Mark 16: An Exegetical Essay

2) The 16^th Chapter of Mark: Mark 16:15-20 gives five signs of believers. These signs were evident with the early church as they have been in my life. The critic would say, "Have you picked up snakes with your hands"??? The answer is no insomuch as physical serpents. I have however seen from scripture that the term "Pick up" can be and indeed should be, given the context "make to doubt". Equally to drink any deadly thing should be "imbibe, take in and keep mentally".

Mark 16: An Exegetical Essay

(paraphrased by Moth -me- without permission of the author)

Revivalists use Mark 16 as a standard 'proof-text' for their Pentecostal experience, but there seems to be some selective reading. For years the RCI has followed pastor Lloyd's unique interpretation that Mark 16 should be read as a parable from verse 9 onwards. See the essay essay, titled "Is it a Parable?" that effectively demolishes that line of argument.

... consulted many commentaries on 'Mark' that were written from the fourth century onwards in an effort to locate anyone at any point in history, who has offered a similar suggestion to that provided by Lloyd Longfield. He was unable to find one. Therefore it should be in question.

Mark 16:15-18

You know the scripture: "...preach the gospel to everyone. The one who believes and is baptised will be saved, but the one who doesn't believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: drive out demons..., new languages..., pick up snakes... unharmed from poison,.... place hands on sick."

Jesus' parting words to his disciples were, "go into the world, and preach the gospel to everyone!" To Christ, the most important thing in the world wasn't that the disciples go into it, but that the gospel was preached: the sole command in the verse is "preach the gospel". I offer that a misunderstanding of the nature of the gospel invariably leads to a misunderstanding of the nature of salvation. History demonstrates that such confusion all too frequently results in a rapid spiral into works-based, human-centric; fear-breeding forms of religious legalism, as such remains the natural religion of fallen human beings.

Ian has a lot of neat stuff here to say about the greek but if I skim over it I'm sure many others will. So I recommend checking the original manuscript to go deeper.

We now arrive at the most disputed portion of this biblical passage: Christ's teaching on the "signs".

Given that Jesus used the Greek plural for "signs" (sēmeia) in our passage, the first question that we need to ask ourselves is simple: how is this word used in (1) the NT record generally, and (2) Mark's gospel particularly? (Moth - more Greek stuff... refer back... I just can't bring myself to soak it in... I just can't) Mark went on further to describe five specific "signs" (note they are plural) that would "accompany" (a future tense, active voice, indicative mood verb) those who "believe" (again an active voice, aorist participle). They are:

(1) that in Christ's name they will drive out demons;

(2) they will speak in new languages;

(3) they will pick up snakes with their hands, and

(4) whatever poison they drink won't harm them; and finally

(5) that they will place their hands on the sick and they will recover.

The RCI understands the majority of these "signs" (numbers 1, 3 and 4) to be somehow parabolic or metaphorical. The RF, on the other hand, apparently accepts the literal interpretation of the majority of Mark's "signs", but understands them to be latent promises to be called upon as required. However, that confuses what Mark signs", with Paul's "spiritual gifts"! The former, however, serves to demonstrate the reality of God to an unbelieving world; the latter serves to build-up an already believing Christian assembly. In reality though, the RF has also attempted to reinterpret away the simple teaching of Scripture because it doesn't gel with the their doctrine.

Because the Revivalist groups universally claim the gift of tongues (itself a biblically defensible position), and because they universally link this particular spiritual gift with the receiving of God's Holy Spirit in the mystery of salvation (itself not a biblically defensible position); they can't simply jettison Mark 16:15-18 due to the difficulties that a straightforward reading of the passage presents them with.

"Yes, all speak in tongues! Well...we do see some people being healed through prayer sometimes. But clearly it's their fault! They must lack faith! Well, no...we'll have none of that demon stuff and nonsense here, and don't even being with the poison-drinking, snake-handling rubbish!"

Unfortunately though, Mark doesn't allow so casual a picking-and-choosing of what one is prepared to accept as valid when it comes to the "signs" that Mark 16 presents. To him, one either accepts the lot, or one rejects the lot. (see original manuscript for the grammatical reasons).

The answer

The RF in particular has assumed two things about Jesus' words at the beginning of verse 17: "these signs shall accompany those who believe". First, that the future tense indicates a promise rather than a prediction. And second, that it's a promise to all believers.

However, given that the statement appears after a conditional sentence (16:16), and given the entire range of subsequent contextual grammatical conditions that Mark presents ("...he that...and is...shall be..."), it's clear that the statement itself should be taken as a prediction rather than as a promise. This is further supported by the fact that each of the six instances of third person plural verbs mentioned with respect to the "signs" of verses 17 and 18, are categorical (or ?generalising') plurals. Categorical plurals separate and distinguish one group, from every other group. This form of plural exists in Greek, as it more easily yields itself to a generic notion: the focus is more towards the action, than it is towards the actor (i.e. "this is the kind of person who does this"). In our text the "signs" serve to distinguish Christian believers as a group, from every other group of people on the planet.

Our current text doesn't teach that all believers will cast out demons through to healing the sick at all. The stress isn't on the notion of promises given to believers it's on the authentication of Christianity as being from God before an unbelieving world. The passage, therefore, teaches that some Christians may speak in tongues. Others may cast out demons. Others still may be involved in the range of supernatural effects that are described, but these effects are simply one part of what it is that demonstrates the uniqueness of the Christian Church as a group separate to and from every other group. The effects?the "signs"?aren't individual promises, they're corporate predictions.

Conclusion

Revivalists collectively appeal to Mark 16:15-20 to authenticate their shared spiritual experience of "tongues", and further, to validate their unique theology that one must speak in tongues in order to be a "true" believer. However, Mark 16:15-20 doesn't reflect or represent the Revivalist theology at all. Each of the Revivalist groups has gone to extraordinary lengths over the years to explain-away the "missing signs", when what has really been missing is a proper appreciation of the passage's true meaning, as it stands. The Revivalist groups, quite simply, have gotten Mark 16 wrong.

A Tongues Misconception - Exposed!

There is a common misconception that tongues began at Pentecost, and were 'something new'. In fact, there are references to the tongues experience in earlier Jewish literature.

