News-Record.com

Several years ago, I saw groups of young people, mostly, swooning and pressuring their contemporaries to "fall in the spirit" as many broke into so-called "glossolalia". I was there with a hippie-raised young lady, whom I was dating. She joined right in.

It was not meant to work out, I guess.

I pulled out a script by Beckett (I had to study for a role). She was not amused. Each to their own absurdity.

what FN calls absurdity, others would call a gift. pauls teachings on speaking in tongues in the church are quite clear. and just like the carnal corinthian church who were so caught up in speaking in tongues that in their zeal they forgot that God was not being glorified in their effort nor were non believers able to discern what you said . today far too many people are overzealous of speaking in tongues and seem to make it an end all to ones spiritual growth or a sign they have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. it's really fairly simple, in church unless there is one to interpret a tongue then is should be refrained. if while in your prayer closet you wish to speak with God in an unknown tongue then by all means allow yourself the priviledge of praising God through tongues. there is a much more excellent gift that each of us should strive toward and the gift giver is the Holy Spirit, it is solely His choice to whom He choose to bestow the gift(s). grow up church and move on to more important issues...such as feeding the poor, ministering to widows or how about being a witness to a lost and dying world....now those are efforts which will gain you a crown and honor God in Heaven, Amen !

As any of us who have striven hard to learn other languages can attest, if a native speaker isn't handy to not just translate, but re-phrase, there's a lot lost in translation. The instance of which I spoke definitely had no native speakers handy. My guess is there are almost never any present. The so-called interpreters are likely not fluent in the supposed ancient languages purportedly spoken. It's more unconscious charlatanry, passed off via the minds of those who are so fervently caught up in the emotional moment they are irrational.

Having been a charismatic tongues-speaker as part of the charismatic movement for several years in the seventies, I think I can address this issue with at least some degree of direct, firsthand experience to draw from.

After leaving the “movement” about 1979 and years of theological study at two seminaries, I am of the opinion that the Pentecostal/ charismatic phenomenon is a wrong turn in the history of the Church. It is based on an erroneous interpretation of the relevant passages in Acts and I Corinthians 14. I believe most assuredly that real supernaturally-produced languages were spoken during the apostolic era, but that they were withdrawn by God when their purpose was fulfilled. That purpose was as a witness to Israel (I Cor. 14: 21 & 22) and to edify the Church through prophesying (tongues MUST be interpreted as prophesy, which is actually teaching of doctrine. (I Cor. 14: 2 – 5). All attempts to “resurrect” tongues historically have proven to be very negative: Montanists, Irvingites and, now, modern tongues-speaking sects.

Today’s tongues-speaking is not the legitimate miracle of the 1st century; it is essentially emotionalism. I won’t go into detail, but I have done a lot of reading and study on the matter, as well as having had tons of personal experience and observation. Most often, the speakers are true, born-anew Christians and do become more sensitive and expectant regarding the Holy Spirit – something much needed badly in most staid churchy situations. Unfortunately, the adrenalin of emotional tongues expressions becomes addictive, and demands more and more extravagant displays to satisfy. It also becomes a substitute for expository preaching and Bible study in many situations. At its worst, it often leads to false teachings and demonic involvement.

Some Charismatics and Pentecostals have seen the negative trends of this dynamic and have opted for a greater emphasis on Bible study; even to the point, as has been noted recently, of not even speaking much at all in tongues. But the movement itself subverts intelligent interpretation and majors on the extravagant, excessive and miraculous. The spiritually vapid displays on TV and elsewhere are indeed an embarrassment to the Faith and are generally counterproductive in the end.

This is not to say that the movement hasn’t produced some good things as well. But it is generally good to stay away from it and not be convinced and pressured into actual tongues-speaking. The movement has, however, brought a much-needed awareness of the work of the Holy Spirit and of the need for the anointing of the Spirit in all facets of life and ministry.

I have tried to be more accepting toward it over the years; especially in contrast to dry, faithless “churchianity,” but have not been able to do so. However, my current position is that I earnestly desire the unction and power of the Holy Spirit in both life and ministry; and can’t conceive of doing anything without it. But I do not accept the charismatic theology of the Baptism of the H. S. with speaking in tongues, but do believe that the filling of the Spirit is vital to a dynamic and productive Christian life and witness. The filling is made possible by the new birth, Holy Baptism, full-orbed Bible teaching, a passion for worship and loving fellowship. And I do very much love all my charismatic brothers and sisters, even if we don’t see eye to eye on some points.

" And I do very much love all my charismatic brothers and sisters, even if we don’t see eye to eye on some points. "....................

nikos,
spoken as a true brother in Christ. i certainly will neither defend my believe nor rebutt yours concerning this matter, i will however state emphatically that it is small potatoes to me, i want to press on to spiritual growth and fulfillment and it is with fellow Christians such as yourself where that can become a reality. even paul and barnabus did not always see eye to eye, but they never resorted to personal attacks, yet rather showed a united stand for the risen Christ.thanks so much for a 'first hand' glimpse into your personal experience with this issue and thanks for allowing us the glimpse.

Buz, I am afraid your sycophantic swooning over Nikos doe snot speak well for your own arguments. It also paints an unflattering image of Nikos in a weird reverse of an ad hominem attack: call it "The Overlaud".

Freddy, I thought your reply to Buz was un-called-for. Don't accuse him of ad hominem while you are doing so yourself. You offered no substantive insights or critique, only silly personal attack. He was only expressing his commitment to Christain unity, dispite differences on specific issues. Do you have nything to offer beyond such useless put-downs.

Previous comments seem to miss the point when it comes to tongues speaking. The primary purpose (contra Nikos) of tongues speaking is to speak to God 1 Cor 14.2. There is no biblical evidence (nor any from church history for that matter) that says that tongues speaking was withdrawn. Do not men need to speak to God? Aren't we commanded in scripture to seek earnestly the gifts? To "forbid not" tongues speaking?

This 'wrong turn for church history' has demonstrated the single largest outpouring of the Lords spirit in the history of the church. The movement has problems- true. But don't the cessationists too? Emotionalism - regardless of the denominational affiliation is a problem.

But Jesus was clear- do no ministry until endued with power from above (Acts 1). So if you are unclear- you should seek God for the answer. It will be an experience- it will be emotional- but if it is truly the power of the HS then it will be life changing

Nikos, would you prefer buz fill his posts with continuous patter about your wondrous intellect and deep piety? Does that further discussion?