Confused about speaking in tongues

[vardaquinn]

I missed that too . I find it common that people assume that speaking in tongues occurs in a “trancelike” state. I suppose there are reasons why someone might think that, but this perception is unfounded. There is no “trance” involved in speaking in tongues. I can speak in tongues on command, and I often pray in tongues while driving.

Yeah, same.

 

[vardaquinn]

Dear vardaquinn,
Therefore, it is undeniably the case that the tongues of the N.T. are neither gibberish nor “ecstatic utterances”. They are straightforward regular languages.

Notwithstanding, the almost universal Charismatic/Petecostal assumption is that the speaker himself did not understand what he was saying and from this I must vigorously dissent because it cannot be sustained by biblical exegesis. On the contrary, it is a view that is *read *into the Corinthian’s passage to support the subjective experiences of men, rather than an interpretation that is *read out *of the passage.

First part, yes. Second part, no. Paul says that his spirit is at prayer, but his mind is unfruitful. Why do you think he’s asking for interpretation?

 

[vardaquinn]

Dear vardaquinn,
To say that it is wrong and uncharitable, under any circumstances, to pass an unfavourable judgment on the conduct and claims of others, is incorrect. St. Paul exhorts us to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (I Thess. 5: 21) and St. John advises us to “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (I John 4: 1). Incidently, a footnote in the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, says on this text in First John, “test the spirits: i.e. examine those who claim to have special gifts from the Holy Spirit, cf. I Cor. 14: 32” - very applicable and very necessary in the light of neo-Pentecostal claims, both the Catholic and Protestant variety.

Clearly, if we are to avoid gullibility we must needs apply tests to all that claims to be from God - including those who contend that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, the ‘signs of a true apostle’, are the property of the contemporary Church. We do have biblical warrant for using our powers of spiritual discernment and indeed should use them, otherwise we are at risk of becoming duped and ensnared by all manner of false teaching and counterfeit experiences.

What I was saying is that we ourselves can’t judge the state of a person’s faith. Whether it is mere emotionalism, or a genuine faith.

Yes, discernment of spirits is necessary. But this should more often be done by a priest, spiritual director, or someone with that specific charism. Our own judgments are often skewed, and it’s not necessarily our place. But sometimes it is.

Judge the tree by its fruit, then! If you judge the charismatic movement by it’s fruits, then there’s quite the tree there!

 

[DianaCC]

Not sure what you mean by that. People can speak and pray in tongues in many different situations and contexts. If I am speaking in tongues in the context of a heightened and intense spiritual experience my demeanor will be different than if I am praying in tongues while driving or taking a shower or washing the dishes.

You are correct that we do not use our mind to direct the vocalizations that proceed from our mouths. But our minds do not shut down. Paul says we are to pray with our spirits and with our understanding. Having grown up in a Pentecostal church and watched many people pray in tongues, it is obvious that they are indeed very focused and engaged. Their thoughts are engaged in adoration and worship of God.

This strikes me as some pretty serious and heavy doublespeak. To cut through it, let me say that heightened and intense spiritual experiences are not learned, passed on from person to person, triggered by our preparation, or furthered by habitual practice. Tongues is a grace freely given, not a devotional exercise.

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. varaquinn

Hello again.

St. Paul says to the Corinthians that the gift of languages was “a sign not for believers but for unbelievers” (14: 22). Now whilst we cannot find in the Book of Acts a specific statement that this tongues-speaking functioned as a sign, we can easily observe how it did. Thus, for example, on the Day of Pentecost the tongues-speaking was the phenomenon that drew the crowd and it undoubtedly was a powerful factor in opening the hearts of the Jews to St. Peter’s proclamation of the Gospel. It served as a ‘sign’, authenticating the apostles as the representatives of the risen Christ. One can also assume that it was an assuring sign to the apostles themselves; surely they could view it as a fulfillment of Christ’s promise, “And these signs will accompany those who believe…they will speak with new toungues…” (S. Mark 16: 17). Indeed, they may have even taken the fact that they uttered fifteen Gentile dialects as a ‘sign’ that the Gospel was, as our dear Lord had said, for all the nations of the world (S. Matt. 28: 19; Acts 1: 8).