Philo, a Jewish writer contemporary with Jesus, noted a tradition concerning Sinai:

"it was the Father of the universe who delivered these ten maxims, or oracles, or laws and enactments, as they truly are, to the whole assembled nation of men and women altogether ... he at that time wrought a most conspicuous and evidently holy miracle, commanding an invisible sound to be created in the air ... which fashioned the air and stretched it our and changed it into a kind of flaming fire, and so sounded forth so loud and articulate voice like a breath passing through a trumpet ... the power of God, breathing forth vigorously, aroused and excited a new kind of miraculous voice, and diffusing its sound in every direction, made the end more conspicuous at a distance than the beginning, implanting in the soul of each individual another hearing ... the flame being endowed with articulate speech in a language familiar to the hearers." (De Decalogo. IX-XI)

So there was a fascinating tradition of tongues before the Pentecost experience (see also the Testament of Job). Philo's tradition of events at Sinai may even provide an explanation of what the events at Pentecost meant in Jewish thought of the time. Jewish tradition is that Pentecost falls on the same day as the giving of the Mosaic Law at Sinai. Just as Moses mediated the first covenant at Sinai, the Lord Jesus mediated the better covenant at Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:18-24).

Note the similarities of Moses' experience with the Acts 2 experience. There was a new covenant, people of all nations present, a mighty sound, a tongue of fire, and a voice touching each listener personally. It seems that the Lord wrought the same miracle in Jerusalem as was said to have occurred previously at Sinai. There were tongues in the first covenant, and the Pentecostal tongues showed that the Lord had cut a New Covenant.

Because of the tradition Philo explains, many maintain that the Acts 2 tongues were not necessarily meant as a normative sign every time someone received the Spirit. The tongues were a sign of God's new covenant cut with humankind, with comparisons to the Sinai covenant tradition. Tongues are, in fact, a very poor indication of whether someone is saved or not, as is discussed in the next article.

© 1997, All rights reserved. Feel free to copy and distribute any information on this page as you like, but do not alter or sell it without my permission. Unless otherwise indicated, the Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, Copyright 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

Tongues - an Unsound Evidence of Salvation

"as we were going to the place of prayer, we met a slave girl who had a spirit of divination ... Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, 'I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.'" (Acts 16:16-18)

Acts 16 is a deep Scipture - deceptively simple, but one of those scriptures we come across from time to time that is bursting with meaning beneath the surface. Paul was much annoyed with this girl who had a 'spirit of divination'. Let's look at those words. In Greek, she had a pneu'ma py'tho·na, or literally, "a spirit of python". The NRSV Harper-Collins Study Bible notes of Acts 16:

"Spirit of divination, lit. 'a spirit of the Python,' which was associated with the Delphic oracle."

The Python was a mythical beast which guarded the Oracle of Delphi, near Corinth. At the Oracle of Delphi, travellers would congregate to hear a prophecy of the future for themselves or their country. According to some historians, the Pythoness (priestess) would cry out in unintelligible sounds which were interpreted by another person to form ambiguous verses. To have a spirit of the Python would be to be like the Pythoness - it would be someone who was filled with the demonic spirit of the oracle... someone who would prophecy by crying out in unintelligible sounds!

And as such, there is scriptural evidence in Acts 16 for false tongues. That is not to say that all tongues are wrong. While Paul excorcised this slave girl in Acts from the spirit of the Python, he himself spoke in tongues, and was glad of the experience (1.Cor.14:18). What does it tell us? It tells us clearly that there can be false tongues in the world! As Paul also wrote:

"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thess 2: 9-10).

What have we learned from the experience of the slave girl? When someone 'speaks in tongues' we cannot be sure that they have salvation, becuase tongues is not a solely Christian phenomenon. According to Professor Maja-Lisa Swartz of the Helsinki University, after her research of the Tanzanian tribes people, "speaking in tongues is nothing specific for the Christian religion. It appears in all religions and is no guarantee for what type of spirit it is that the speaker is speaking for".

For example, John MacArthur writes, in Charismatic Chaos, "Ecstatic speech is a part of many pagan religions in Africa, East Africa. Tonga people of Africa, when a demon is exorcised, sing in Zulu even though they say they don't know the Zulu language. Ecstatic speech is found today among Muslims, Eskimos, Tibetan monks. It is involved in parapsychological occult groups. Did you know that the Mormons, even Joseph Smith himself advocates speaking in tongues? It could be demonic." An Encyclopædia of Occultism says, "Speaking and writing in foreign tongues, or in unintelligible outpourings mistaken for such, is a very old form of psychic phenomenon."

Tongues are, therefore, an unsound evidence of salvation. They can be demonic! Do you say that someone is 'saved' when they speak in tongues? It is a poor test, if even pagans speak in tongues. Are the Tonga people saved when they speak in tongues? Are the Voodoo people, or the Buhhdist monks saved when they speak in tongues?

Tongues is clearly not God's evidence of salvation. And yet, someone can know whether they are saved or not. In 1John 5:13, it is written:

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

How do you know you have eternal life? John doesn't mention tongues. If tongues were the sign that someone was saved, he would have metioned it there. But instead he says about those who know they have eternal life "you who believe in the name of the Son of God"! Recall the comments about testing the Spirits, "test the spirits to see whether they are from God: for many false prophets have gone out into the world ... every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God" (1John 4:1-3). So how do you know you have the right Spirit and eternal life? The answer turns on whether you can "confess Jesus". It is here that the Tonga people, Voodoos, and Buhhdist priests fail.

Perhaps you speak in tongues, and have always thought it was clear evidence of your salvation. Yet, you see now that tongues cannot prove anything.

Praying in the Spirit

Support for the Revivalist position that 'speaking in tongues' equals 'prayer in the Spirit', is drawn, principally, from two passages: (1) 1 Corinthians 14:13-16 [explicitly], and (2) Jude 19-20 [implicitly]. Of the two, the first is the most frequently presented:

For more information please click 'here'.

Did God confuse languages as a curse or a blessing?

Let's talk about tongues, baby
let's talk about you and me
Let's talk about all the good things
and the bad things that may be
let's talk about tongues...
-

That was the musical introduction to today's talk on tongues set to the music from the beloved pop song, 'let's talk bout sex'. Of course tongues has nothing to do with sex unless you are a cunning-linguist and if that were actually the 'gift' given at the day of penteconst then we've truly been missing out on something special. Because apparently that is a gift that no man understands... unless gifted.

I was moved to ponder the concept of confusing languages and I think I mentioned earlier my confusion that God rewarded his people of the new testament a language that was confusing to man because only God understood it, yet punished his Old testament people by giving them languages that couldn't be understood by each other.

That lead me to explore the following concepts... which are sort of... confusing.

GE 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.

1CO 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.

----;-P)-----

GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.

GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.

Why were the tongues confused at the Tower of Babel?

Prior to the building of the Tower of Babel, which was approximately 100 years after the flood, the people of the earth spoke one language (Gn. 11:1). When the men of the earth began to build the tower without divine specifications and also to make a name for themselves, Yahweh said: "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech (Gn.11:7)."

