What Is Pentecostal Worship Like?

[Debbie_Kono]

Perhaps. I think some repetition is fine. I’m really enjoying listening to United Pursuit and Will Reagan right now, and they have a lot of repetition.I mean we want to enjoy spending time worshiping God and standing in his presence. I think he deserves more than just 15 minutes of singing. Yet, I myself have been in services where it was clear that the song should have been changed a while ago. I won’t deny that.

Sometimes though the service takes unexpected turns and people may be praying at the altars and the pastor may even be ministering to people in the altars and it just makes sense to “drag out” the songs sometimes.

Interestingly, at Azusa Street they sang a capella with no worship leaders at all.

Attaching a sample of gregorian chant. Hoping you will want to give it a listen. The first one, Kyrie Eleison is actually Greek:

Kyrie Eleison - Lord (God the Father) have mercy
Kyrie Eleison
Christi Eleison - Christ have mercy
Christi Eleison
Kyrie Eleison - Lord (the Holy Spirit) have mercy
Kyrie Eleison

The other 3 are Latin: Gloria (Glory to God), Sanctus (Holy) and Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) and I would be more than happy to type out the translations of the last 3 if you’re interested. These prayers are all sung at a Sunday High Mass.

God bless you Itwin…I hope you will give it a listen.

youtu.be/O3ETFI2U9RA

 

[ltwin]

I asked the same question to a much more experienced priest in the charismatic movement. He’s been the pastor of a charismatic parish for over 20 years, I believe, and wrote his STL thesis on charismatic prayer. He said that Scripture actually speaks of four different modes of the gift of tongues.

1. Xenoglossia-speaking a foreign language with the purpose of evangelizing someone else who does not speak your language. This is what we see in Acts 2, for example.
2. Tongues as a form of praise to God. (The Spirit speaks through us in inexpressible groanings for we do not know how to pray as we ought.). This is what we typically think of when we think of the “gift of tongues.” I do, anyway.
3. Tongues that are interpreted for another, which you mention above.
4. And, this one sort of goes with the first, but speaking something in your own native language (i.e. for me English), but your hearer (who doesn’t speak your language) understanding your words in his or her own native language.

Again, I’m NOT an expert. I’ve only recently been exposed to this. Neither am I a Scripture scholar. I’m just reiterating what my priest friend said.

Yes, Pentecostal theologians have made the same observations. Paul also speaks of singing in the spirit, which in the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is clearly singing in tongues.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

I’m not an expert on the pre-Reformation writings, so someone else will have to weigh in. I know this much, the Reformers were knowledgeable about the Church Fathers and used them in their writings.

I think this is exactly why many Protestants who do begin to search in earnest, like GK Chesterton, convert. They find out the true faith is in the Catholic Church. I believe it is Chesterton who said, “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

For recent converts here in the US, please consider listening/reading Dr. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray or Dr. David Anders. These people absolutely did not want to convert…but faced with the truth, had no choice.

 

[buc_fan33]

I think this is exactly why many Protestants who do begin to search in earnest, like GK Chesterton, convert. They find out the true faith is in the Catholic Church. I believe it is Chesterton who said, “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

Cardinal John Henry Newman, but yes, Chesterton was amazing. The “Big Four” from that era, as I call them: Chesterton, Belloc, Tolkien, and Lewis.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Cardinal John Henry Newman, but yes, Chesterton was amazing. The “Big Four” from that era, as I call them: Chesterton, Belloc, Tolkien, and Lewis.

Yes, thank you for the correction.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I asked the same question to a much more experienced priest in the charismatic movement. He’s been the pastor of a charismatic parish for over 20 years, I believe, and wrote his STL thesis on charismatic prayer. He said that Scripture actually speaks of four different modes of the gift of tongues.

1. Xenoglossia-speaking a foreign language with the purpose of evangelizing someone else who does not speak your language. This is what we see in Acts 2, for example.
2. Tongues as a form of praise to God. (The Spirit speaks through us in inexpressible groanings for we do not know how to pray as we ought.). This is what we typically think of when we think of the “gift of tongues.” I do, anyway.
3. Tongues that are interpreted for another, which you mention above.
4. And, this one sort of goes with the first, but speaking something in your own native language (i.e. for me English), but your hearer (who doesn’t speak your language) understanding your words in his or her own native language.

