Speaking in Tongues: In Search of Truth

Acts 10:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

This one event has divided the church that was just being formed. Even today Christians have much dissension about "speaking in tongues"! Most just know that our own understanding is how it really happened.  It DID HAPPEN! It says so right here. Few truly Christian people don't even deny the truth in these verses. What is the issue the issue then? There are several, and here are some:

1. When do Christians get the Holy Spirit?
2. Do all true Christians get the Holy Spirit or is it for a special people?
3. Can one be spirit-filled and not speak in tongues?
4. Was the speaking in tongues for all times or was it to be only evidence to aid in the growth of the Christian church?
5. Which was speaking in tongues: hearing, speaking or understanding, or a combination of all?
6. What is "speaking in tongues"?

Let me first acknowledge my personal bias. I am a Christian because I believe in and trust Jesus Christ as my savior. I am a Christian who fails, but I believe that it's my faith which sustains me through Jesus. I don't believe that faith is measured in terms of whether I speak in "tongues" or not. I have asked the Lord if that is his will, that I speak in tongues. I do not!

Anecdotally, I would say that I know Christian people whose lives reflect holiness who speak in tongues. I would never question their sincerity nor honesty. I don't believe they would fake this gift. With that said, I have seen occasions where I believe that Christians do put on a performance, not only by speaking in tongues, but doing "holy" things on cue. In those instances, there are five options: 1) It is true holiness which I fail to understand, 2) It is an act for the benefit of those around, 3) It's real, but it's an emotional response, 4) It's a reaction to what's happening, or 5) or people are just showing off.

Since I'm not to judge, let me narrow that down: 1) It's real or 2) or it's not. I can't say because I'm not the final say for sure, that it's either real or it's not. because I'm not the final say!

First off, when other people exhibit behaviors most people are uncomfortable. Since the options are few, then most people follow the others. That's herd mentality. Some people get excited and blessed by music. I don't! When they stand up "in the spirit" I do too! Why? I'm nit being a hypocrite, but I'm also trying not to be the focus of attention. If I was the only one to remain seated, people would have their minds on me, not God. Also, I feel uncomfortable for being alone in my experience. Consequently, I stand up even though I'm not in the spirit of the music! (I do get in the spirit when the preacher preaches truth, but when that happens then is that no one stands up, and I would be a distraction if I stood up by myself. Others, if I did, would then be obliged to stand with me so they would not appear to be outcasts!)

Then we have action/reaction pairs. Pavlov demonstrated that with dogs. People do things when the right stimulus is provided, and become acclimated to exhibit the same results even without the stimulus. In effect people clap when there is a beat, they raise their hands when the music is feverish, they amen when truth is preached, and they may utter aloud when the cue drives them to do so. What I'm saying is that some may speak in tongues because they have been acclimated by others who do, that this is what one is to do!

Then there are personalities. I'm referring to those who show emotion. I never get excited at ball games because that's not my nature. Others are fanatics who shout, hoot, yell, jump up and down and wave their arms. They are demonstrating their excitement. I don't get that excited! Some people who get excited like that get excited in like manner in church. Inside, I'm screaming in joy, but by nature, people would think I was apathetic! I'm just not emotional. I laugh easily, but cry with difficulty. I wish I was more outward with my emotions, but God made me as I am. However, being emotional is not a test of joy, peace, truth, love or anything else. Quiet people can and do love God just as much as do those who are emotional!

Speaking in tongues may be an ecstatic expression of emotion. Even so, it can still be of God, or it could be of the "self". The speaker may not even know! He or she just may feel the emotion and credit God with the speaking in tongues.

On the veracity of "tongues", it is real. People still spoke in tongues as acknowledged by Paul in his letters. However, the church was still forming. Likewise, the speaking in tongues was done in the early apostolic church, but it too was still forming. As late as 400 A.D. Augustine still spoke of speaking in tongues:

"We still do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Spirit on them in the laying-on of hands. It is expected that converts should speak with new tongues."

However, the church was still being formed.  After that there was no reports of which I'm aware where Christians spoke in tongues. Either the miracle of that had waned or people had grown more cold. When many Christians were persecuted for their belief, they died by fire and blood, testifying to their faith, but there are no reports of those baptized with blood who spoke in tongues.

For further comparisons on the "cessation of tongues" please read The Gift of Tongues (click the link).

Then there are those who fake everything! They are false Christians. They do what appears to be holy for the sake of others. They live a lie because they can't do what they know that they should do! I'll give the benefit of the doubt: This is not the norm, but the exception!

Most people then either truly speak in tongues or they have some type of emotional or behavioral experience. There are tests for that even for the apostolic church!

1 Corinthians 14:27 "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."

If the test was good for Paul and his church, then I accept the test and so should you! If even a few are speaking in tongues in the church, someone must be interpreting it as they speak. There must be a test for the interpreter as well! Those who claim the gift should be able to write down what is being spoken and all those who are in the spirit should write the same sayings. That's a double-blind test of authenticity. As far as I have researched there has never been a double-blind test of speaking in tongues which, of course can't prove it, but could support it. (A controlled experiment with proper methodology is necessary and the Holy Spirit just may not cooperate!)

"[Glossolalia] consists of strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but emerging nevertheless as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody.[Samarin, William J. (1972). "Sociolinguistic vs. Neurophysiological Explanations for Glossolalia: Comment on Goodman’s Paper". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 11 (3): 293–296. doi:10.2307/1384556. JSTOR 1384556.]

That the sounds are taken from the set of sounds already known to the speaker is confirmed by others. Felicitas Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, also found that the speech of glossolalists reflected the patterns of speech of the speaker's native language. [Goodman, Felicitas D. (1969). "Phonetic Analysis of Glossolalia in Four Cultural Settings". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 8 (2): 227–235. doi:10.2307/1384336. JSTOR 1384336.]

It would appear from science (linguists) that the language is truly "unknown" but it has the characteristics of the speaker's own language. In other words, the language is pieced together from how the speaker speaks. Of course, as with much of "science", it has it's own built-in irreligious bias and data is subject to interpretation. Also, keep in mind that they didn't "prove" anything, but merely operationalized and analyzed what they heard. As with many scientific "facts" generally accepted, they are no more than theories. However, we do have to be pragmatic and add all the data to form what only can be an educated opinion or acceptance through faith.

Admittedly, I have yet to define "speaking in tongues", referred to by scientists as "glossolalia". Tomorrow we will continue on our journey to at least present the evidence and refutations in search of what each of us should desire: TRUTH.