The gift of tongues also served a ‘sign’ of judgement upon the Jews, for First Corninthians 14: 20-25 informs us that in some instances tongues were more a sign of judgment than of blessing. When St. Paul quoted Isaiah 28: 11,12, he cited an interesting precedent for the use of foreign languages because the Israelites of Isaiah’s day refused to listen to the message of God spoken via the prophet in plain and simple speech. This resulted in hearing God speak to them through the language of the conquering Assyrians (an incidental proof that it is actual earthly languages that is in view in I Corinthians 14 and not gibberish).

In a sense, the foreign languages that were spoken at Pentecost served a similar function. They served as a sign signalling the fact that God would from henceforth be working in and through an international entity known as the Catholic Church, rather than through the nation of Israel. However, it would be incorrect to say that the judgment idea is the only sign function of tongues, for as I have said in this and in my previous posts to you, the gift of tongues, along with the other extraordinary manifestions of the Spirit, had confirming, authenticating value.

It is quite evident, by the very nature of things, that this situation was unique to the very early days of Christianity and the establishment of Christ’s religion in the world. It could not continue and in the economy of God was not intended to continue - when a building has been errected we remove the sacafolding that initially supported the edifice.

The witness of history supports the disappearance from the Church of the extraordinary gifts of the apostolic age.

St. Chrysostom (c. 347-407) writes in his commentary upon spiritual gifts: “This whole place is very obscure: bu the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts refered to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place” (*Homilies on *I Corinthians, Vol. 12, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Hom. 29: 2).

St. Augustine (354-430) writes: “In the earliest time the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues, which they had not learned, “as the spirit gave theme utterance”. These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, and to shew that thee Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening and it passed away” (Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Vol. 7, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 7, 10).

After the Church had been firmly planted in the world the same necessity for supernatural ‘signs’ now no longer existed and God saw fit to gradually withdraw them. Henceforward the Catholic Church would conquer the unbelief of the world by the pious example of the saints and the holy teachings of Christ alone, energized by the illumination granted to the magisterium. Signs and wonders if they became normal at all times, would cease to be signs and wonders and would be refered to men as customary law. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the supernatural or extraordinary gifts were temporary and were intended to disappear once the Holy Mother Church was firmly established and the apostles had done their good work. In any event, the credentials and authority granted to the apostles did not require continual repetition from age to age. One period of miraculous phenomena well authenticated is sufficient to establish the divine origin of the Gospel. Even in a human court of law, an indefinite series of witnesses is not necessary; “By the mouth of two or three witnesses”, the facts are established. The case once decided is not reopened.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[DianaCC]

If you judge the charismatic movement by it’s fruits, then there’s quite the tree there!

youtube.com/watch?v=u6ck5vTmdNQ#t=1m17s

Vardaquinn, I don’t get it. Are we to judge, or not to judge? When I see these fruits, these women utterly out of control, indulging in undignified hysteria, I remember Paul’s veiled, judiciously worded warning: “Obsecro itaque vos fratres per misericordiam Dei, ut exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam viventem, sanctam, Deo placentem, rationabile obsequium vestrum.”

 

[DianaCC]

Duh they are languages. … Everyone agrees that they are languages. The problem comes from the disagreements over whether the gift of tongues is always an unknown human language (such as Latin or Spanish or Mandarin) or whether it can also be a heavenly, angelic, or supernatural language.

No, I disagree, they are not languages, natural or otherwise.

 

[ltwin]

This strikes me as some pretty serious and heavy doublespeak. To cut through it, let me say that heightened and intense spiritual experiences are not learned, passed on from person to person, triggered by our preparation, or furthered by habitual practice. Tongues is a grace freely given, not a devotional exercise.

I did not say that tongues was learned. What I am saying, and what is clearly biblical, is that tongues do not just spontaneously erupt out of the mouth of the speaker. The speaker can control when he speaks in tongues. Paul says he speaks in tongues “more than you all” but he’s rather speak intelligibly in church, and he also says that if no interpretation is given then the speaker should be quiet. He also says to pray in the spirit and in the understanding. This shows us two things:

1. tongue speaking is not (always) spontaneous. The speaker can and is expected to use his mental faculties to discern when speaking in tongues is appropriate.
2. the speaker is able to yield his vocal chords to his spirit in prayer AND maintain control of his mental faculties while doing so.

Tongues is both a charism and a devotional exercise. Paul is clear that the content of tongues is prayer, praise, and thanksgiving. He also says that one can sing in the spirit which from the context is clearly talking about singing in tongues.