Again, I’m NOT an expert. I’ve only recently been exposed to this. Neither am I a Scripture scholar. I’m just reiterating what my priest friend said.

Father, I have heard this repeated from both Catholic, and mostly nonCatholic sources for many decades, however, let me point out that while 2 is so common, 1,3, and 4 are hardly ever seen. Why is the easiest to imitate, hardest to verify, and mostly replicated the most common? Linguists have also studied this phenomenon for decades and have noticed that #2 follows the structural pattern of the speakers native language, and/or the perception of what the speaker thinks mystical should sound like. In addition, “inexpressible groanings” are just that “inexpressible”, not (to Americans, Brits, Western Europeans) “shaaasaahassashaallasaalaamma”

 

[ltwin]

Attaching a sample of gregorian chant. Hoping you will want to give it a listen. The first one, Kyrie Eleison is actually Greek:

Kyrie Eleison - Lord (God the Father) have mercy
Kyrie Eleison
Christi Eleison - Christ have mercy
Christi Eleison
Kyrie Eleison - Lord (the Holy Spirit) have mercy
Kyrie Eleison

The other 3 are Latin: Gloria (Glory to God), Sanctus (Holy) and Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) and I would be more than happy to type out the translations of the last 3 if you’re interested. These prayers are all sung at a Sunday High Mass.

God bless you Itwin…I hope you will give it a listen.

youtu.be/O3ETFI2U9RA

I like gregorian chant, though it would be strange to me for it to accompany worship at my church. When I taught World History, I would always show my kids videos of the Latin mass or singing in Latin to illustrate religious life and the use of Latin in the Middle Ages.

 

[ltwin]

Father, I have heard this repeated from both Catholic, and mostly nonCatholic sources for many decades, however, let me point out that while 2 is so common, 1,3, and 4 are hardly ever seen.

I know you addressed this to buc_fan33, but what do you mean the type 3 is hardly seen? This occurs in countless Pentecostal and charismatic congregations on a regular basis. Take for example a historically notable message and interpretation given at the 1994 founding of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches of North America–the regional association of Pentecostal denominations for Canada, the US, and Mexico–transcribed on the PCCCNA’s website. For context the PCCCNA replaced a previous organization that was exclusively for white Pentecostals, so racial reconciliation and white repentance for segregating the movement was the background for all this:

*The climactic moment, however, came in the scholar’s session on the afternoon of October 18, after Bishop Blake tearfully told the delegates, Brothers and Sisters, I commit my love to you. There are problems down the road, but a strong commitment to love will overcome them all. Suddenly there was a sweeping move of the Holy Spirit over the entire assembly. A young black brother uttered a spirited message in tongues after which Jack Hayford hurried to the microphone to give the interpretation. He began by saying, For the Lord would speak to you this day, by the tongue, by the quickening of the Spirit, and he would say:

"My sons and my daughters, look if you will from the heavenward side of things, and see where you have been, two, separate streams, that is, streams as at flood tide. For I have poured out of my Spirit upon you and flooded you with grace in both your circles of gathering and fellowship. But as streams at flood tide, nonetheless, the waters have been muddied to some degree. Those of desperate thirst have come, nonetheless, for muddy water is better than none at all.

My sons and my daughters, if you will look and see that there are some not come to drink because of what they have seen. You have not been aware of it, for only heaven has seen those who would doubt what flowed in your midst, because of the waters muddied having been soiled by the clay of your humanness, not by your crudity, lucidity, or intentionality, but by the clay of your humanness the river has been made impure.

