What Is Pentecostal Worship Like?

[CatholicSheila]

While private prayer or praise in tongues will be heard in Pentecostal services, Pentecostals do exercise the public gift of speaking in tongues with interpretation. It does not happen in every service, but it does happen frequently enough. This is from an FAQ on the subject from the Assemblies of God website:

I was raised in a pentecostal church. I left when I was 21 or 22. I could probably count the number of times I missed Sunday service on my fingers.

I have not seen it once. Putting it in an FAQ doesn’t change that. That is not just in one AOG but multiple churches as a teenager and young adult. Not once. Including during the time I attended prayer meetings as a young adult.

 

[ltwin]

I was raised in a pentecostal church. I left when I was 21 or 22. I could probably count the number of times I missed Sunday service on my fingers.

I have not seen it once. Putting it in an FAQ doesn’t change that. That is not just in one AOG but multiple churches as a teenager and young adult. Not once. Including during the time I attended prayer meetings as a young adult.

Not once? That is strange, but your experience doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. Instead of thinking that you are the norm, perhaps those churches you went to were exceptions? Or they had bad teachings on the spiritual gifts. I don’t know what churches you went to, but I’ve been Pentecostal all my life as well and have studied the theology in both devotional and academic contexts. The gift of interpretation is highly valued among Pentecostals.

In any event, since you seem to doubt that it ever happens, here you go: youtube.com/watch?v=VVGoaFna5DE.

 

[Smokey3]

I went to an Assembly of God church for quite a while, and reading this thread was struck by how both similar and different my church was. Pentecostal/charasmatic churches are quite independent and it can be better not to generalize too much about their services.

We had a large traditional choir and hymals. They did wind up installing a large screen on which to project the lyrics, but the hymnals remained as some preferred them. Sometimes multiple instruments depending on the music selection for the week, but the songs were usually pretty traditional, occasionally a worship song akin to Hillsong.

There was no dancing, yelling, shouting, shaking, being slain in the spirit during Sunday worship services, it would not have been acceptable. Sunday services were for corporate worship of God and learning. The minister and congregation were quite mindful of Paul’s admonition that things be done in order and did so according to their understanding. (Not a criticism of others.)

The most emotion that was shown was that many (not all) people raised their hands during singing.

I have visited other pentecostal churches where it was much the same.

There were tongues and interpretation of tongues. One person with a message in tongues and another interpreted. Not every Sunday, and it only happened after worship and before the sermon (all things in order).

What is Pentecostal worship like? It depends on the church.

 

[ltwin]

I went to an Assembly of God church for quite a while, and reading this thread was struck by how both similar and different my church was. Pentecostal/charasmatic churches are quite independent and it can be better not to generalize too much about their services.

For an Assemblies of God church, your church sounds about right–a little traditional than the average AG church these days.

We had a large traditional choir and hymals. They did wind up installing a large screen on which to project the lyrics, but the hymnals remained as some preferred them. Sometimes multiple instruments depending on the music selection for the week, but the songs were usually pretty traditional, occasionally a worship song akin to Hillsong.

The hymnals are a fading thing, but yes all Pentecostal churches had them at one time. The Pentecostal Holiness Church that ran the private school I attended went through a period where they only sang hymns. The pastor who started the school spent his whole term as pastor trying to get the oldest members to switch to praise and worship. That happened by the time he left. Then the new minister switched back to hymns!

There was no dancing, yelling, shouting, shaking, being slain in the spirit during Sunday worship services, it would not have been acceptable. Sunday services were for corporate worship of God and learning. The minister and congregation were quite mindful of Paul’s admonition that things be done in order and did so according to their understanding. (Not a criticism of others.)

I said there “might” be those things. It doesn’t show up in every service or in every church. The AG as a whole is what you might call “easy going” Pentecostalism. They decided along time ago that they were going to put tight control over the “manifestations of the Spirit”. This isn’t true everywhere in the AG however. Just look at Brownsville AG, home to the “Pensacola Outpouring” of the 1990s.

