
If this is something you’ve experienced and find meaning and/or comfort in, that’s great.
gailr
Two of my daughters are Pentecostalists, one of whom is a youth pastor along with her husband.
In her church it is during worship time that many speak in tongues, and a few parishioners interpret them also.
I have never seen a service where tongues interrupted—or disrupted—it.
In the Anglican Church, tongues would not be heard during a Sunday service. They would, however, be heard during a healing service by intercessors at the altar along with the laying on of hands.
Katy is correct when she says that control over tongues is completely voluntary. At all times it is under the power of the speaker to begin, to stop, or to delay the process.
I can attest to this because both my daughters and I, an Anglican, speak in tongues.
The more one uses tongues, the more one becomes proficient in it. And tongues can change distinctly, too, under utterance, from one unknown language to another.
Some who speak in tongues can also interpret them, perhaps not word for word, but they will have an undestanding of what they are feeling or sensing or praying about.
I just thought that some Agorans would like to know this little info concerning tongues.
One of the most interesting studies I’ve read is Yves Congar’s I Believe in the Holy Spirit. The book comes in three volumes, so it’s not a light read. Congar was a Dominican theologian, and his book is written from a very clear Catholic standpoint, but it is also quite critical of the church.
I think it’s in the appendix that Congar talks of the de facto elimination of the Holy Spirit from the life and doctrine of the church. He cites three major areas where this can be seen. Firstly in sacraments, the belief that the sacraments of the church are ex opere operato (they do exactly what it says on the tin) means that the Holy Spirit becomes unnecessary for grace. Secondly the saints, if saints are effective go-betweens for prayer we do not need the Holy Spirit interceding for us. Thirdly the hierarchy, if the hierarchy is infallible ex cathedra then the guidance of the Holy Spirit is limited.
Yves Congar’s book was a wake-up call to the Catholic church to take seriously the doctrinal stance of charismatics. In many ways it is fundamentalists who need to have everything clear-cut and inerrently defined. Charismatics and Pentacostalists do support a certain theological liberalisation. However, the emphasis on my gifts can lead to my authority.
The theology of the Holy Spirit is pneumatology, if you will.
Generally, glossolalia occurs in congregations where it is expected or encouraged.
When I was a teenager, there was an Episcopal parish not too far from ours. Our ecumenical youth group took a field trip to the Wednesday night charismatic service. I was truly and utterly shocked, as were many of the diverse group.
There were two or three people speaking in tongues at the same time and about the same amount of interpreters. It seemed more chaotic than charismatic.
A few of us later made an unofficial field trip to a true Pentecostal Church. It was a bit less organized than the Episcopal service had been, with more people speaking than were translating.
At both places we were encouraged to give it a try, but the Pentecostals viewed it as an essential part of faith and a "sign" of being saved. I do not agree with the those Pentecostals that feel that way!
The only "sign" of the "new creature" is the fruit of their works that their new found love and freedom brings out to those around them.
I agree here with Garzo " the emphasis on my gifts can lead to my authority."
And I am skeptical with gailr, but I do not condemn the practice either.
I guess in the simplest way to view it, speaking in tongues may free people from the burden of having to think up what exactly to say to God, and, in an extra-linguistic, way convey their thoughts and emotions, much like the "oh’s," "wo’s," "la’s," "da’s," etc. are used in songs to express some things that are beyond words.
McKenzie:
Some who speak in tongues can also interpret them, perhaps not word for word, but they will have an undestanding of what they are feeling or sensing or praying about.
To be frank, I am uncomfortable with it in a church service, but I see no harm in it for one’s devotionals, or for a gathering of like-minded believers, unless it is looked at as proof of one’s redemption or seen as a "special" closeness with God.
But was the speaking in tongues on the First Pentecost in the "tongues of angels" or was it in the "tongues of men?"
It seems clear that "each man heard in his own language."
1. Public tongues-speaking was to benefit and build up the body (v.26).
2. Only two or three were to speak in tongues in a service (vv.27, 30).
3. They were to speak in turn (vv.27, 30).
4. Tongues were to be spoken only when interpreted (vv.27, 28).
5. Discerning people were to weigh the message to determine its validity (v.29).
6. Women were not to speak in tongues (v.34).
7. Tongues were not to be forbidden but to be given a lower place than prophecy (v.39).
8. A proper and orderly atmosphere in church services was to be maintained (v.40).
If these rules were followed, the tongues-speaking, whether real or counterfeit, would no longer bring disruption to the church services.