But look. Look, for I, by my Spirit, am flowing the two streams into one. And the two becoming one, if you can see from the heaven side of things, are being purified and not only is there a new purity coming in your midst, but there will be multitudes more who will gather at this one mighty river because they will see the purity of the reality of my love manifest in you. And so, know that as heaven observes and tells us what is taking place, there is reason for you to rejoice and prepare yourself for here shall be multitudes more than ever before come to this joint surging of my grace among you, says the Lord."
​

Immediately, a white pastor appeared in the wings of the backstage with a towel and basin of water. His name was Donald Evans, an Assemblies of God pastor from Tampa, Florida. When he explained that the Lord had called him to wash the feet of a black leader as a sign of repentance, he was given access to the platform. In a moment of tearful contrition, he washed the feet of Bishop Clemmons while begging forgiveness for the sins of the whites against their black brothers and sisters. A wave of weeping swept over the auditorium. Then, Bishop Blake approached Thomas Trask, General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God, and tearfully washed his feet as a sign of repentance for any animosity blacks had harbored against their white brothers and sisters. This was the climactic moment of the conference. Everyone sensed that this was the final seal of Holy Spirit approval from the heart of God over the proceedings. In an emotional speech the next day, Dr. Paul Walker of the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) called this event, the Miracle in Memphis, a name that struck and made headlines around the world.​

*

 

[Michael85]

I remember a friend showing me a video of Hindu kundalini yoga. It has similar practices to Pentecostalism (particularly the kind practiced by Benny Hinn), including people making noises like animals and falling over.

I remember going to a Charismatic Mass once (never again!). Two men prayed over me in tongues. One kept saying “Allahu akbar” (Arabic: God is great or God is the greatest) over and over again.

By the way, is there such a thing as a Pentecostal/Charismatic worship service with traditional hymns played on a pipe organ? Or is the “praise and worship” music predominant throughout the movement?

 

[ltwin]

I remember a friend showing me a video of Hindu kundalini yoga. It has similar practices to Pentecostalism (particularly the kind practiced by Benny Hinn), including people making noises like animals and falling over.

Anglican/Methodist priests George Whitefield and John Wesley had people fall out in their ministries too. Are you suggesting their religious beliefs were based on yoga too?

By the way, is there such a thing as a Pentecostal/Charismatic worship service with traditional hymns played on a pipe organ? Or is the “praise and worship” music predominant throughout the movement?

There are still Pentecostals who prefer traditional worship, though for Pentecostals traditional is 18th and 19th century hymns. African-American Pentecostals tend to feature Hammond organs. I’ve never been in a Pentecostal church with a pipe organ.

But yeah, Pentecostalism and contemporary worship pretty much go hand in hand. It’s no coincidence Elvis was raised Assemblies of God.

This video is from some sort of installation service for the Church of God in Christ. They are singing “Great is Thy Faithfulness.” This is about as traditional as you get.

youtube.com/watch?v=Fe3Ox3HEvwg

 

[CatholicSheila]

I’ve been to much of the same.

I felt a lot of aspects were textbook “group mania”.

To each their own, but I doubt I’ll shake and yell when I stand before God. I’ll likely intuitively follow the example of pretty much everyone else in scripture and put my face in the dirt.

To be fair to pentecostals (born and raised here) I have been to plenty of services which ended with everyone on their knees / lying on the ground praying. I would find that just as ‘normal’ in a pentecostal church as I would the dancing crazily.

The biggest thing I notice is church is a lot longer. More time is spent in praise and worship. The first 30-45 minutes of the service. Then there is announcements and collection. When I still attended the prosperity doctrine (God wants us all to be rich) was in full swing, so this usually included a 10 minute mini sermon on giving. I have heard from family that this isn’t as common any more though. Communion is usually next, which is another mini sermon which takes 10-15 min all up. After that the main sermon which will easily go for 30 - 40 minutes. There is no set schedule for which parts of the bible are used. The pastor basically picks his topic and then quotes where in the bible he believes his point is supported. After that there is often an alter call where people who are not saved are encouraged to come forward and give their life to the Lord via the sinners prayer. This is followed by more praise and worship. All up services tend to go 3hrs. The dancing / prayer tends to follow on from the last praise and worship session.

Chances are there will be speaking in tongues both from the pastors and the congregation. The big difference I’ve noticed with charismatic Catholic services (not masses, just praise and worship services) is that in the Catholic services one person speaks in tongues and someone always translates. In the pentecostal services it is seen as a private prayer with God. There is very rarely someone who translates and it certainly isn’t only one person praying in tongues at a time.