Years ago, Margaret Poloma wrote a sociological profile of the AG as a denomination that looked at questions of why some uniquely Pentecostal aspects of the worship services seemed to be declining or being suppressed or what ever. Her conclusion was that the AG was in the process of becoming a middle class denomination and was shedding its Pentecostal identity in favor of becoming a “generically evangelical” denomination. The study is called Assemblies Of God At the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas. It is worth a read for anyone who’s into academic study of Pentecostalism.

The most emotion that was shown was that many (not all) people raised their hands during singing.

I have visited other pentecostal churches where it was much the same.

There were tongues and interpretation of tongues. One person with a message in tongues and another interpreted. Not every Sunday, and it only happened after worship and before the sermon (all things in order).

What is Pentecostal worship like? It depends on the church.

It depends on the denomination, the particular factions in that denomination and the accompanying worship traditions and influences that the particular church has been influenced by, and it depends on the personality and education level of the pastor. The pastor sets the tone for the whole church.

In the AG alone, you can find Pentecostal formalism, old school Pentecostalism, Charismatic renewal, Health and Wealth gospel and even just plain old evangelicals who don’t really care all that much about the speaking in tongues stuff.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

For an Assemblies of God church, your church sounds about right–a little traditional than the average AG church these days.

Just a note. I’m wondering if you don’t consider hymns “praise and worship” also. I’m an extremely conservative Catholic and find our traditional Catholic hymns to be full of praise and worship.

The hymnals are a fading thing, but yes all Pentecostal churches had them at one time. The Pentecostal Holiness Church that ran the private school I attended went through a period where they only sang hymns. The pastor who started the school spent his whole term as pastor trying to get the oldest members to switch to praise and worship. That happened by the time he left. Then the new minister switched back to hymns!

I said there “might” be those things. It doesn’t show up in every service or in every church. The AG as a whole is what you might call “easy going” Pentecostalism. They decided along time ago that they were going to put tight control over the “manifestations of the Spirit”. This isn’t true everywhere in the AG however. Just look at Brownsville AG, home to the “Pensacola Outpouring” of the 1990s.

Years ago, Margaret Poloma wrote a sociological profile of the AG as a denomination that looked at questions of why some uniquely Pentecostal aspects of the worship services seemed to be declining or being suppressed or what ever. Her conclusion was that the AG was in the process of becoming a middle class denomination and was shedding its Pentecostal identity in favor of becoming a “generically evangelical” denomination. The study is called Assemblies Of God At the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas. It is worth a read for anyone who’s into academic study of Pentecostalism.

It depends on the denomination, the particular factions in that denomination and the accompanying worship traditions and influences that the particular church has been influenced by, and it depends on the personality and education level of the pastor. The pastor sets the tone for the whole church.

In the AG alone, you can find Pentecostal formalism, old school Pentecostalism, Charismatic renewal, Health and Wealth gospel and even just plain old evangelicals who don’t really care all that much about the speaking in tongues stuff.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Sorry…working from my phone and see I put my response in the beginning of your response…

 

[ltwin]

Just a note. I’m wondering if you don’t consider hymns “praise and worship” also. I’m an extremely conservative Catholic and find our traditional Catholic hymns to be full of praise and worship.

Of course, but when I say “praise and worship” I’m referring more to a style of congregational worship and musical genre that is often contrasted against “traditional worship” and hymn singing. It’s basically interchangeable with what is often known as “contemporary worship”.

For more context, this Christianity Today article goes into the history behind the term. “The “Praise and Worship” Revolution.”

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Of course, but when I say “praise and worship” I’m referring more to a style of worship that is often contrasted against “traditional worship”. It’s basically interchangeable with what is often known as “contemporary worship”.

Ok…just wanted to claify.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The formation of the PNCCC was a planned event. The events described above that happened at the meeting were more or less spontaneous. The message in tongues and the interpretation were certainly not planned. That would be fraud, and I cannot see someone as admired and respected in both the Pentecostal and larger Christian world as Jack Hayford trying to pass off a fraudulent interpretation of tongues.