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. 16Otherwise, if you** give thanks with your spirit**, how can anyone in the position of an outsider** say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. **

 

[Portrait]

What I was saying is that we ourselves can’t judge the state of a person’s faith. Whether it is mere emotionalism, or a genuine faith.

Yes, discernment of spirits is necessary. But this should more often be done by a priest, spiritual director, or someone with that specific charism. Our own judgments are often skewed, and it’s not necessarily our place. But sometimes it is.

Judge the tree by its fruit, then! If you judge the charismatic movement by it’s fruits, then there’s quite the tree there!

Dear vardquinn,

It is not so much an issue of evaluating a man’s faith in negative terms, more an issue of evaluating his presumptious claims to possess “the signs of a true apostle”, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, which petered out at the end of the first century.

SS. Paul and John were exhorting ordinary laymen in their epistle’s and they nowhere suggest that discernment of spirits is the preserve only of priests or spiritual directors.

Look here old chap, if we appraise the the world-wide Charismatic movement honestly and objectively we must conclude that there are not many reasons to be cheerful.

First, Pentecostalism is a mistaken attempt to achieve contemporaneity. You may say by way of reply that it is strange that a movement which claims to be chiefly concerned with the Holy Spirit should be guilty of such a misunderstanding, and be concerned with establishing the contemporaneity of Christ along the outward, objective, and historical plane, rather than that of the interior operation of the Spirit. Nevertheless, it is in fact true. The fundamental error of all Pentecostal groupings is that they seek to make the history of the apostolic Church a sort of ‘now’ event. Pentecost is now, through the re-enactment of the unique signs and wonders of the apostolic age. Pentecostal movements seek to reconstruct the life and phenomena of the apostolic age and to point to the possession of the charismata as a sure and certain indication that they have the true faith and enjoy the ‘full Gospel’. To this extent they display an almost cultish mentality, which is most worrisome to ordinary mainstream Christian brethren.

Second, another feature of Pentecostalism and the charismatic renewal is that this claim to extraordinary endowments and experiences of the Holy Spirit traverses the divide between Catholicism and Protestantism, with cardinal doctrinal differences being quietly ignored. You can witness priests and nuns joining in ‘worship’ gatherings with Protestants who not only do not share their beliefs but actually oppose them, at least in theory. This is a spurious ecumenism if ever there was, since there is no true bridging of the deep differences that divide, which is hardly surprising given that it is a union based only on a shared emotional experience and certain external signs and phenomena for the apprehension of Christ and the Gospel.

Third, throughout all of Pentecostalism there is an inordinate emphasis and insistence upon joy, ecstasy and euphoria. Thrills, peace, exciting experiences and the singing of rousing repetitive ditties, are the order of the day and feature quite prominently. If my experience is anything to go by, overpowering and overbearing self-styled leaders are also all too common. All of this would suggest to your average chap a jolly unhealthy imbalance, both emotionally and theologically. To say that joy and peace often appear together in the N.T. in connection with the work of the Holy Spirit, is to meet the counter-argument that whilst this is true, they are always held in tension with suffering, cross-bearing, weakness and a deep consciousness of sin. One is never led to rest in our ecstatic experiences, or to glory in them, but always in Christ and the grace of God; St. Paul said on this very point: “If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness” (II Cor, 11: 30). The Charismatic movement insists that men live on a sort of emotional high, which is not only unnatural, but in the long term can be positively harmful to the life of faith and can also… result in mental health problems.

Finally, one seldom hears much emphasis within Charismatic circles on living up to the ardent requirements of our most holy faith, I mean the earnest pursuit of holiness and self-denial. On the contrary, I have found it to be very earthbound in its outlook and many of its disciples are unmortified and worldly-minded. Thus, if I was judging the tree of Pentecostalism by this particular fruit I would find it wanting and barren. So even on this issue alone the movement would not win me over because I see very little evidence of men keeping themselves “unstained from the world” (St. Jam. 1: 27) and seeking “the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12: 14).

One could continue, but I think that I have said sufficient to make my point.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I don’t understand what you are arguing here??? No charismatic believes that the gift of tongues is gibberish or ecstatic speech. Duh they are languages. The word “tongue” simply means “language.” No charismatic will argue with this. The question is not whether it is a language or not. Everyone agrees that they are languages. The problem comes from the disagreements over whether the gift of tongues is always an unknown human language (such as Latin or Spanish or Mandarin) or whether it can also be a heavenly, angelic, or supernatural language. That is the question the important theological question.