 

[ltwin]

CatholicSheila;14744351\:

Chances are there will be speaking in tongues both from the pastors and the congregation. The big difference I’ve noticed with charismatic Catholic services (not masses, just praise and worship services) is that in the Catholic services one person speaks in tongues and someone always translates. In the pentecostal services it is seen as a private prayer with God. There is very rarely someone who translates and it certainly isn’t only one person praying in tongues at a time.

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:

*When tongues are exercised publicly according to the Biblical standard, should there always be an interpretation? Who should give the interpretation?

In 1 Corinthians 14 the apostle Paul clearly taught that public speaking in tongues in the assembly of believers is in order only when followed by an interpretation. It was because of this disorderly practice at Corinth that Paul wrote such statements as “speaking into the air” (1 Corinthians 14:9), “stop thinking like children” (1 Corinthians 14:20), “will they not say that you are out of you mind?” (1 Corinthians 14:23), and “keep quiet in the church” (1 Corinthians 14:28).

It [was this disorderly practice] that prompted Paul to stress the superiority of prophecy–not to interpreted tongues, but to uninterpreted tongues (1 Corinthians 14:5).

Final responsibility for giving an interpretation of tongues in a public assembly rests with the one who gave the utterance in tongues. The speaker either must be assured that someone else in the assembly will provide the interpretation, or he must be prepared to do so himself (1 Corinthians 14:13, 27 28).

For whose benefit and for what purpose are there utterances in tongues followed by interpretations?

The purpose of tongues with interpretation is twofold. One purpose is to provide a sign for unbelievers that they might believe. The other purpose is to edify the church body. Tongues with interpretation declares the mighty works of God, exalts His name, and prompts the believers to worship Him in spirit and in truth. It also calls for commitment to the church’s mission.

In 1 Corinthians 14:22 and following, Paul wrote that tongues are a sign primarily for the unbeliever when uttered in a public assembly. Understandably so, for tongues properly interpreted will speak of the majesty and glory of God. The unbeliever will be drawn by this empowered expression.

Some confuse speaking in tongues with the gift of prophecy. Paul drew a distinction between the two. He indicated the purpose of the spiritual gift of prophecy is to strengthen, encourage, and comfort (1 Corinthians 14:3, 31). Thus prophecy is primarily for the benefit of believers. Paul pointed out, however, that unbelievers who hear a prophetic word may also be convicted and turn in repentance to God (1 Corinthians 14:24,25).*

 

[SyroMalankara]

I know you addressed this to buc_fan33, but what do you mean the type 3 is hardly seen? This occurs in countless Pentecostal and charismatic congregations on a regular basis. Take for example a historically notable message and interpretation given at the 1994 founding of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches of North America–the regional association of Pentecostal denominations for Canada, the US, and Mexico–transcribed on the PCCCNA’s website. For context the PCCCNA replaced a previous organization that was exclusively for white Pentecostals, so racial reconciliation and white repentance for segregating the movement was the background for all this:

*The climactic moment, however, came in the scholar’s session on the afternoon of October 18, after Bishop Blake tearfully told the delegates, Brothers and Sisters, I commit my love to you. There are problems down the road, but a strong commitment to love will overcome them all. Suddenly there was a sweeping move of the Holy Spirit over the entire assembly. A young black brother uttered a spirited message in tongues after which Jack Hayford hurried to the microphone to give the interpretation. He began by saying, For the Lord would speak to you this day, by the tongue, by the quickening of the Spirit, and he would say:

"My sons and my daughters, look if you will from the heavenward side of things, and see where you have been, two, separate streams, that is, streams as at flood tide. For I have poured out of my Spirit upon you and flooded you with grace in both your circles of gathering and fellowship. But as streams at flood tide, nonetheless, the waters have been muddied to some degree. Those of desperate thirst have come, nonetheless, for muddy water is better than none at all.

My sons and my daughters, if you will look and see that there are some not come to drink because of what they have seen. You have not been aware of it, for only heaven has seen those who would doubt what flowed in your midst, because of the waters muddied having been soiled by the clay of your humanness, not by your crudity, lucidity, or intentionality, but by the clay of your humanness the river has been made impure.