From what I gather, the foot washing was spontaneous as well.

color me skeptical, especially since I don’t know the man or his reputation within Pentecostal circles. He does seem to hang around people like Benny Hinn, and is affiliated with an educational institution not holding the well respected regional accreditation of most universities and colleges within the US.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Not once? That is strange, but your experience doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. Instead of thinking that you are the norm, perhaps those churches you went to were exceptions? Or they had bad teachings on the spiritual gifts. I don’t know what churches you went to, but I’ve been Pentecostal all my life as well and have studied the theology in both devotional and academic contexts. The gift of interpretation is highly valued among Pentecostals.

In any event, since you seem to doubt that it ever happens, here you go: youtube.com/watch?v=VVGoaFna5DE.

Is that Jimmy Swaggert ministries?

 

[Smokey3]

For an Assemblies of God church, your church sounds about right–a little traditional than the average AG church these days.

It was on the traditinal side, which was a good fit for me, but then all the ones I’ve been have been very similar. I know others can be different.

The pastor who started the school spent his whole term as pastor trying to get the oldest members to switch to praise and worship. That happened by the time he left. Then the new minister switched back to hymns!

He switched them back. That’s funny. Well, the style of music doesn’t matter.

I said there “might” be those things. It doesn’t show up in every service or in every church. The AG as a whole is what you might call “easy going” Pentecostalism. They decided along time ago that they were going to put tight control over the “manifestations of the Spirit”. This isn’t true everywhere in the AG however. Just look at Brownsville AG, home to the “Pensacola Outpouring” of the 1990s.

Yup, there can be differences. The pastor definitely sets the tone.

Thanks for the reference, I’ll look it up if I have time. I think there’s also a slow dying out of the old Scots-Irish culture

 

[ltwin]

Is that Jimmy Swaggert ministries?

Yes. But it wasn’t Swaggert who gave the message or the interpretation. Just people in the congregation.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Yes. But it wasn’t Swaggert who gave the message or the interpretation. Just people in the congregation.

Again – I take these things with a grain of salt. Is this really a gift of tongues and interpretation or just an acceptable subconscious form of community building? This kind of spirit/‘gift’ would be unacceptable in a Catholic Mass setting, as interrupting the Mass to speak/interpret is entirely out of place.

Besides this – who has the gift of discernment at the gathering to determine if what was stated was 1) accurate, 2) really the Holy Spirit, 3) came to fulfillment, 4) wasn’t a demonic spirit, 5) wasn’t a charade? The same for the interpretation?

 

[ltwin]

Again – I take these things with a grain of salt. Is this really a gift of tongues and interpretation or just an acceptable subconscious form of community building? This kind of spirit/‘gift’ would be unacceptable in a Catholic Mass setting, as interrupting the Mass to speak/interpret is entirely out of place.

Well, Pentecostals don’t have masses. We have meetings in which “each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation” (1 Corinthians 14:26).

I’m not sure why you feel that the message was out of place. It was not disruptive–it occurred during a transition during the service when nothing was going on to be interrupted–and the minister in charge of the service at that point asked for whoever had the interpretation to give it. It was entirely in order.

Besides this – who has the gift of discernment at the gathering to determine if what was stated was 1) accurate, 2) really the Holy Spirit, 3) came to fulfillment, 4) wasn’t a demonic spirit, 5) wasn’t a charade? The same for the interpretation?

1 Corinthians 14:29-33 indicates that those gathered should “weigh carefully” what is said. Obviously, the leaders of the congregation would have ultimate responsibility for addressing any utterance that was problematic, out of order, or which contained heresy or suspect doctrine.

Someone who gives a message in tongues is likely to be someone who is known to the congregation and the elders. Their character would be known. If they were under the influence of a demonic spirit, the first sign would not be giving a message in tongues.

And its considered prudent and just good etiquette not to just walk into an unusual congregation and start giving out messages in tongues.

If someone was acting in a way suggestive of demonic activity (there was none of that which I could tell from the video) it would be the responsibility of the pastor and other ministers and elders of the church to rebuke and cast the demon out.