Dear Itwin,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response above to my post, dear friend.

The N.T. is devoid of any evidence to support the view that tongues could be a “heavenly, angelic, or supernatural language”, as I have already argued from the Greek text. The tongues of the N.T. are, incontrovertably, a known earthly dialect. When I spoke of ‘gibberish’ I intended to mean a “supernatural language” as you put it, but to others it would appear gibberish as it would not be any identifiable earthly dialect. Sorry for any confusion, old chap.

The appeal that is sometimes made to I Corinthians 13: 1 - “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels…” - to support the theory that the glossolalia of the N.T. may have also been heavenly speech cannot be sustained. First Corinthians, which shows that the Christian Way is pre-eminently the way of love, is chapter in which St. Paul makes use of hyperbole for rhetorical purposes, exaggerated statements that should not be taken literally. He is merely saying that without love even the most impressive display of religious emotion is of no value.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

youtube.com/watch?v=u6ck5vTmdNQ#t=1m17s

Vardaquinn, I don’t get it. Are we to judge, or not to judge? When I see these fruits, these women utterly out of control, indulging in undignified hysteria, I remember Paul’s veiled, judiciously worded warning: “Obsecro itaque vos fratres per misericordiam Dei, ut exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam viventem, sanctam, Deo placentem, rationabile obsequium vestrum.”

Dear DianaCC,

Cordial greetings, dear sister.

Yes indeed, I have witnessed at first hand the prominent role played by women in the Charismatic movement. Invariably, they are highly emotional types who have too much to say for themselves and who seemingly like the sound of their own voices. Some can even be extremely eccentric yet they can, nevertheless, weild a great deal of influence in Pentecostal and Charismatic groupings, especially among the less educated.

A woman’s nature and temperament are, as I am sure you would agree, more susceptible to subjectivism and emotionalism than a man’s, and this should make one highly suspicious of any religious movement in which women have played and do play a leading role.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[vardaquinn]

The N.T. is devoid of any evidence to support the view that tongues could be a “heavenly, angelic, or supernatural language”, as I have already argued from the Greek text. The tongues of the N.T. are, incontrovertably, a known earthly dialect. When I spoke of ‘gibberish’ I intended to mean a “supernatural language” as you put it, but to others it would appear gibberish as it would not be any identifiable earthly dialect. Sorry for any confusion, old chap.

Or… it would appear gibberish because they don’t know the language. I only know English and some Latin. Anything else to me, as far as I can tell, could just as well be gibberish. Hang out around some people who speak a language you don’t know.

 

[Portrait]

Or… it would appear gibberish because they don’t know the language. I only know English and some Latin. Anything else to me, as far as I can tell, could just as well be gibberish. Hang out around some people who speak a language you don’t know.

Dear vardaquinn,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear friend. Thankyou for the above response.

Given that there is a general consensus, even among the Charismatics themselves, that the tongues of the N.T. are actual earthly languages, we have, I think, a major problem that urgently needs to be addressed.

The conclusions of linguists indicate that modern glossolia is composed of unknown sounds with no distinguishing vocabulary and grammatical features, *simulated *foreign features and a complete absence of language characteristics. Apperently competent linguists, after analysing recorded samples of Pentecostal tongue speaking, have come to the conclusion that what they heard were not actual languages but types of ecstatic speech, with peculiar consonantal structure and very limited vowel sounds, which bore no resemblance to any language spoken on earth.

This is problematic to say the very least, given that Pentecostalists claim that their tongues are actual earthly languages. Something is seriously amiss here and we are bound to ask if at the very heart of the Charismatic movement there is false sort of mysticism and mass delusion which is contrary to our most holy religion. A fundamental evaluation of Pentecostalism, both in its Catholic and Protestant manifestations, is surely long over due.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[vardaquinn]

Dear vardaquinn,

The conclusions of linguists indicate that modern glossolia is composed of unknown sounds with no distinguishing vocabulary and grammatical features, *simulated *foreign features and a complete absence of language characteristics. Apperently competent linguists, after analysing recorded samples of Pentecostal tongue speaking, have come to the conclusion that what they heard were not actual languages but types of ecstatic speech, with peculiar consonantal structure and very limited vowel sounds, which bore no resemblance to any language spoken on earth.