They couldn't finish building the tower because they couldn't understand each other's language. This is how mankind began to speak various languages or tongues. Thus, the day of Pentecost is, in reality, the reversal of tongues that previously were confused at the Tower of Babel. At Pentecost men once again began to understand one another form a spiritual sense.
Did the Messiah speak in tongues in His ministry?

During the three and a half years of the Messiah's ministry He spoke parables which are a form of ?tongue' that weren't understood by the people. He didn't speak in another language. The Messiah was born a Hebrew or Israelite and He spoke Hebrew (See the "Did You Know?" section of the Complimentary Issue of the "PLIM REPORT," p. 13). His mission was to fulfill the scriptures (Mt. 5:17-18), which were also written in Hebrew.

Many of the prophets prophesied that the Messiah would speak to Israel in another tongue. Isaiah the prophet wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit: "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people (Isa. 28:11)." The Apostle Paul wrote: "In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith Yahweh (the Lord, 1 Cor. 14:21)." Now one may ask, if the Messiah's native tongue were Hebrew, what did Isaiah mean when he wrote that the Messiah would speak in another tongue.

Worldwide Church of God

The Gift of Tongues
Historically, the most controversial gift has been tongues. It was controversial on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem; it was controversial a few years later in Caesarea; it was controversial later on in Corinth. Throughout the centuries, small groups of Christians have occasionally spoken in tongues, almost always generating controversy.

Today, millions of Christians speak in tongues. Some are found in Roman Catholic churches, some in liberal mainstream groups, some in conservative evangelical churches, and many in Pentecostal denominations. Even though tongues-speaking has such diverse participants, it is still controversial. So now, I hope to give some perspective on this practice, both to help people who are afraid of it, and those who think too highly of this gift.

The modern resurgence of tongue-speaking is generally traced to the turn of the century. In 1900, Charles Parham and a small group in Kansas began to speak in tongues after studying about this gift in the Bible. In 1906, Parham went to Los Angeles and spoke at the Azusa Street Mission Revival (no connection with Azusa Pacific University), and the movement quickly spread from there.

In the early years, most denominations rejected tongues-speaking as lunacy or demonic, and as one might expect, tongues-speakers left such hostile churches and formed churches in which they were allowed and encouraged to speak in tongues. Thus Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God were formed.

There is no question that many of these Pentecostal churches had numerous theological errors. They made many mistakes in their zeal to follow God. As time went on, they learned more and corrected many of their errors. This is a dynamic that we should well understand.
In the 1960s, another wave of tongues-speaking occurred in more traditional churches. This time, many churches did not ridicule or drive these people away; they were accepted as charismatic sub-groups within the churches. Nevertheless, tongues-speaking is still controversial. Some Christians teach that God simply does not give miraculous gifts to anyone in the church today; yet others still claim that all Christians ought to seek and practice the gift of tongues.

As recounted in his Autobiography, Herbert Armstrong encountered some Pentecostal people in his early ministry, and he found them to be divisive. And after such experiences, he was strongly opposed to tongues-speaking, even though he was strongly in favor of other miraculous gifts, such as healing. The WCG remained opposed to tongues for decades, and if anybody ever spoke in tongues, they kept pretty quiet about it.

But more recently, we have recognized that some Christians do indeed speak in tongues. We have been slower to criticize and more willing to consider the possibility that tongues-speaking may be an authentic gift of the Holy Spirit. Meanwhile, WCG members have visited tongues-speaking churches, and some of our members and ministers have begun to speak in tongues, usually in private.

Knowing how controversial tongues have been in other churches, and knowing our previous dogmatic rejection of tongues, it is no surprise that questions arise when some of our members and ministers begin to speak in tongues, even privately. Due to our lack of experience in this area, it is also no surprise that some excesses have occurred. New-found zeal sometimes carries people further than it should.

Information about Tongues

Since Scripture is our ultimate authority for doctrine and Christian living, it is essential that we understand what the Bible says about tongues. Here I will refer you to our booklet on tongues. Although this booklet is now out of stock, it is still a good analysis of the subject.
For those who want further study on this subject, the booklet has a bibliography of helpful resources, written from several perspectives. I also refer you to the book Are Miraculous Gifts For Today? Four Views, edited by Wayne Grudem (Zondervan, 1996). I will not enter the detailed arguments addressed in the book, but I will simply affirm that I believe that God still performs miracles today. I see no biblical reason to think that he no longer gives anyone the ability to speak in tongues.

However, simply because someone "speaks in tongues" does not mean that he or she has this spiritual gift. As our booklet pointed out, various non-Christians, from ancient pagans to modern Buddhists, have spoken in tongues. Tongues-speaking, in itself, is no proof of anything. (Similarly, non-Christians may also have leadership, service, compassion, teaching and other abilities that are similar to spiritual gifts.)

Some tongues-speaking is also called ecstatic speech, which is a psychomotor function of the brain. In normal speech, two parts of the brain work together. In ecstatic speech, one part of the brain tells the mouth and tongue to speak, but the conscious portion of the brain does not supply any particular guidance for what words to speak, so unintelligible syllables come out. This can happen if a person is startled, for example, or if consciousness is altered in some way.
Also, some tongues-speaking may be done in imitation (perhaps subconsciously) of a respected leader. People who are seeking a particular experience are (like hypnotized people) psychologically very susceptible to suggestions like that.

However, I do not think that all tongues-speaking can be explained in these ways, and I believe that some tongues-speaking is genuinely a gift of God. I also recognize that God sometimes works through observable phenomena, and just because some tongues-speaking has a psychomotor explanation does not mean it isn't a gift.

As I have written before, the psychological state in which tongues-speaking occurs is usually pleasant. It is liberating to get rid of some of their inhibitions. It is encouraging to put oneself in a very responsive state, ready to respond to God working in their lives. Tongues-speaking is not the only way to do this, but it is one way, and it encourages people in their walk with the Lord.
One pastor observed the irony that most Christians can talk about almost any spiritual gift with nothing but praise, but as soon as tongues is mentioned, it has to be accompanied by all sorts of cautionary statements. I agree that this is an irony. All sorts of spiritual gifts can be misused, and cautions can be given for them all. But historically, and in our present experience, tongues causes the most problems and needs the most caution. But still, I affirm that it is one of God's spiritual gifts, and it is therefore good.

I respect and honor Christians who speak in tongues; I respect and honor those who do not. I do not want to quench the Spirit; I do not want to "forbid speaking in tongues" (1 Cor. 14:39).
But I also want to follow what Paul said in the very next verse: "Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way" (v. 40). So let me address how tongues, if used, should be done in an orderly way. Again, since Scripture is our ultimate guide for doctrine and Christian living, let us examine what Scripture says about how tongues should be used.