If someone was faking an utterance in tongues, it would be the responsibility again of the pastor to address that appropriately. It’s not that difficult to tell someone making up sounds from someone authentically speaking in a tongue–especially when you know the person.

As for the interpretation, people who interpret a tongue in any average sized church will be known to the pastor. He will have at least some knowledge of their character.

As for coming to fulfillment, prophetic utterances (whether given in known or unknown languages) need not be foretelling. Most prophetic speech is forth-telling–it is a word given by the Holy Spirit to a particular individual or group but it need not be predictive. As you can see from the interpretation in the video, there was nothing of predictive prophecy in that. The message was, from what I could hear, a call to obey God, give what God has given to you to other people, and a reminder to trust in the Lord.

This fits with what Paul says of prophecy–that it is “speaking to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort” (1 Corinthians 14:3). Just from my experience, for what its worth, when I’ve heard any sort of predictive prophecy it has always been delivered in English–not through tongues.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Well, Pentecostals don’t have masses. We have meetings in which “each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation” (1 Corinthians 14:26).

I’m not sure why you feel that the message was out of place. It was not disruptive–it occurred during a transition during the service when nothing was going on to be interrupted–and the minister in charge of the service at that point asked for whoever had the interpretation to give it. It was entirely in order.

1 Corinthians 14:29-33 indicates that those gathered should “weigh carefully” what is said. Obviously, the leaders of the congregation would have ultimate responsibility for addressing any utterance that was problematic, out of order, or which contained heresy or suspect doctrine.

Someone who gives a message in tongues is likely to be someone who is known to the congregation and the elders. Their character would be known. If they were under the influence of a demonic spirit, the first sign would not be giving a message in tongues.

And its considered prudent and just good etiquette not to just walk into an unusual congregation and start giving out messages in tongues.

If someone was acting in a way suggestive of demonic activity (there was none of that which I could tell from the video) it would be the responsibility of the pastor and other ministers and elders of the church and mature, spiritual members of the church to rebuke and cast the demon out.

If someone was faking an utterance in tongues, it would be the responsibility again of the pastor to address that appropriately. It’s not that difficult to tell someone making up sounds from someone authentically speaking in a tongue–especially when you know the person.

As for the interpretation, people who interpret a tongue in any average sized church will be known to the pastor. He will have at least some knowledge of their character.

As for coming to fulfillment, most of the time, prophetic utterances (whether given in known or unknown languages) are forth-telling rather than foretelling. As you can see from the interpretation in the video, there was nothing of predictive prophecy in that. The message was, from what I could hear, a call to obey God, give what God has given to you to other people, and a reminder to trust in the Lord.

This fits with what Paul says of prophecy–that it is “speaking to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort” (1 Corinthians 14:3).

The question is – what is prophetic about that? According to St. Paul in 1Cor 14

6 Now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how shall I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will any one know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning; 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. 12 So with yourselves; since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.

13 Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise, if you bless[a] with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider** say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

23 If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

This “prophecy” seemed to be for those assembled, also the latter verses state:
As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

Wasn’t the “interpreter” a woman? Not sure how this comports with the verses listed.
Beside all this – it is much more likely here that what St. Paul refers to here as “tongues” is actual languages in a mixed language assembly.**

 

[ltwin]

The question is – what is prophetic about that?

What do you mean? Prophecy is defined broadly as any spontaneous revelation from God. You quote 1 Corinthians 14 below. I’ve bolded some important parts that indicate the gift of tongues and interpretation covers more than just outright prophetic utterance, but what makes the utterance in the video clip “prophetic” in nature is that the interpreter is addressing the words from God to the congregation. If she had been speaking to God, then it would have been prayer, praise or thanksgiving.

According to St. Paul in 1Cor 14

6 Now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how shall I benefit you unless I bring you** some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?** 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will any one know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning; 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. 12 So with yourselves; since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.