This is problematic to say the very least, given that Pentecostalists claim that their tongues are actual earthly languages. Something is seriously amiss here and we are bound to ask if at the very heart of the Charismatic movement there is false sort of mysticism and mass delusion which is contrary to our most holy religion. A fundamental evaluation of Pentecostalism, both in its Catholic and Protestant manifestations, is surely long over due.

Cordial greetings to you as well!

Well, inherent in what we believe about tongues, is that not everybody is speaking the same tongue. I am not unduly surprised that it turns out some Pentecostals really were probably just speaking gibberish. But one test cannot totally disprove the reality of tongues being a real language. You would have to test every single individual that claims to speak in tongues. And other competent linguists (or people who knew the language) have discovered them speaking real, genuine languages.

Though I’m no linguist, I do have a love for languages and accents. My own language, as far as I can tell, bears close resemblance to a Middle-eastern sort of language. There are distinct syllables. Often times I catch the word “Maryam”. It is not “ecstatic”. I am praying in tongues right now as I speak. I am not experiencing any great emotions, whatsoever. In fact, I am rather fatigued and bored.

 

[vardaquinn]

It is not so much an issue of evaluating a man’s faith in negative terms, more an issue of evaluating his presumptious claims to possess “the signs of a true apostle”, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, which petered out at the end of the first century.

I think only so far as it affects you. I am sure there are many who are faking the gifts, given human nature. But whether or not they are, it’s not for me to decide or evaluate unless it directly affects me.

SS. Paul and John were exhorting ordinary laymen in their epistle’s and they nowhere suggest that discernment of spirits is the preserve only of priests or spiritual directors.

And neither was I suggesting this. But if you’re at an event, and you judge that some random strangers’ faith are based only on emotions, when you don’t know the whole story… That should be left to their spiritual director to decide, not you a perfect stranger. In any case, it bears no bearing on your own life. So what if they do have an emotionalized faith? What are you going to do about it? It’s not really any of your business.

Look here old chap, if we appraise the the world-wide Charismatic movement honestly and objectively we must conclude that there are not many reasons to be cheerful.

Well yes, it does reflect rather poorly on the Church that we should need such a movement.

I think this article is rather illuminating. catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/06/charismatic-movement-and-catholic.html It claims that if Pentecostals are right, and that the gifts are for the modern day, then Catholicism is the true Church.

Second, another feature of Pentecostalism and the charismatic renewal is that this claim to extraordinary endowments and experiences of the Holy Spirit traverses the divide between Catholicism and Protestantism, with cardinal doctrinal differences being quietly ignored. You can witness priests and nuns joining in ‘worship’ gatherings with Protestants who not only do not share their beliefs but actually oppose them, at least in theory. This is a spurious ecumenism if ever there was, since there is no true bridging of the deep differences that divide, which is hardly surprising given that it is a union based only on a shared emotional experience and certain external signs and phenomena for the apprehension of Christ and the Gospel.

No, but you can bet that making any headway in ecumenism is not going to be simply convincing all the Protestants that we’re the true Church. That’s not where the crux of the problem lies, anyway. Protestants didn’t leave so much over doctrinal issues I think. Luther, for instance, was addressing many real and serious problems. Though his criticism led him eventually to heresy, the problem was not doctrine. It was Catholics. Catholics need to change. Until we’re better Christians than the Protestants (in a sense “better Protestants”) we won’t make any headway. Uniting around the worship of the true God is a good place to start. It is a union based around a common way of adoring God. This is good. The charismatic movement is a powerful force of unity. Listen here to what (the absolutely brilliant, genius, amazing, saintly, holy and charismatic) Dr. Peter Kreeft says: peterkreeft.com/audio/misc/peter-kreeft_charismatic.mp3

Third, throughout all of Pentecostalism there is an inordinate emphasis and insistence upon joy, ecstasy and euphoria. Thrills, peace, exciting experiences and the singing of rousing repetitive ditties, are the order of the day and feature quite prominently. If my experience is anything to go by, overpowering and overbearing self-styled leaders are also all too common. All of this would suggest to your average chap a jolly unhealthy imbalance, both emotionally and theologically. To say that joy and peace often appear together in the N.T. in connection with the work of the Holy Spirit, is to meet the counter-argument that whilst this is true, they are always held in tension with suffering, cross-bearing, weakness and a deep consciousness of sin. One is never led to rest in our ecstatic experiences, or to glory in them, but always in Christ and the grace of God; St. Paul said on this very point: “If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness” (II Cor, 11: 30). The Charismatic movement insists that men live on a sort of emotional high, which is not only unnatural, but in the long term can be positively harmful to the life of faith and can also… result in mental health problems.

