Posted on 10/19/2006 5:44:54 PM PDT by split
FORT WORTH, Texas - After a Baptist pastor said in a chapel service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that he sometimes speaks in tongues when he prays, seminary trustees adopted a resolution Tuesday that states the institution will not tolerate the promotion of the practice of speaking in tongues.
The resolution: "Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including private prayer language. Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices."
Speaking in tongues is described in the Bible as a spiritual gift from God that empowers humans to speak in other languages. But many contemporary theologians teach that the practice was distinctly for first-century Christians. However, in the past century, Pentecostal and charismatic Christians have contended that speaking in tongues should be practiced in today's churches.
Patterson said he has consistently maintained a different view.
"I have opposed (speaking in tongues) for all of these years because I think it's an erroneous interpretation of the Bible," he said. "Southern Baptists traditionally have stood against what we feel like are the excesses of the charismatic movement. All we're doing is restating where we've always been."
Baptists are "the most intense advocates of religious liberty," Patterson said, defending the right of other Christians to believe in speaking in tongues. "But don't wear a Yankee uniform when you play for the Mets."
"We interpret the Scriptures in such a way that we do not see room for a private prayer language and we're saying we will not waver on that," Redmond said.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
According to your logic then, we need to throw a LOT of our Christian practices out the window because they were in operation PRIOR to the WRITTEN WORD. Jesus died on the cross before the written word. As such, is salvation unnecessary today? He healed people before the written word. Is healing not relevant today?
I totally agree with you. I think it is the ability to speak in a foreign language. It started the Day od Pentecost.
I just have to say if you ever decide to venture back over to "our side:, you would make one heck of a great bible teacher. :o)
Um, because the bible says it is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS, let alone WHAT they are saying when they "speak in tongues"?
Maybe it's NOT for you to know.
Love is the basis of the Christian faith and the essence of true holiness and we don't have enough of that today to render the work of the Holy Spirit to stop. What we have is division and infighting.
I agree with you. Its plain as day what the gift of speaking in tongues was all about. It served a definite purpose back then. I think Pauls instructions to the church are basically don't preach in a foreign language unless you have someone to interpret.
I don't know ... just don't see it that way... to me it is the Spirit talking .... interceding ... not speaking through us... hmmm maybe I'm just too dang literal.. ;-)
NOT AT ALL. And I find the assertion rather brazenly assaultive and insulting to an extreme.
I'm against anything which vaunts itself against The Most High God. I'm against things which purport to malign or speak against the operations of Holy Spirit. I'm against ignorance about Holy Spirit's authentic operations in our era.
I now doubt I've read the book by Samarin but have scanned or read articles by him and certainly reviewed such literature extensively as part of my dissertation research into various Christian practices as consequences of various beliefs and networks. I have some quotes from some of his work which I appreciate and other comments in the last parts of this post.
Some of the insights and findings are interesting to a point. None of them are particularly edifying any more than the literature was at the time of my dissertation. None of the findings scratch the surface AGAINST the authenticity of what I have observed and experienced repeatedly.
The following Scriptures are much more edifying in terms of approaching such phenomena.
Acts 5:39
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
2 Corinthians 10:5
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
2 Corinthians 13:8
For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.
Galatians 5:17
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
In terms of the above Scriptures, praying in tongues and worshipping in tongues has brought me much closer to the full application of those Scriptures in my life. That's plenty sufficient, for me. But that's not the limit of the benefits of such a practice, as I've noted above in various posts.
The first excerpted quotes below are from:
Linguistic and Sociological Analyses of Modern Tongues-Speaking:
Their Contributions and Limitations
Vern S. Poythress
at:
net link here: http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1980Linguistic.htm
Answering this question is not as easy as one might think. Non-Christian religions,3 psychotics,4 and small children5 sometimes produce phenomena that might or might not be similar to “speaking in tongues.” As working definitions, I propose the following:
Free vocalization (glossolalia) occurs when (1) a human being produces a connected sequence of speech sounds, (2) he cannot identify the sound-sequence as belonging to any natural language that he already knows how to speak, (3) he cannot identify and give the meaning of words or morphemes (minimal lexical units),6 (4) in the case of utterances of more than a few syllables, he typically cannot repeat the same sound-sequence on demand, (5) a naive listener might suppose that it was an unknown language.
