Now for my personal commentary: I believe that even in apostolic times there were genuine "speaking in other languages" by those who were not native to that tongue, and the understanding of that language by others in the spirit. I also believe that there were instances of false "speaking in tongues" because of the warning about barbarians. The question then: "Was speaking in other tongues for merely the apostolic church as a miracle for its growth or was it meant to be for all time?" There are those of both persuasions:
"Glossolalists could, apart from those practicing glossolalia, also mean all those Christians who believe that the Pentecostal/charismatic glossolalia practiced today is the "speaking in tongues" described in the New Testament. They believe that it is a miraculous charism or spiritual gift. Glossolalists claim that these tongues can be both real, unlearned languages (i.e., xenoglossia) as well as a "language of the spirit", a "heavenly language", or perhaps the language of angels.
Cessationists believe that all the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased to occur early in Christian history, and therefore that the speaking in tongues practised today is simply the utterance of meaningless syllables. It is neither xenoglossia nor miraculous, but rather learned behavior, possibly self-induced. These believe that what the New Testament described as "speaking in tongues" was xenoglossia, a miraculous spiritual gift through which the speaker could communicate in natural languages not previously studied." (Wikipedia, Glossolalia).I would be a "cessationist" to be honest about my bias. However, because we're not to "grieve the Holy Spirit", I'm careful about judging the authenticity of speaking in tongues. There are occasions where I know of hardy Christians who speak in tongues and have confidence that they are not faking it! My position is that they are indeed "caught up in the spirit" and are speaking with ecstatic speech. However, many of those same people speak in public and without interpretation and are consequently in violation of Paul's rules for speaking in tongues from 1 Corinthians 14. By having silence rules, it would appear that the speaker has self-control over speaking. They can choose to do it or not. If when speaking tongues alienates others or causes confusion, it is not to be done.
In Acts Chapter 2 "they were of one accord" (no confusion) and the spirit came down upon them (Jewish Christians). Those present had no control over the Holy Ghost! Later on it seems that those who spoke in tongues had control over the Holy Ghost. Since Paul told them to do that, it must have been the right thing to do, but had involuntary speaking evolved into voluntary? Of course since it was voluntary, it's at odds with many pentecostal teachings of today.
The difference in tongues between the advent of the Holy Ghost and Paul's letters indicates that speaking in tongues had changed from the "miracle" aspect to the "works" aspect, both of course, by the Holy Ghost. What I am implying is that by the time Paul wrote things had changed! The church had already been established and the gentiles had become included into Christianity (remembering that it was the Jews who needed the miracles). The necessity and desirability of speaking in tongues had already been diminished. The second generation of Christians leaders (bishops) said little about speaking in tongues.
Of all the writings of Christians, the last known account of 207 A.D. when Tertullian spoke of "the interpretation of tongues" [ Warfield, Benjamin B. (1918). Counterfeit Miracles. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. p. 10. ISBN 0-85151-166-X. OCLC 3977281].
It is to be noted that Tertullian was a defender of the sect of gnostic Montanists who preached that the Holy Ghost spoke through Montanus who was a pagan priest before his conversion. This sect was declared heretical by the early church fathers, but lingered in Carthage (Africa) much later. Many Pentecostals use Montanists as examples to support their notion of the workings of the Holy Ghost. Montanism, in opposition to scripture which teaches the "silence of women" in the church, were the main propagators of this "ism". (Note that pentecostals for the most part ignore the scriptural teachings on women's roles in the church).
So it appears from the writings of our church fathers that "speaking in tongues" died out to history until the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles between 1906 and 1915 led by the black preacher William J. Seymour.
"The revival was characterized by ecstatic spiritual experiences accompanied by miracles, dramatic worship services, speaking in tongues, and inter-racial mingling." (Wikipedia).This occasion was the advent of the modern pentecostal movement. In other words, "speaking in tongues" was a dead work from 200 A.D. to 1900 A.D. If speaking in tongues is evidence of being filled with the spirit, then it would appear that many of those martyrs of the ages who were baptized with blood would have been filled with the spirit! I would think that the evidence of dying for your faith is more of a validation than is speaking in tongues!
I have a theory, not yet researched, regarding the modern era of speaking in tongues. First study what linguists say:
"Practitioners of glossolalia may disagree with linguistic researchers and claim that they are speaking human languages (xenoglossia). Felicitas Goodman studied a number of Pentecostal communities in the United States, the Caribbean and Mexico; these included English-, Spanish- and Mayan-speaking groups. She compared what she found with recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan. She took into account both the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and the supra-segmental elements (rhythm, accent, intonation) and concluded that there was no distinction between what was practised by the Pentecostal Protestants and the followers of other religions [Wikipedia, Goodman, Felicitas D. (1972). Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-30324-6. OCLC 393056.]"Glossolalia by Christians is scientifically the same as glossolalia by pagan religions. Admittedly science has its bias, but I've often wondered about testing for structure and meaning in modern tongue speaking. It appears that there is none! Of course God isn't bound by man's rules!
My proposition is that African influenced rites carried over into this black church while pagan influences were still quite alive in black communities. Seymour, the son of former slaves in Louisiana, in my opinion, was the Montanus of the day. Seymour witnessed one of his followers speaking in tongues and came to believe that the speaking in tongues was evidence of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and then the person had true proof of being born-again and a Christian who was going to heaven.
Under Seymour people spoke in tongues, a few of the holiness crowd, because that's what he taught them! This goes back to Paul's time when speaking in tongues was controllable, but they instead taught that it was a miraculous sign, as in the advent of the Holy Ghost.
Why do sincere Christians speak in tongues then? Because they want to and are expected to. They need the evidence that Jesus is real and the Holy Ghost is evidence. We know that when people believe things sincerely enough, it become reality! It's sincere, but it's not real! The "speaking in tongues" in the modern era came into being because, just as the Christian Jews, pentecostals need "proof".
Jesus taught that we are his by faith in his blood sacrifice in our place. Nowhere does Jesus teach that it's another act which saves. The evidence that we are saved is in love. As gratitude for being saved from damnation, we are to love Jesus. We show our love by obedience: loving others. Those who are without love have no evidence of salvation. Anyone can speak in tongues. Even the barbarians did! Not everyone loves!
No comments:
Post a Comment