But look. Look, for I, by my Spirit, am flowing the two streams into one. And the two becoming one, if you can see from the heaven side of things, are being purified and not only is there a new purity coming in your midst, but there will be multitudes more who will gather at this one mighty river because they will see the purity of the reality of my love manifest in you. And so, know that as heaven observes and tells us what is taking place, there is reason for you to rejoice and prepare yourself for here shall be multitudes more than ever before come to this joint surging of my grace among you, says the Lord."
​

Immediately, a white pastor appeared in the wings of the backstage with a towel and basin of water. His name was Donald Evans, an Assemblies of God pastor from Tampa, Florida. When he explained that the Lord had called him to wash the feet of a black leader as a sign of repentance, he was given access to the platform. In a moment of tearful contrition, he washed the feet of Bishop Clemmons while begging forgiveness for the sins of the whites against their black brothers and sisters. A wave of weeping swept over the auditorium. Then, Bishop Blake approached Thomas Trask, General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God, and tearfully washed his feet as a sign of repentance for any animosity blacks had harbored against their white brothers and sisters. This was the climactic moment of the conference. Everyone sensed that this was the final seal of Holy Spirit approval from the heart of God over the proceedings. In an emotional speech the next day, Dr. Paul Walker of the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) called this event, the Miracle in Memphis, a name that struck and made headlines around the world.​

*

So was this a “spontaneous outpouring” or a previously determined (staged to some degree) presentation of reconciliation?

 

[SyroMalankara]

What is your take on this:

Let me preface this post by making it clear that it is not written with any deliberate intention of offending anyone who practices glossolalia (a/k/a ‘speaking in tongues’). I am of the belief that all people are free to choose their own spiritual path and though I may not agree with the tenants and practices of your particular path, it does not mean I should try and dissuade you from it and that is not what I am attempting here. That said, I do take a hard look at the phenomenon of glossolalia and discuss it in a rather frank manner and acknowledge that the results may or may not paint the Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “tongues” in nearly the same light as its practitioners view it.

As a Linguist, I have studied the phenomenon of glossolalia from both a linguistic and cultural point of view. My primary concentration was on the linguistic aspect of this phenomenon.

During the course of my study, it soon became clear that there are really two separate phenomena taking place here: the actual glossa (i.e. the speech, or ‘tongue’ as some would call it) and the interpretation of said glossa (i.e. the “message”).

Let me start by providing a brief summary of the results of the study, and then examine each in greater detail.

Results were rather straightforward from which only one reasonable conclusion may be drawn: glossolalia in and of itself is simply an advanced form of learned, subconscious word-play or “free-vocalization”; anyone can learn to produce it relatively easily. Glossolalia only has specific significance in a cultural or religious context where it is part of that cultural or religious belief system’s practice. In these instances, with the possible exception of Christian glossolalia, it is viewed as a tool rather than a means (more on this further below).

Interpretation which, in most cases, goes hand in hand with the glossolalia, can be viewed as nothing more than a Christian form of what is known as ‘spirit channeling’. Practitioners are simply channeling the Holy Spirit via the tool of glossolalia. As in other traditions that practice channeling, the method/tool used to initiate the process is not necessarily related to the actual ‘message’. Practitioners will argue that channeling and what happens when one is speaking in tongues are two very different things; however, it really boils down to semantics – both describe essentially the same thing.

Let me first discuss glossolalia in greater detail –

In Charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity glossolalia (i.e. “tongues”) can only be regarded as divinely inspired speech and/or its interpretation. Moreover, the fact of how glossolalia is actually produced and what it linguistically comprises doesn’t seem to even come into question. It almost really can’t; “tongues” and its divine origin is an integral core tenant Pentecostal belief. Without “tongues”, Pentecostalism in particular falls rather flat. If the actual mechanics of glossolalia did come into question, there’s really only one rational conclusion: tongues/glossolalia totally excludes any possibility of being divine in nature.

One can certainly perhaps believe him/her self to be divinely inspired to practice glossolalia, but glossolalia in and of itself is neither divine nor miraculous; it’s actually quite mundane and often times its structure in a given speaker or group of speakers from the same congregation is even quite predictable.