Oh, come now. We have already agreed that a faith based on emotional experiences aren’t so great. But you cannot honestly be criticizing the charismatics for being “too happy”. Joy is not something purely emotional. It is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, and it can endure through the greatest difficulty. I once heard a spiritual writer say, so beautifully, that Our Lord, during the Passion, was the happiest man alive. Joy and peace are essential in the Christian life.

Pope Benedict, for instance, has placed a great emphasis on joy, a sense of humor. We have feasts in the Church called “Gaudete Sunday”. It’s a command! Rejoice! Be happy! Sing to the Lord a new song!

I find this argument rather like the initial criticism of the Apostles at Pentecost: they must be drunk. I think that’s rather a good thing to hear.

The charismatic movement does not suggest one live on an emotional high. For instance, I was at a charismatic prayer meeting not too long ago, in which they were speaking on spiritual desolations, dryness, and the fact that one does not need emotional experiences (going off of the Dialogues of St. Catherine). Whether or not some individuals are living purely on an emotional high, that is another matter. But that is hardly my business, unless it myself who is living on an emotional high.

 

[ltwin]

I agree vardaquinn. It’s so easy to pick out a video on youtube showing some woman or man on the floor screaming, crying, or laughing and say “oh those charismatics are crazy.” But first of all we have to have some perspective. There are tons of Pentecostal churches you can walk into and never see any of that. Or you’d see it only at certain times or in certain atmospheres. It’s hard for outsiders sometimes to understand, but there are times when such things may be appropriate and other times when those things are not.

And then there are other things that are not accepted at all and will result in someone being told that they are out of order and need to stop. Pentecostal leaders do speak out against excesses and abuses. For example, here is a video of David Wilkerson, founder of Time Square Church, NYC, who is well respected by Pentecostals:

“David Wilkerson On Weird Manifestations”

Since this is a thread about speaking in tongues, I thought this video may help people unfamiliar see how the public use of tongues usually works within a meeting. Unfortunately, during the end the volume seems to go out. But it will give you a good idea. The preacher is also David Wilkerson.

“Losing the Anointing Part 2”

 

[vardaquinn]

Oh, very interesting. David Wilkerson wrote The Cross and the Switchblade, yes?

 

[ltwin]

Oh, very interesting. David Wilkerson wrote The Cross and the Switchblade, yes?

Yes he did. He was also the founder of Teen Challenge. He passed away only a few months ago, but God used him in a great way. He was admired by many for his no nonsense approach to ministry.

 

[DianaCC]

I agree vardaquinn. It’s so easy to pick out a video on youtube%between%

In other words, “Those aren’t fruits”.

 

[ltwin]

In other words, “Those aren’t fruits”.

To reduce the fruit produced by the charismatic/Pentecostal movements to what was seen in that video is disingenuous. In any event, I was only offering you the perspective of a respected Pentecostal preacher who has spoken out against “weird manifestations” himself. What this shows is that there is debate among Pentecostals themselves over what is appropriate and what is not. It is not so easy to just take a video off of youtube and say see this is what the charismatic movement is. You can’t do that because there are different kinds of charismatic groups some of which would not condone what is seen on that video.

If I saw a woman doing something like that in my church, I would not say “she’s bearing good fruit” or “she is bearing bad fruit.” She isn’t doing anything in that moment.

On the contrary, she may be ministered to by the Holy Spirit, who may be doing something in her life that we don’t and can’t understand. Or likely as well, it is her human spirit which is at work. The fruit she bears after she gets up off the ground is the way to know whether the experience is genuine. If she was truly being ministered to by the Holy Spirit, her life will begin to reflect that. However, if nothing changes in her life and we see no good fruit, then perhaps this experience was nothing more than an empty exercise of the flesh.

And that is not to say that we condone or encourage fleshly performance because we don’t. However some churches choose to err on the side of caution. We risk stopping a genuine work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life.

We’re not stupid. We know perfectly well that anyone can fall on the ground and start laughing or crying. We don’t equate holiness or spirituality with any physical manifestation. However, if someone is doing those things under the genuine power of God, then it is because the Holy Spirit is wanting to do something in a person’s life.