13 Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise, if you bless[a] with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider** say the “Amen” to your** thanksgiving**** when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

23 If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

This “prophecy” seemed to be for those assembled,

Here Paul is distinguishing between everyone speaking in tongues at the same time without interpretation with everyone prophesying to an outsider. His point is that intelligible prophecy edifies those in the church–especially outsiders who will be convinced that God is among the gathered Christians.
SyroMalankara;14753871:

also the latter verses state:

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home

. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

Wasn’t the “interpreter” a woman? Not sure how this comports with the verses listed.

I don’t even think the Catholic Church interprets this verse to silencing women in all religious meetings. It is clear from the context that this is referring to women interrupting the service to ask questions. Since women would likely be less educated than their husbands in this time period, it makes sense for Paul to say to women if you don’t understand something ask your husband at home because we don’t have time for all these interruptions.

Besides, it is clear that women were prophesying, 1 Corinthians 11:5.

Beside all this – it is much more likely here that what St. Paul refers to here as “tongues” is actual languages in a mixed language assembly.

But what about verse 14, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” If this was just the case of a multicultural church with many different languages, why need Paul make it so complicated? Simple enough to say, “Speak in a common language or have someone interpret what you say.”

That is not what he says though. He defines what is going on at Corinth as speaking languages unknown to the speaker.

If this was just the case of a person whose first language was Aramaic, verse 14 makes no sense. But lets assume this is what Paul means. Paul says this Aramaic speaker is “praying with his spirit” but not with his mind, that his mind is “unfruitful.” There is no understanding. But wait, the person understands perfectly because Aramaic is his native language. So, obviously, Paul is not just talking about a person speaking in another language that he understands.

Paul explicitly says that (verse 2) no one understands the speaker and (verse 14) the speaker does not understand his own speech.

One last thing, Paul says in verse 5:

“I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.”

Paul is not disparaging tongues. He is saying that prophecy is greater because it is intelligible, but when tongues are interpreted they are just as valuable as prophecy.

 

[SyroMalankara]

What do you mean? Prophecy is defined broadly as any spontaneous revelation from God. You quote 1 Corinthians 14 below. I’ve bolded some important parts that indicate the gift of tongues and interpretation covers more than just outright prophetic utterance, but what makes the utterance in the video clip “prophetic” in nature is that the interpreter is addressing the words from God to the congregation. If she had been speaking to God, then it would have been prayer, praise or thanksgiving.

again, how does one discern any positive utterance from a well-intentioned believer vs. GOD, or even something negative or demonic… Pat Robertson goes on and on about how God spoke to him about this or that disaster being a prophetic event by God for some sin or whatever. I dismiss this as mere bunk or “woo-woo” as James Randi has termed them

Here Paul is distinguishing between everyone speaking in tongues at the same time without interpretation with everyone prophesying to an outsider. His point is that intelligible prophecy edifies those in the church–especially outsiders who will be convinced that God is among the gathered Christians.

So who is edified at all by the so-called tongue if the one interpreting can explain in plain English. Why have a middle man?

I don’t even think the Catholic Church interprets this verse to silencing women in all religious meetings. It is clear from the context that this is referring to women interrupting the service to ask questions. Since women would likely be less educated than their husbands in this time period, it makes sense for Paul to say to women if you don’t understand something ask your husband at home because we don’t have time for all these interruptions.

I for one am not a literalist so silencing women would not even be on my radar, but I thought Pentecostals in general were more literalists on such matters.

But what about verse 14, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” If this was just the case of a multicultural church with many different languages, why need Paul make it so complicated? Simple enough to say, “Speak in a common language or have someone interpret what you say.”

I think this is exactly what St Paul did say.

That is not what he says though. He defines what is going on at Corinth as speaking languages unknown to the speaker.

Such could occur to a native Greek born of Jewish origin. When he prays in Hebrew, he may not know the language, but speaks Greek in daily life…

If this was just the case of a person whose first language was Aramaic, verse 14 makes no sense. But lets assume this is what Paul means. Paul says this Aramaic speaker is “praying with his spirit” but not with his mind, that his mind is “unfruitful.” There is no understanding. But wait, the person understands perfectly because Aramaic is his native language. So, obviously, Paul is not just talking about a person speaking in another language that he understands.

i know plenty of Jewish kids that had their bar mitzvah and could recite the haftarah cantillation in Hebrew but never learned the language, just as kids can recite Latin and never know what is said…

Paul explicitly says that (verse 2) no one understands the speaker and (verse 14) the speaker does not understand his own speech.