Biblical Data

First, Paul reminds the Corinthians that God divides his gifts among his people (1 Cor. 12:8-11; 29-30). It is not realistic to expect everyone to speak in tongues — and yet that is what some Pentecostals unfortunately do. This is divisive today, just as it was in ancient Corinth.
When a Christian says, my gift is better than your gift, it is an insult to other Christians, and an insult to God. No one should feel superior about a spiritual gift, since no one deserves any of the gifts. The gifts are given to serve others, not to feel superior to others.

We do not need to seek the gift of tongues. We need to seek God, and let him decide which gift is best for us. Paul says we should seek the "more excellent way"— love (1 Cor. 12:31 and chapter 13)— or the gift of prophecy, which is speaking words of encouragement, comfort and edification (1 Cor. 14:1-4).

Without love, we are spiritually worthless, no matter what tongues we speak. It reminds me of the story of one person who attended a Pentecostal church for several years and became a lay leader in one of the ministries. Eventually it was learned that this leader had never spoken in tongues, and people were shocked that the leader was "deficient" in the Christian experience! Yet the person drew a different conclusion from the situation: speaking in tongues made no discernible difference in the way a person lives. Even after years of being around a person, others simply could not know whether the person had ever spoken in tongues.
My friend Jack Hayford says he speaks in tongues in his prayers every day. That does not impress me, nor does he expect it to. That is not its purpose. Tongues is not a show of spirituality. It is to edify the self, not to impress others (v. 4). If it edifies the self, that's wonderful. If it is done to impress others, it's being used in a wrong way, a carnal way. Paul said he spoke in tongues a lot (v. 18). He knew what it meant to pray in words he did not understand (v. 14). But he also knew that this was not proof of spiritual greatness.
I don't care how often Jack speaks in tongues. What I care about is the way he lives the rest of his time. Does he live and function in love? Does he use his other gifts to edify the body of Christ? Does he walk humbly and give all glory to God? I think he sets a good example in all these areas. His tongues-speaking neither adds to nor takes away from his character as a Christian.

To use another example, I don't care whether you eat cereal or eggs for breakfast. Neither one makes you a better person. But I do care if you exalt your particular preference into a badge of betterness. "Everybody ought to be like me because I like the way I am." Such approaches are divisive and un-Christian. They also miss Paul's point, that God has distributed his gifts among his people and he wants them to work together in their diversity.

The Corinthian Christians had a lot of problems, and apparently the way they spoke in tongues was a problem in the church. Paul told them to stop being proud and arrogant. He told them to stop being self-centered. He told them to grow up and be more sensible (v. 20). But he did not tell them to stop speaking in tongues.

However, he did lay down some regulations, and they were quite limiting. For example: Only one person should speak at a time (v. 27). Church services should not be a competition to see who can talk the most. The Holy Spirit does not inspire more than one person to speak at a time.
Second, people should speak in tongues only if an interpreter is present (v. 28). Incidentally, it is interesting that many people want to speak in tongues, but not many "seek" the gift of interpretation, even though interpretation is of greater value to the church. I think this shows that tongues have been overvalued. Unfortunately, in some churches, tongues are often spoken without an interpreter present. The person simply speaks whether or not an interpreter is there, contrary to the instructions Paul gave.

And what if the speaker doesn't know whether an interpreter is present? Then the speaker ought to remain silent. After all, if the gift is genuine, the speaker should be able to control it (v. 32). God does not bypass a person's willpower. Indeed, part of the fruit of God's Spirit is self-control (Gal. 5:23; 2 Tim. 1:7).

Balanced Approach

One Pasadena church that I know of has an interesting approach to tongues-speaking. People who want to practice this gift may do so — not during the regular church service, but in their own small group meetings. And then there must be two or more interpreters present. The interpreters write down the interpretation, and then they see whether the interpretations match. Sometimes they do, but often they do not, which means that either one or both of the interpreters are mistaken. This cautions us not to be too quick to believe any uncorroborated interpretation — and certainly not if it contradicts Scripture!

It would just be a lot easier if people sought the gift of prophecy — speaking edifying and intelligible words — rather than tongues, which might not help anybody else (v. 5). Tongues and interpretations are often misunderstood. Even prophesy can be misunderstood, which is why Paul advises us, "the others should weigh carefully what is said" (v. 29).

However, even if an interpreter is present, it is simply best not to speak in tongues in the church service. The gift of tongues is for self-edification, not for edifying anyone else (v. 4). It just doesn't make sense for one member to interrupt everyone else and say, "Hold everything. Just wait a few minutes please while I edify myself. Watch me and listen to me, even though it won't do you any good." Tongues, since they help only the speaker, are appropriate for private prayers, but not for public assemblies.

Tongues are also a distraction. Public tongues-speaking almost always focuses attention on the speaker, not on God. Non-Christians are usually put off by tongues-speaking. Some find it quite fascinating, of course, and some even consider it to be proof of divine blessing, but most do not. It is confusing, and if the person realizes that various non-Christians also speak in tongues, it is also inconclusive. People need to be impressed by the gospel, not by unusual phenomena. If the person is convinced by emotional impressions rather than truth, the person has an unstable foundation for belief. Emotions are important, of course, but they should be a response to the gospel, not a substitute for it.

Our Practice

Paul warned the Corinthians not to allow tongues to get out of control in their worship services, since it could confuse unbelievers: "If the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?" (v. 23). It is not surprising, then, that some Christians also consider it inappropriate.

However, Paul had nothing against tongues-speaking. After all, he spoke in tongues himself (v. 18). But he did have a lot to say against tongues-speaking in church assemblies. "In the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue" (v. 19).

That is what we in the Worldwide Church of God prefer. We want intelligible words; we do not want unintelligible words in our meetings. That is why I say that we are not a tongues-speaking fellowship. Some people in our fellowship speak in tongues, and I defend their privilege to do so in private or in small groups where everyone agrees to accept it. Even then, it needs to be controlled according to the scriptural guidelines.

As a fellowship, when we are gathered as a congregation, we do not want tongues-speaking. This is based not on some irrational fear of things we don't understand — it is based on the guidance Paul has given us, guidance we accept as authoritative, as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

If somebody wants to speak in tongues in a worship service, there are other denominations that allow that sort of thing. If they find it to be self-edifying, that's good, but I encourage them to seek and to use some other spiritual gift that will be helpful to others.

I might also add that even some Pentecostal churches do not allow tongues-speaking in church services. Many of them also recognize that it is unscriptural to allow everybody to speak at once, to speak without an interpreter present, etc. If the pastor were giving a sermon, for example, and a person in the audience began to speak in tongues, then the pastor would tell the person, "Lady (or Sir), control your gift. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of prophets. If you cannot control your gift, the ushers will escort you out." Interrupting the sermon would be just as inappropriate as a person trying to sing a hymn in the middle of the sermon. It is good to sing hymns, but only at the right time and place. Similarly, we do not allow tongues-speaking in our regular worship services.

