M
Medawlinno
Guest
First, let me preface this post by saying that I’m not trying to sound wise, it’s a legitimate question I’m hoping to get some better insight into……
In some Christian paths, for a person to be ‘saved’, they must undergo a ‘spirit baptism’; this, in turn, is required to be ‘evidenced’ by a phenomenon called ‘speaking in tongues’. If, at some point, they do not start ‘speaking in tongues’, they are not truly ‘saved’ (I can’t think of the name(s) of these particular denominations - AoG maybe?).
Seems fairly straightforward, however, what happens if the individual in question is deaf or mute, or both, or, for whatever physical/mental reasons cannot produce speech (their own language or otherwise)??
i.e., what happens in this situation when a person undergoes a Spirit baptism, but (for whatever reason) is incapable of producing speech, thus is unable to demonstrate “initial evidence of tongues” that is required (or perhaps I should say…that they are, uh, “strongly encouraged” to produce)? Are they, in the eyes of the church, exempt from demonstrating ‘initial evidence of tongues’?
Do they speak “tongues” it in their head, are they somehow exempt from this requirement? How does it work with such individuals??
Yes, I know for some paths, “tongues” do not need to be evidenced; I’m asking about those traditions in which it is, for all intents and purposes, a “requirement” based upon their beliefs.
With respect to the deaf, as absurd as that seems, there was an adjunct professor at a (I believe) AoG seminary who wrote a paper on deaf people supposedly ‘signing in tongues’ as ‘initial evidence’- the paper, curiously enough, no longer appears to be available on the internet - glad I was able to read it before it ‘disappeared’. I thought it was a joke at first until I realized a short ways into the paper that she was totally serious. It’s been about a year or so since I’ve seen read her paper, and I honestly am still at a complete loss as to where to even begin to go with that concept. It reminded me of the whole ‘typing in tongues’ thing several years ago.
That said, as you may know, one can sign the alphabet, so essentially words can be spelled out - ASL ‘speakers’ use both the symbolic signs as well as spelling when ‘speaking’ (though it’s English, the rules of grammar are very different from the spoken language).
If a deaf person started to spell out ‘words’ only (and not use ‘symbol signs’ - I’m sure there’s a more proper word for those) which typified ‘tongues-speech’ when transcribed onto paper by a third party, I might say that they’re on to something; but to my knowledge, that has never happened. Given the nature of how modern tongues are produced, for a deaf person (or any person actually) to write down phonetically what came to their mind as they were ‘speaking’ is essentially impossible.
In some Christian paths, for a person to be ‘saved’, they must undergo a ‘spirit baptism’; this, in turn, is required to be ‘evidenced’ by a phenomenon called ‘speaking in tongues’. If, at some point, they do not start ‘speaking in tongues’, they are not truly ‘saved’ (I can’t think of the name(s) of these particular denominations - AoG maybe?).
Seems fairly straightforward, however, what happens if the individual in question is deaf or mute, or both, or, for whatever physical/mental reasons cannot produce speech (their own language or otherwise)??
i.e., what happens in this situation when a person undergoes a Spirit baptism, but (for whatever reason) is incapable of producing speech, thus is unable to demonstrate “initial evidence of tongues” that is required (or perhaps I should say…that they are, uh, “strongly encouraged” to produce)? Are they, in the eyes of the church, exempt from demonstrating ‘initial evidence of tongues’?
Do they speak “tongues” it in their head, are they somehow exempt from this requirement? How does it work with such individuals??
Yes, I know for some paths, “tongues” do not need to be evidenced; I’m asking about those traditions in which it is, for all intents and purposes, a “requirement” based upon their beliefs.
With respect to the deaf, as absurd as that seems, there was an adjunct professor at a (I believe) AoG seminary who wrote a paper on deaf people supposedly ‘signing in tongues’ as ‘initial evidence’- the paper, curiously enough, no longer appears to be available on the internet - glad I was able to read it before it ‘disappeared’. I thought it was a joke at first until I realized a short ways into the paper that she was totally serious. It’s been about a year or so since I’ve seen read her paper, and I honestly am still at a complete loss as to where to even begin to go with that concept. It reminded me of the whole ‘typing in tongues’ thing several years ago.
That said, as you may know, one can sign the alphabet, so essentially words can be spelled out - ASL ‘speakers’ use both the symbolic signs as well as spelling when ‘speaking’ (though it’s English, the rules of grammar are very different from the spoken language).
If a deaf person started to spell out ‘words’ only (and not use ‘symbol signs’ - I’m sure there’s a more proper word for those) which typified ‘tongues-speech’ when transcribed onto paper by a third party, I might say that they’re on to something; but to my knowledge, that has never happened. Given the nature of how modern tongues are produced, for a deaf person (or any person actually) to write down phonetically what came to their mind as they were ‘speaking’ is essentially impossible.