Sounds like some of the Syro-Aramaic chanters at my Church not learned or educated in their Liturgical language.

“I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.”

Sounds like one who is expounding the Scriptures or the Apostolic teaching is greater than the one who sounds good praying or chanting in another language he might not know.

Paul is not disparaging tongues. He is saying that prophecy is greater because it is intelligible, but when tongues are interpreted they are just as valuable as prophecy.

i agree. We just disgree on what tongues and prophecy mean

 

[ltwin]

again, how does one discern any positive utterance from a well-intentioned believer vs. GOD, or even something negative or demonic… Pat Robertson goes on and on about how God spoke to him about this or that disaster being a prophetic event by God for some sin or whatever. I dismiss this as mere bunk or “woo-woo” as James Randi has termed them

OK. You are exercising discernment. You are under no obligation to believe anyone just because they are on tv. We are not required to believe everything someone says, we are only required to test everything and warned not to despise prophecies (1 Thessalonians 5:20), which can become tempting when people say foolish things and ascribe them to divine influence. I test everything against Scripture.

If I remember correctly, the Didache advised early churches not to accept someone as a prophet if they asked for money (or food ) while supposedly in the Spirit. That always seemed to me to be good advice.

Yes, I found the quote in chapter 11:

And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him.

And, to return to Scripture, 1 John 4:2 indicates we can use theological criteria: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” As Zondervan Bible Commentary says of this passage:

4–6. Beliefs and utterances which are disloyal to the person of Jesus as recorded and interpreted in the apostolic testimony are inspired, not by the Spirit of truth (the Holy Spirit, Jn 14:17) but by the spirit of falsehood. The spirit which will animate the Antichrist is a spirit which the world finds congenial. Right belief as to the person of Jesus is based upon the apostolic testimony, and John holds the high ground of being one of the primary witnesses appointed by God. We (the apostles) are from God. He is not here contrasting the apostles with other Christians, but with the new teachers (they of v. 5). The apostles received the Spirit to enable them to bear their witness, basic to the very existence of the Church; other Christians are enabled by the same Spirit to believe the apostolic witness: whoever knows God listens to us (i.e. listens and obeys: cf. Mt. 18:15 f.). Prophets and teachers are therefore to be judged by their doctrine; and doctrine is to be judged, not by its emotional quality and strength, but by its agreement with the apostolic testimony to Jesus.

 

[ltwin]

So who is edified at all by the so-called tongue if the one interpreting can explain in plain English. Why have a middle man?

Because we all have gifts and those gifts have a place in the body. The tongue-speaker is not demeaned because he must rely on someone to interpret for him. This is the entire point Paul was getting to in 1 Corinthians 12–that we are one body in Christ and all the gifts we are given are given by Him and none are useless:

12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts,[e] yet one body.

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

I for one am not a literalist so silencing women would not even be on my radar, but I thought Pentecostals in general were more literalists on such matters.

No, we do not silence women. Many of our most famous pastors and evangelists have been women. Some of our churches were founded by women.

Such could occur to a native Greek born of Jewish origin. When he prays in Hebrew, he may not know the language, but speaks Greek in daily life…
i know plenty of Jewish kids that had their bar mitzvah and could recite the haftarah cantillation in Hebrew but never learned the language, just as kids can recite Latin and never know what is said…
Sounds like some of the Syro-Aramaic chanters at my Church not learned or educated in their Liturgical language.
Sounds like one who is expounding the Scriptures or the Apostolic teaching is greater than the one who sounds good praying or chanting in another language he might not know.

So, you are saying learning a liturgical language is a spiritual gift?

i agree. We just disgree on what tongues and prophecy mean

Indeed we do.