Expressing Joy in Christ

Now, I love our Pentecostal brothers and sisters a great deal. Many of you interact with them in ministerial associations, and you have also come to love them. Many of them have warmly embraced us as fellow-members in the family of God. The Four Square denomination in particular has been helpful to us. I praise their love for the Lord and their love for neighbor. Many of them set an excellent example.

Pentecostal churches are now the fastest-growing segment of Christianity, especially in Latin America, but also in North America, Europe and Asia. I suspect that one reason it is growing is that Pentecostal churches encourage people to express their emotions rather than suppress them. This can be bad, of course, if people's faith is built on emotions, but it is good if those emotions are a genuine response to the good news of Jesus Christ.

If people really understand the depths of their sinful state, of how utterly disgusting it is, and of the greatness of Jesus' sacrifice for us, of how astonishing his grace toward us is, then it is natural to respond with joy and exuberance — and this emotion does not need to be suppressed, though how it is expressed may vary widely from person to person. We have something worth singing about, something to be happy about. Although we may still be in poverty, we have experienced something wonderful in the love of Jesus Christ, and we share it.

Pentecostal churches are generally freer in how they express this joy. Visitors who attend a Pentecostal church are likely to see people expressing joy and happiness because of their faith in Jesus Christ. This example is an effective aid in evangelism and church growth.

Of course, Pentecostal churches are not the only ones who effectively express their joy in worshiping their Savior, and they are not the only churches that are growing, but as a group, they seem to do it more actively than most. Although I do not agree with all their theology, and certainly not the emphasis on the public practice of tongues-speaking, I do applaud them for the things they are doing well.

Scripture is the ultimate authority for what we do. If growth alone were evidence of truth, then we might all become Muslims or Mormons. Experience may be helpful, but it is not authoritative. Experience may even be very impressive, but that alone does not make it authoritative. Even so, it is still very impressive.

Seeking Experience

Consider a not-so-unusual example, a person who attends a Protestant church every week, but rarely (if ever) experiences the presence of God in his or her own church services. He has doubts as to his own walk with the Lord. He wants to have greater assurance that he is making progress. He wants to have tangible, observable evidence that the Lord is with him. Then he attends a church in which the preacher confidently, boldly, dogmatically says that "yes, you can have confidence if you have a certain experience. That will give you the assurance of the presence of God in your life."

The person wants this experience. It doesn't matter whether it is really proof — it is desirable. And once it comes, it is extremely self-authenticating and reinforcing. The person wanted reassurance, was told in a persuasive way that the particular experience would give him that assurance, and then he had the experience, and true enough, he gained assurance! The person becomes sold on the experience and sometimes even becomes an "evangelist" for the experience.

This has happened within the WCG, just as it has happened in other denominations. People who were spiritually yearning, and not completely grounded doctrinally, were overwhelmed by a particular experience. I do not doubt that the experience was powerful and spiritual. It may have been an enormous spiritual boost, or the highlight of one's life. But that does not mean that it is true, or that everyone should have the same experience, or that Christians should be looked down on if they do not have the same experience. The shock treatment that helped one patient is not the right medicine for the next patient.

More Unusual Manifestations

For many years, speaking in tongues was the primary experience promoted in some Pentecostal circles. But in more recent years, more exotic experiences have been promoted — such things as being slain in the Spirit (fainting and remaining motionless for several hours), laughing in the Spirit (uncontrollable waves of laughter), weeping in the Spirit, barking like a dog, or other para-normal activities. These may be called the Toronto Blessing or the Pensacola Blessing or some other blessing. Several prominent speakers, including Benny Hinn, have promoted some of these exciting phenomena.

These phenomena have been controversial, even in Pentecostal churches. The Toronto Blessing, for example, began in the Vineyard church. Some Vineyard churches promoted the blessing; others resisted it, and now they have split into two denominations. But the blessing makes ripples in many other denominations, too, and has affected some WCG members. The Pensacola Blessing has circulated primarily in the Assemblies of God, but it has also affected other denominations, including our own.

I do not doubt that these experiences are extremely powerful. They feel authentic. But they have unfortunately led some astray, away from biblical authority and into an authority that is based on personal experience. As an extreme example, a pastor who has become enamored with a particular blessing may exhort everyone in the congregation to seek this particular blessing (the blessing, it sometimes seems, gets more focus than Jesus does). He may publicly berate those who do not accept the experience. He may call out names or tell people to leave if they don't like it.

This is, to put it bluntly, legalism. (Sometimes it is easy to call things we don't like an insulting term, like "legalism," but I am confident that in this case I am using the term legalism correctly. It is teaching as a requirement something that is not in Scripture.) We've had experience with old covenant legalism. These people are experiencing a completely nonbiblical legalism. Legalism is unfortunately found in many segments of Christianity, and some of these "blessing" people have fallen into a form of legalism, in which they insist that everybody ought to be like them.
Now suppose the whole congregation got touched and remained unconscious for three hours. Would that make them better Christians, better followers of Jesus Christ? Jesus never did anything of the sort. People who are slain in the spirit do not come out any better than they went in. The experience may encourage them, reassure them, but it does not edify the body of Christ and it should not be promoted as normal or preferable. Would these people eventually yearn for something yet more exotic? At least for some, that has been the pattern. Since the experience is not grounded in any objective truth, it does not give people the solid assurance that they seek. Some eventually seek even more unusual "signs."

One of our pastors observed the results of the Pensacola revival at a nearby Pentecostal church. After an initial flurry of excitement, attendance gradually dropped in half. The same manifestations week after week simply did not build the people up. The focus was on what happened to people during church, and not on what they did the rest of the time. The "revival" has driven away half the church!

Many of the "blessing" people are Christians who love Jesus. But as we know from our own experience, it is quite possible to be Christian while also seriously wrong on major doctrinal questions. I do not want to bash and condemn. I do not attack the people, or call them agents of Satan, but I do have the responsibility, as an under-shepherd of Jesus Christ, to warn our members about false, destructive and divisive doctrines. I want to help people avoid the pain and suffering that comes from following religious errors. The truth sets people free, but errors lead people into bondage.

We do not speak in tongues in our worship services, and we do not promote the more exotic "Pentecostal" manifestations.

To use an analogy, what you eat for breakfast is your own business — but no matter how good it tastes to you, do not act like your choice is spiritually better than other people's. Do not try to get everyone to act like you do. If you have a particular gift, be thankful and rejoice, but do not be divisive. Whatever gift you have, use it to serve others, keeping Scripture as your ultimate authority for faith and practice.