In this definition, features (1), (2), and (5) are the really essential features that we tend to associate with speaking in tongues (glossolalia). (3) and (4) are expected implications of (1) and (2).
Free vocalization still includes some infant speech and some phenomena outside the Christian religion. Hence it is a broader concept than what we usually call “speaking in tongues.” To exclude infants, I propose the following:
Competent free vocalization is free vocalization by a person who already knows at least one natural language reasonably well. I intend thereby to include normal children older than four or five, but not infants.
Christian free vocalization is free vocalization by a Christian. This is intended to exclude cases of “tongues” appearing among non-Christians.
Religious free vocalization is free vocalization for the purposes of public or private worship or in the context of worship, in cases when the speaker wishes to speak to a spirit, or wishes that the spirit would speak to others through him, or both. (In the case of Christian religious free vocalization, it is understood that the “spirit” in question is God.)
Finally, T-speech (tongues) is Christian religious competent free vocalization.
This proposed definition counts as T-speech only those instances which meet several intersecting criteria. T-speech must be “free,” and it must be by a Christian who is not an infant. Moreover, it must be used in the context of worship.
The advantage of this rather elaborate definition is that it does not demand from us an immediate decision as to whether T-speech in the modern church is from God, from the human psyche, from demons, or from some combination of these. Neither does it make any decision about the similarities or dissimilarities between T-speech and the “speaking in tongues” referred to in Acts and 1 Corinthians. Finally, it does not specify whether the speaker is in an altered state of consciousness (for example, trance). In fact, there are cases of T-speech both in trance and in otherwise completely normal state
The following is from:
1. Can the average person be taught to produce free vocalization?
Yes. Learning to free vocalize is easier than learning to ride a bicycle. As with the bicycle, the practitioner may feel foolish and awkward at first. But practice makes perfect. Moreover, though at first a person may feel self-conscious, after he has learned he may sometimes forget that he is doing it. It is something that he can start or stop at will without difficulty. 8
One easy way for a person to learn is to pretend that he is speaking a foreign language. He starts speaking, slowly and deliberately producing syllables. Then be speeds up, consciously trying to make it sound like a language would sound. Once he is doing well, he just relaxes and does not worry any longer about what comes out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[p. 371]
2. Is free vocalization likely to lead to a state of trance?
No, no more than reading a book. A person can become so engrossed in reading a book that he is oblivious to his surroundings.9 Technically speaking, this being-engrossed is an altered state of consciousness, as are day-dreaming, dozing, sleep-walking, and being drunk. Free vocalization is sometimes associated with such altered states of consciousness, but by itself it does not cause them.
3. Is there any psychological danger in free vocalization?
As far as we know, no more than in reading a book. Many people have been free-vocalizing for years with no ill effects. A person’s beliefs may lead to associating free vocalization with other practices that are questionable.
In short, it seems that the capacity for free vocalization is a normal, God-given human capacity. The person who was unable to do it would be unusual. We regard free vocalization as abnormal only because, in our modern Western cultural milieu, people usually cease to do it after childhood. Hence, in our society free vocalization among adults, as a socially “deviant” activity, may sometimes be a symptom (though certainly not the cause) of psychological or social abnormality.10 This accounts, I believe, for some of the early negative conclusions about “tongues” by psychologists. Their evaluations measured, not what free vocalization is in itself, but their own perception of social deviance involved in the phenomenon.11 But free vocalization is deviant only from the standpoint of the social norms of the majority, not from some absolute biological standpoint.
Now it is time to pay some attention to the question of how modern-T-speech (glossolalia with its specifically Christian associations) differs from other instances of free vocalization.
4. How does nonreligious free vocalization differ linguistically from T-speech?
Most of the time, we cannot distinguish the two linguistically. At least two experiments have shown this.12 In one, Al Carlson
(4) There should be a reasonably complete life history of the speaker, excluding the possibility that he was earlier in contact with the language.