It should be noted that most other Christian and non-Christian traditions consider Biblical ‘tongues’ as real language(s). It is generally understood that the word used in the original Greek texts, ‘glossa’, refers to real language, not ecstatic utterance. For the Pentecostal or Charismatic however ‘glossa’, it seems, may refer to both.

Rather than engage in a lengthy discussion and linguistic analysis of glossolalia, let me summarize a few facts to illustrate the point:

Glossolalia will ONLY contain those phonemes (sounds) found in a speaker’s native language or any other language s/he may be familiar with or have been exposed to (either wittingly or not).

Glossolalia is governed by the SAME phonological rules that apply to the speaker’s native language(s)

In other words, if a person knows or has only ever been exposed to say English, their glossolalia will not contain any sounds, or combination of sounds, not found in English. It’s as simple as that. The sounds made by the German ü or ö, or the Welsh ‘ll’, or the Zulu ‘q’ will never occur in their ‘tongue’.

Further, since the phonological rules of a speaker’s glossolalia will always conform to the same phonological rules of (in this example) English, any disallowed syllable structures (e.g. consonant clusters, diphthongs, etc.) in the speaker’s native language (again in this example, English) will also be disallowed in that speaker’s glossolalia.

Syllable structure is also rather unique to some degree. Glossolalia typically exhibits a very open syllable structure; that is, the syllables of a given “word” are typically Consonant (C) Vowel (V), and strings typically consist of a repetition of this structure; so something like CVCVCVCV. With the final segment of the string, there seems to be a choice of using either an open syllable or a closed one (a closed syllable has the structure CVC). This simplified syllable structure lends itself to the impression by many people that “tongues” simply flow from the speaker’s mouth.

Note that where I have used ‘C’ (consonant) here, it should be understood that it could represent a single consonant, or any allowed consonant cluster.

Therefore, the end result being that the glossolalia of a German speaker will never quite sound like an English or Spanish speaker. Conversely, neither of their glossolalia will ever sound like a German’s.

 

[SyroMalankara]

What has also been noted and is rather interesting is that American speakers of glossolalia tend to try and make their speech sound more “foreign” or less “American English” sounding, for lack of a better way of putting it. The two most common methods are by trilling the ‘r’ sound (as in many European languages, but unlike American English), and the noticeable absence of the ‘ash’ sound (the ‘a’ in the word “ash”) as this is considered a very English sound (though it certainly does occur in other languages). The trilled ‘r’ has entered the repertoire (phonemic inventory) of American English - the trilled ‘r’ and typical American ‘rhotic r’ have become variations of one another.

Glossolalia most closely resembles human babbling in structure. The typical syllable structure of “babble” is CVCV (i.e. open syllables no matter what your native language may favor). It typically contains syllables which are repeated several times, often with a bit of play on the initial consonant in the syllable; alternating various stop consonants (in English, p/b/, t/d/, k/g) for example.

Or these posts:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14153961&postcount=103

 

[ltwin]

So was this a “spontaneous outpouring” or a previously determined (staged to some degree) presentation of reconciliation?

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.

 

[ltwin]

]During the course of my study, it soon became clear that there are really two separate phenomena taking place here: the actual glossa (i.e. the speech, or ‘tongue’ as some would call it) and the interpretation of said glossa (i.e. the “message”).

Well, they are two different gifts in operation. Lots of time these gifts are exercised by two different people–the one delivering the message and the one providing the interpretation.

]Results were rather straightforward from which only one reasonable conclusion may be drawn: glossolalia in and of itself is simply an advanced form of learned, subconscious word-play or “free-vocalization”; anyone can learn to produce it relatively easily. Glossolalia only has specific significance in a cultural or religious context where it is part of that cultural or religious belief system’s practice. In these instances, with the possible exception of Christian glossolalia, it is viewed as a tool rather than a means (more on this further below).

Yes, I am familiar with the linguistic and anthropological research on glossolalia. It is less apparent why that research should keep me from believing what Holy Scripture says concerning tongues.