Speaking in tongues stories

One summer night Louie and Mel set to over the issue of speaking in tongues, Louie arguing that this manifestation of the Spirit was to be sought earnestly, Mel holding that it was a miraculous gift given to the early church but not given by God today. I forget the Scripture verses each of them brought forward to defend his position, but I remember the pale faces, the throat-clearing, the anguished looks, as those two voices went back and forth, straining at the bit, giving no ground - the poisoned courtesy ("I think my brother is overlooking Paul's very clear message to the Corinthians?," "Perhaps my brother needs to take a closer look, a prayerful look, at this verse in Hebrews?") as the sun went down, neighbor children were called indoors, the neighbors turned out their lights, eleven o'clock came - they wouldn't stop!

"Perhaps," Grandpa offered, "it would be meet for us to pray for the Spirit to lead us," hoping to adjourn, but both Louie and Mel felt that the Spirit had led, that the Spirit had written the truth in big black letters - if only some people could see it.

The thought of Uncle Louie speaking in tongues was fascinating to me. Uncle Louie worked at the bank, he spoke to me mostly about thrift and hard work. What tongue would he speak? Spanish? French? Or would it sound like gibberish? Louie said that speaking in tongues was the true sign, that those who believed heard and to those who didn't it was only gabble - what if he stood up and said, "Feemalator, jasperator, hoo ha ha, Wamalamagamanama, zis boom bah!" and everyone else said, "Amen! That's right, brother! Praise God!" and I was the only one who said, "Huh?"

- Garrison Keillor, "Protestant," Lake Woebegon Days

---

For the last 20 years, between 7 and 9 percent of Americans have spoken in tongues - but almost the same percentage said the practice is evidence of demonic possession.
- Bernard Katz, "Quoteline and Commentaries," The American Rationalist, July/Aug. 1998

---

Michael Trofimov pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in the murder of his father. Trofimov, who had recently joined a religious group, was found was his hands around his father's neck "speaking in tongues and screaming for God." His uncle said, "He was a good young man and then he started going to these [religious] meetings."
- Chuck Shepherd, John J. Kohut & Roland Sweet, More News of the Weird (1990)

---

True story: A young Pentecostal girl dared her girlfriend in church to shout out some nonsense syllables just to see if someone would stand up and "interpret the tongue." So the girl shouted, "coca-cola, coca-cola, coca-cola" and a church member promptly stood up and "interpreted the tongue" as a message from God.

Years later, I read that when the Coca-Cola company tried selling their brew in China, they discovered that the Chinese symbols that were pronounced, "Coca-Cola," meant literally, "Bite the wax tadpole." So maybe you can get a "message" out of "coca-cola, coca-cola, coca-cola," albeit a stuttering and meaningless one.
- Skip Church

---

As a former tongue-speaking Christian it wasn't the repetitive nature of many of the syllables I spoke that raised doubts. It was the fact that people in our group would sometimes "speak in tongues" a long time yet the "interpretation" could be quite brief. Or they would "speak in tongues" briefly and the "interpretation" came out long-winded. Folks who loved the King James Bible "interpreted tongues" in King James English, while those who loved other translations of the Bible delivered less Elizabethan-sounding "interpretations." And the messages received via this miraculous discourse were as trifling as the simplest cares and woes found in the Psalms with which everyone in the congregation was familiar - as if God didn't have anything more relevant or specific to say to us. Yet it seemed to me that if God was going to give people miraculous linguistic abilities, He'd have found far better uses to put them to.
- Skip Church

---

CONVERSATION ON THE "EX-TIAN" LISTSERV:
Rob Berry: I've heard that a trained listener can tell the difference between a New Yorker and a Southerner speaking in tongues, so the "tongues" spoken by an individual reflect the normal language of that individual. And a Japanese person speaking in tongues is not going to have any "L"s in their babbling.

David O. Miller: Actually this is true only for those Japanese who have never studied English. Those who have, consistantry have "L"s whele the "R"s berong and "R"s whele the "L"s berong. And that could totally change the meaning of the babbling couldn't it? Obviously, "uga-bali-raka-fulu" and "uga-bari-laka-furu" are two entirely different things, right?

Revival Centres Internation: The logo behind the logo

I speak in tounges (languages) more than you all

---

All I can say is like Paul, I glad that I speak in tounges more than you all

---

Seems like a pretty arrogant statement from Paul to address 'everyone' at Corinth and make such a bold statement. Sounds really boastful. Perhaps it doesn't mean what Revival churches have said it means. If you don't mind I'd like to put forward another slant into the melting pot for those people who like to explore ideas.

I've heard it said that Paul could have been saying that he spoke in more languages than you all. That sort of information would be more likely to be made known if he was a man who talked to a lot of people of many dialects because as we know, many races and religions were gathered in Corinth. It was a major center of trade and commerce for many peoples from many countries.

The influx of other cultures and people gave the city a bit of a mess and deviations from the gospel Paul was setting up would have likely happened in his abscence. There were church members of varying skills too, from "called to be saints" and some who were "sanctified" and "babes in Christ." etc etc. It was a church in flux.

I hope you can excuse this 'cut&paste' essay, I've tried to paraphrased and culled it as much as possible to make for easier reading, without taking too much meat from the author's intentions. Find the whole text at HERE

I Corinthians 12:13

Here the text usually translated "spiritual gifts" is one word meaning "spirituals,". "Gifts" was first inserted in the King James Version and placed in italics, as they thought it necessary to affirm it's meaning. But Paul wrote of much more than can be brought under the concept of gifts, and so "spiritual matters" is a more accurate translation of Paul's expression pneumatikon.

Paul's concern was towards their understanding of true spirituality (12:1). They had been idol worshippers and are now Christian, but some of their actions are more pagan than Christian. Paul wrote, " They were still being "led astray to dumb idols," They had lapsed into a pagan ritual, being carried away in an ecstasy until they did not know what they were doing. Paul recognized what was happening. Having begun in the Spirit they were operating after a human fashion. This would seem to be the beginning of their speaking in unknown tongues.

This form of ecstatic speaking had become a stereotype, which they claimed was evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Paul's immediate response was that the charisma of the Spirit takes many forms. There is always variety (12:4-6) seen in endowments of different kinds: "the utterance of wisdom," "the utterance of knowledge," "faith," "gifts of healing," "the working of miracles," "prophecy," "the ability to distinguish between spirits," "various kinds of tongues," "the interpretation of tongues" (12: 811). All this is done purposefully because God does not act aimlessly (12:7).

Paul extrapolated further: there are "first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues" (12:28). Not everyone is gifted in the same manner and Paul exhorts the Corinthians to "earnestly desire the highest gifts" (12: 31). When the two concepts are brought together gifts and calling- we find Paul saying that God calls selected people to the services of the church and empowers them by His Spirit. In this way they become gifted prophets, teachers, and the like.