The number of cases in which linguists have endeavored to obtain documentation is considerable. But of course it is far less than the total number of instances of T-speech. The truth is, then, that the possibility of T-speech in a nonrecalled foreign language can never be conclusively excluded by these methods. Moreover, it could be argued that the Holy Spirit is unlikely to work a miracle in controlled conditions for the convenience of the linguists, just as Jesus did not work a miracle in “controlled conditions” for the convenience of the Pharisaical seekers after signs (Mark 8:11–12).
The literature from the charismatic movement does report a number of cases of T-speech in nonrecalled foreign languages.18 But these cases do not display the completeness of documentation that linguists would like. In many cases the reports are vague and other explanations are possible. But in a few cases the evidence is difficult to evade. These cases will be rejected only by those whose theological or philosophical presuppositions require them to exclude such a possibility
Some of the subscribers noted that glossolalia had a simple primitive structure, and exhibited much repetition of individual sounds.
One commented that the words spoken within a given church tended to be similar, and unlike the sounds heard within in another congregation.
Another commented that his observations among American churchgoers showed that they "seem to latch onto and then repeat sounds that sound foreign to them, and intersperse the name 'Jesus' in between the sounds."
Still another said that: "there are two continental charismatic traditions - a French one concentrating on melodious spontaneous song and a German/English one concentrating on speech."
A subscriber stated that "Some years ago as an undergraduate, I memorized the first eleven lines to Beowulf. Occasionally I recited them to people (I still do). Once I recited them to a friend from Alabama, and she told me that if I did that back where she came from, folks would say I was speaking in tongues."
The moderator noted that the: "native language of the speaker was a pretty good predictor of the kinds of sounds that would occur in glossolalia; one general pattern was that sounds perceived as generally marking "foreign" speech (whatever that may mean) would occur, while sounds perceived as typical of the native language would not.
Thus, for American English speakers, /r/ would be rendered as the alveolar trill, never as the American retroflex; on the other hand, these speakers would not include the low front vowel in their glossolalia, /ae/-as-digraph, because that's perceived as a typically "American" sound for some reason. On the other hand, truly exotic sounds--those not typical of the native language, but that don't happen to be familiar to speakers of the language--would tend not to occur: American English speakers don't produce clicks in their glossolalia."
[QUIX's COMMENTS BELOW]:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Having studied such extensively in decades past, I'm not surprised by any of the more recent studies' findings.
None of the findings detract a microgram's worth from my convictions about nor from my experience of Holy Spirit via and/or associated with such practices.
I will note that my own tongues experience from a linguistic perspective (I have had at least one linguistics course and lived overseas extensively as well as amongst Hispanics and The Dine) my own experience of the sounds involved in my tongues experiences has varied quite considerably depending on unknown variables.
Regardless of the SOUNDS involved, the spiritual experiences during or associated with such have also been quite varied. THANKFULLY, ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN BIBLICAL AND POSITIVE. Some of them have been overtly supernatural.
All of them, per my conviction, have been supernatural in terms of Holy Spirit conveying content to God out of the depths of my Spirit.
None of the research findings can refute my experiences nor the experiences of 100's of other earnest Christians I've known and know across 3 continents.
I will note that in my experience, relatively few--perhaps 1-5% of the Charismatic, Pentecostal folks I've been associated with have been RELIABLY PRONE TO OPERATE CONSISTENTLY UNDER A HUMBLE, AUTHENTIC ANOINTING OF HOLY SPIRIT ROUTINELY, PURELY etc. It seems most all are not only looking through the glass darkly but similarly behaving less than perfectly.
This is sad, often, but not greatly surprising in terms of
1) all Christians not being yet perfected;
2) lots of poor teaching around;
3) it evidently not being God's priority yet to clean such stuff up better.
I fully expect such to change dramatically the closer we get to full blown END TIMES.
In my own life and in the lives of many I have known, obediently, humbly flowing along with Holy Spirit as best as one can manage . . . typically is privately a blessing in terms of one's prayer life as well as one's worship experiences. But, rarely all that super dramatic.
Interestingly, one often finds out after the fact, that someone was greatly touched as a side-effect. It is as though Holy Spirit is freest and operates most powerfully when the pride issue is taken out or side-stepped.
And, actually, I think that's a HUGE REASON that the sounds and practice of "tongues" exists--to neutralize pride to a significant degree.