]Interpretation which, in most cases, goes hand in hand with the glossolalia, can be viewed as nothing more than a Christian form of what is known as ‘spirit channeling’. Practitioners are simply channeling the Holy Spirit via the tool of glossolalia. As in other traditions that practice channeling, the method/tool used to initiate the process is not necessarily related to the actual ‘message’. Practitioners will argue that channeling and what happens when one is speaking in tongues are two very different things; however, it really boils down to semantics – both describe essentially the same thing.

I suppose any revelation from God could be "called’ spirit channeling since one is being used by the Holy Spirit. Any prophecy or word of wisdom or knowledge or prayer of healing or consecration of the Eucharist or laying on of hands or anything else Christians do could be “called” “spirit channeling.” I’m not sure what the point is.

In Charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity glossolalia (i.e. “tongues”) can only be regarded as divinely inspired speech and/or its interpretation.

When you say inspired, if you mean that all glossolalic utterances are considered as being spoken directly from God, this is incorrect. Private glossolalic utterance is not even a public address (a message)–it is simply prayer. Paul says " if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays" (1 Cor. 14:14). In verse 16, he describes it as praising God and giving thanksgiving.

In 1 Cor. 14:6, Paul talks about “revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction” when addressing public messages. Revelation and knowledge could be just about anything–not necessarily direct communication from God. Prophecy would come directly from God. A word of instruction would not necessarily have to come from God.

Many times, you see a message in tongues and its interpretation of a prophetic utterance. But there are also times when a message and interpretation is not of a prophetic nature–it is simply a spontaneous prayer or word that comes from the heart of the person giving the message.

Why would we need to go through all that trouble? I don’t know, but Paul speaks about the spiritual gifts in the context of the unity of the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12. It is possible that the interconnected nature of these gifts is meant to teach us that the Body of Christ must work together.

]It should be noted that most other Christian and non-Christian traditions consider Biblical ‘tongues’ as real language(s).

Many scholars study 1 Corinthians from the standpoint that the phenomenon encountered is self-consciously what we would term glossolalia and what Paul might consider as angelic or heavenly tongues as opposed to just plain xenoglossy (See Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body). The Testament of Job includes descriptions of the daughters of Job speaking in “angelic” languages.

Syllable structure is also rather unique to some degree. Glossolalia typically exhibits a very open syllable structure; that is, the syllables of a given “word” are typically Consonant (C) Vowel (V), and strings typically consist of a repetition of this structure; so something like CVCVCVCV. With the final segment of the string, there seems to be a choice of using either an open syllable or a closed one (a closed syllable has the structure CVC). This simplified syllable structure lends itself to the impression by many people that “tongues” simply flow from the speaker’s mouth.

I can only give you my experience as someone who regularly prays in tongues. I was never taught or coached in how to do it–that would be impossible for an authentic spiritual gift. I simply open my mouth and allow my tongue to move freely as my spirit prays. Sometimes my “tongue” sounds more fluent and sometimes it sounds rough.But what it sounds like is not my concern.

There has been studies into the state of the brain while speaking in tongues. What they have shown is that believers’ own descriptions–that they are letting the words come out of them without consciously directing their speech–is supported.

Those studies can’t prove that glossolalia is a divine gift, but it does support what Pentecostals and charismatics have been saying. This is not some psuedo-language we are consciously constructing to “sound” mysterious and foreign.The language centers of the brain are not active.

 

[Vonsalza]

It is less apparent why that research should keep me from believing what Holy Scripture says concerning tongues.

Perhaps you’ve misinterpreted or grew up under misinterpretation and then surrounded yourself with others who share your misinterpretation in a display of confirmation bias.

There seems to be very little evidence for it prior to the 20th century.

 

[Whalljim]

Tongues in Acts 2 and in 1 Corinthians 14 have slightly different characteristics. In the latter, Paul makes it clear that tongues are unintelligible and need to be interpreted for there to be order and edification.

---

Ahhh. Yes. I see that now.

Forgive me, its still not something I’m familiar or comfortable with, but I see your point.

 

[buc_fan33]

Perhaps somewhat coincidentally, perhaps providentially, but quite germane to this topic, the following article was just published in Homiletic and Pastoral Review.

hprweb.com/2017/06/the-explosive-growth-of-pentecostal-charismatic-christianity-in-the-global-south-and-its-implications-for-catholic-evangelization/