To Paul , the true gift of speaking in tongues must be similar to the other grace gifts - a natural ability to speak, developed and improved and lifted to a new level of effectiveness by the Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit does not ignore human talents nor supplant them by something that is magical or unintelligible, He accepts them when dedicated to Him and causes them to exceed their natural limits of service and effectiveness.

Speaking in "unknown" tongues, then, would not be a true charisma or gracegift of the Spirit. The Corinthian Christians were demonstrating what had doubtless begun as a work of the Spirit but which had slipped into an emotional pattern, more human than divine, and gone out of control.

The More Excellent Way

If ignorance, or immaturity, had been the besetting sin at Corinth, instruction was needed. Paul does this as a means of control and not as a cure... for they were motivated by their own spirit (14:2), emphasizing "unknown tongues" at the expense of the grace gifts. The true evidence of the Holy Spirit is to be found, not in ecstatic speech, but in allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord (I Cor. 12:3) and in manifestations of agape, selfgiving love (I Cor. 13:47). This is why this great essay on love is dropped down in the midst of Paul's discussion of the excesses and aberrations of the Christian faith found in Corinth.

There is no indication that he considered speaking in "unknown tongues" as an overflow of the Spirit or an experience too sublime for normal expression. He emphasizes its failure to demonstrate spiritual maturity. It is a sign of spiritual childhood (14:20), and he calls the Corinthians "babes in Christ" and that they should become men (13:11). When the grace of God through the Holy Spirit touches a man's speech, it comes alive with meaning and effectiveness. It does not turn him inward upon himself, but outward toward others in love.

"Chapter 13, the great love chapter, was composed to meet the problem of 'tongues'. Love is the highest 'way' . . . Love is God's excellent and ultimate way. In contrast, tongues 'will cease' (v. 8). Love is God's endless highway; 'tongues' are a deadend street, leading nowhere."3 I Corinthians 14

St. Paul is not always uniform in his use of words. For instance, the same Greek word (pneuma) is used for the Holy Spirit, the human spirit, and for spirit having the connotation of a mood, quality or inclination. He also uses three different words which are translated "tongues" in most versions of the New Testament. They are dialekton, glossa and phonon. The second is used almost exclusively in the present chapter (14). The last is used to denote mere sound, while the other two are used to denote a language which is peculiar to a people and distinct from that of another. Wherever another meaning is intended it must be seen from the context. Thus glossa always means a language unless another meaning is signified. Paul indicated his meaning in the present usage by offering an analogy to the tongues at Corinth.

When a bugler blows an uncertain military call, the soldiers do not know whether to turn in for the night or fall in for battle (v. 8). From this we draw three premises: the speaking in tongues at Corinth was unintelligible (v. 13), it should not be supposed that glossa as Paul used it always means unknown tongues, and the purpose of speaking should always be communication. Whether in prayer or song (v. 15), praise (v. 17), or in public address (v. 27), one should make use of his mind as well as his inner spirit (v. 15) and it should be done for the purpose of mutual edification (v. 26).

Certain phrases in this chapter have become pillars of the doctrine and practice of unknown tongues. They are: "I want you all to speak in tongues" (v. 5); "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" (v. 14); "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all" (v. 18). "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" (v. 39); "In the law it is written 'By men of strange tongues and by lips of foreigners will I speak to this people' " (v. 21).

That All Speak in Tongues

In what kind of tongues did Paul wish the Christians to speak? Certainly not the kind in which people cursed Christ, neither that which was demonstrated when no one was able to understand what was supposed to be said (14:2), and which the speakers themselves did not understand, because they were advised to pray for the ability to interpret or translate (14:13). Only God could understand them (14:2). Those who prophesied or preached encouraged and edifled the church, while the tongue speaking was consumed upon the speakers (14:34). It is quite evident that Paul wished his converts to use the kind of speech which could be understood.

Praying in the Spirit

Paul's reference to praying "in a tongue" (14:14) is taken by many as evidence that he prayed in a unknown tongue, and Romans 8:26 is used to support the concept that praying in the Spirit and praying in an unknown tongue are the same. But in the first instance Paul is speaking hypothetically, and in the second there is no reference to tongues whatsoever. He emphasized praying with the understanding as well as within one's spirit (14:15).

Did Paul Speak in Unknown Tongues?

"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all." This phrase follows closely upon the statement that, if one expresses his thanksgiving with meaningless emotions, the hearers aren't built up in the art of Christian praise. The exclusiveness of the Corinthian manner of religious expression (unknown tongues) made them feel superior to those who did not speak that way (14:36). And so Paul decided to boast a little for himself You speak in a tongue which no one can understand and are proud of yourselves; but I speak in languages more than all of you; and five words that I speak intelligently to instruct others is worth more than 10,000 words of what you utter unintelligibly for your own sakes.

Paul could say this because he spoke Hebrew, Greek, Latin and probably Aramaic. Also, he had communicated the gospel to multitudes more than all of them put together. And so to credit Paul with speaking in unknown tongues is quite out of keeping with what we know of him and his stress on intelligent speech and the moral and spiritual effects of the Spirit's work. Forbid Not to Speak in Tongues

Doubtless it was not always possible to ascertain in the Corinthian church whether a strange speech was a true language or not, because of the multilingual character of the changing congregation. To forbid all speaking except what the leaders could understand would have been unfair to visitors.

Funny Youtubing Tongues debunkers

If this guy(the one speaking audibly)-(apparently on the side of the screen-) doesnt and never has believed in Jesus, where is this "tongues" ability from? and then... what if he does become a Christian and want the pentecostal "tongues"? This looks exacly the same as that!How do u know the difference? Is it REALLY THE PROOF of Jesus' Holy SPIRIT living in you?So what do u think of that UPC and Revival and other tongues-for-salvation people?

If this is really an example of mindless "tongues" -(eg- not knowing what u said while u spoke it-)then it looks just like- or even MORE legitimate then a lot of "tongues" Ive seen! If that is really" tongues" and u dont believe in Jesus as your Saviour and never did- then here's proof ( along with Emily's "speakin in tongues" (also on u tube)-it proves that "tongues" is not proof that one has the Holy Spirit from God.

If you like this video clip, watch ehenocha- " I speak in tongues." She raises a totally valid point about "tongues" not necessarily being from God.

LOL I felt something! It sounded like an orgasm in hebrew! FUNNY! And so true. I've always taken "tongues" to mean languages ACTUALLY spoken on EARTH between people. In 'ACTS' the apostles speak in tongues - and the towns folk say something like "Hey, look at these guys, they're speaking my native language, but aren't they simple locals?"