Leave it to humans to take a phenomenon designed to neuter pride and use it as a vehicle of pride as is done in some circles rather dreadfully. Doesn't negate the authentic, however.
Given the paucity of consistently anointed discernment and other operations IN THE SPIRIT, I'm not at all surprised that many Charismatics/Pentecostals would foul up scientific studies of such. They are likely well meaning and not charlatans per se--just misguided or not particularly anointed for whatever personal reasons at the times involved.
And, as one or more researchers has noted--Holy Spirit is highly unlikely to cooperate on demand in ways that scientists would require. Not His style.
Anyway, FWIW.
Certainly I'm all for decently and in order.
The experiences you cite are gravely unfortunate.
They detract not a microgram's worth from the authentic.
Dreadful things occur in all groups and denominations.
INDEED! The burden of proof, imho, is upon naysayers against any Biblical anything.
It's not In Scripture to forbid. It's IN SCRIPTURE TO NOT forbid.
The rest is merely in EXTRAPOLATIONS, INFERRENCES, ASSUMPTIONS . . . of man.
INDEED!
I was in a service once where the leader--a home church--was instructing the congregation to ask God for the ability to interpret. And several spoke up and offered keywords they felt they were "getting" in their inner spirit from Holy Spirit. The keywords were in the ball park quite interestingly. There was some flavor of the believer's personality and perspective in some of them. I think we see the flavor of Paul's personality in even the Scriptures through him.
Yet, the different believers in that room at that time were all in the ball park of the same topic having been spoken about or conveyed to God in tongues.
I personally don't think that the sounds--MOST OF THE TIME--mean much at all IN THE NATURAL ON THIS PLAIN.
IT IS THE MEANING HOLY SPIRIT ATTACHES TO THE SOUNDS IN CONVEYING THE SPIRIT OF THE PERSON AND THEIR NEEDS AND CONCERNS TO THE FATHER, TO THE SON--THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING.
I think the sounds are a kind of vehicle to assist the individual to release themselves and their needs to Holy Spirit's intervention and assist at a deeper, more comprehensive level.
According to your logic then, we need to throw a LOT of our Christian practices out the window because they were in operation PRIOR to the WRITTEN WORD. Jesus died on the cross before the written word. As such, is salvation unnecessary today? He healed people before the written word. Is healing not relevant today?
= = = =
INDEED!
LOL.
Including throwing out knowledge . . . which would leave all of us jabbering utter nonsense in whatever language anyway! LOL.
ROTFLOL.
Please see my post above about my conjectures on such an issue.
PREACH IT BROTHER.
YUP.
Sadly.
Its plain as day
= = = =
Uhhhhh, NO! NOT!
It's as plain as
EXTRAPOLATIONS, INFERRENCES, CONJECTURES, ASSUMPTIONS . . . biases,
NOT plain Scripture! Plain Scripture is on Charismatic's and Penteocstal's side! LOL.
I don't know ... just don't see it that way... to me it is the Spirit talking .... interceding ... not speaking through us... hmmm maybe I'm just too dang literal.. ;-)
= = =
In my personal experience . . . There have been times when it seemed more like the one and times when it seemed more like the other.
Not sure it makes a huge degree of difference as long as Holy Spirit is conveying meaning to God from my inner spirit and person.
Thanks. I believe the gift of tongues is a miracle that requires not only a definite need but also a "witness" to testify that the speaker is indeed making sense and conveying a gospel message which a listener can't otherwise receive. The Lord is not a being of confusion, gibberish or unnecessary showmanship. That is the standard by which I evaluate a claim of speaking in tongues.
***Dreadful things occur in all groups and denominations.***
And we haven't mentioned those who have taken the "signs" and tongues on into snake handling.
Call me cautious on anything not "normal".
" The bible tells us that to speak in such a "prayer language" is edifying the spirit. "
_________________________________
I am unfamiliar with this practice, where in the Bible does it tell you that you should do this?
Call me cautious on anything not "normal".
= = =
I consider the SNAKES IN THE PULPIT in every denomination to be far, far worse. I suspect God does, too.
And, there's plenty that goes on in every denomination and in many--in virtually every congregation in many denominations that's PLENTY BIBLICALLY UNUSUAL, contrary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.