Quite franky, when people speak in tongues they are just being freaky

Lisa Gerrard uses "her own" language.

Lisa Gerrard sings in what some christians might call 'tongues'. She sings in her own language - it's that simple!

Lisa Gerrard uses "her own" language.

Lisa Gerrard's lyrics in "Now We Are Free" have no language known to man. She uses her own "language" or glosalalia, similar to what young children use to talk or sing or what some pentecostal groups use to pray. At least this is how LG has described her process in many interviews. She has said she makes up the words as she goes along. Sort of like Jazz vocalists when they scat sing. My impression is that she finds doing this doesn't hamper the listener's ability to add their own experience with the song itself - words get in the way, kind of like now, for example.

I verified this in Lisa Gerrard's homepage.

Her stuff gets a tad repetitive after awhile for some (I myself find it absolutely beautiful, but then I'm a crazy Enya fan) you might recall her stuff in the sound tracks of a few movies - namely "the gladiator'....she from Melbourne originally - imagine her as a 'pub act'....but that's how she started out.

She's not a christian in case anyone wants to know...She borrows her sound from a wide range of ideas..including the arabic styles - yep Muslim culture.

Check it out ...it might intrigue you. I don't think she's singing in the same tongues as the revivalists/penties...but even the Revivalists weren't as weird as some other church groups who encourage singing in tongues. Of course to sing in the spirit (in Chartdoctor's view) would be to sing in tongues as if that's the only way to spiritually sing.

I think its a bloody good example of how the 'act' can be done by anyone who trains themselves in this very unsupernatural and extremely over-rated gift(?)

"The words are in my own internal language, and mean more than I could ever explain,"

The phonemes one uses when one sings, regardless of their meaning, alter the musical shading and tone quality of one's voice. We have to put our tongues in different positions, tighten or loosen different parts of our throats, change the shape of the inside of our mouth, close or open our lips, etc. For example, if I am singing "feet" my voice is going to sound very different than if I am singing "wow" at the same pitch and volume. As a violinist, I can tell you that the angle at which the bow touches the string, the pressure of the violinist's fingers, even the angle at which the instrument faces (or doesn't face) the audience are all used for different musical effects.

Well, a singer's instrument is her body. When she's singing predetermined words, she is limited in how she can alter the timbre and tone quality of her words. For example, she might want the bell-like clarity that can be achieved when producing an "oh" sound, but she if she's singing the word "please," she's just going to have to attempt the best she can with that vowel sound, despite the fact that it's a high, tense, front vowel. On the other hand, if she's not singing predetermined words, but rather shaping the sound the way an instrumentalist does, she's free to sing "oh" went she wants a more clear, open sound, or "ee" if she wants a more constrained, higher tension vowel sound. If she wants an emphatic, staccato sound, she can put in "t" sounds or "p" sounds.

Borat meets friends of mr. jesus

Non Christian people speak in tongues too!

The Oracle at Delphi, for instance, started in the 400s BC, when Greece was at its strongest. It continued into the Roman era as if it was a parody of its former self, so the members of the churches of Greece and Asia Minor would have been very familiar with how Delphi worked. It was a shrine of the Greek god Apollo. In response to someone's questions, a priestess would go into a frenzy and start babbling. An attendant priest would then 'translate' the babble into some glittering generalities that could in some way be understood as an answer. Some of the best-known features of Greek philosophy streamed out from the Oracle's early years (for instance, it bred the saying "Know Yourself"); the great Greek philosophers were very good at finding jewels in waste water. The cult of Dionysis used rhythmic music, whirling dances, alcohol and/or herbal drugs, and magic spells to send peoples' souls out of their body (Greek ek stasis ) and into the presence of whatever deity or sub-deity was involved; this too sometimes caused strange sounds.

African animists, too, have long had ecstatic speech in their religions. But, just as glossolalia among Jews marked one as a prophet, glossolalia caused most African animists to foist onto the speaker the role of religious leader or priest, a heavy spiritual and cultural responsibility to lay upon an unprepared person. Wherever they have happened in the past, glossolalia and other extraordinary 'spiritual' happenings have not been, and have not really been allowed to be, a thing 'of the people', which could be a part of the otherwise-normal life of otherwise-ordinary people.

Deep in the gnostic book-hoard at Nag Hammadi, archaeologists discovered what may be the earliest, and perhaps one of the strangest, written instances of glossolalia. (Gnosticism arose at the same time as Christianity, and Gnostics were skilled at melding Christian devotions and spirituality to the un-Christian Gnostic framework -- to use a modern term, they tried to 'co-opt' Christianity.) While modern theologians give the unusual contents at Nag Hammadi much more attention than they deserve, a prayer introduction in *The Gospel Of the Egyptians* is a true attention-grabber. It reads roughly (very roughly) like this :
Ié ieus éó ou éó óua! O Jesus, bond of Yah's righteousness, O Living Water, O Child of Child, O glorious Name! Really truly, O Eon that is, iiii éééé eeee oo uuuu óóóó aaaaa, really truly éi aaaa óó óó! O One That Is, Seer Of the Ages! Really truly, aee ééé iiii uuuuuu óóóóóóóó, You who are eternally eternal, really truly iéa aió, in the heart, You who Are, You are what You are, ei o ei eios ei!

Even the translatable words are very iffy and full of vowels and mixed languages. Like modern glossolalia, it's got a lot of almost-words, divine titles, and 'really truly'. It's almost like a parody, it's so garbled, but it was serious in its intent. The ecstatic speech did not make the book's bizarre beliefs the slightest bit more true.

INDIGO CHILDREN - STAR LANGUAGE Recently on Safron's show, 'Speaking in Tongues', we saw one of the Indigo Children speak in her 'star' language and the audience was invited to email if they thought they could interpret it. The sound was uncannily similar to your stock standard Revival glossalalia. The rise of the Indigo Children was prophesied at the start of the century by the 'sleeping' prophet. According to the members of this new age belief, increasing in numbers around the world, people everywhere are developing new spiritual languages that has not been taught to them and are even able to understand each other. The response to safron's challenge saw a lot of emails that interpreted the STAR language successfully.

ALIEN ABDUCTEES - AURA LANGUAGE Last week on the show a guest was interviewed who had been an alien abductee. During her abductions, she was taught a healing process that involved making noises of particular frequencies in order to manipulate a person's aura thereby restoring balance and healing the body. Guess what the weird language she spoke in sounded like. Hmmm, perhaps when people are praying in tongues for healing they are actually accessing their own bodies normal aura frequencies.

DOES ALL OF THIS SOUND CRAZY TO YOU? It should! The point is, it that any wacko can do the tongue thing. (no offence to indigo children or alien abductees - you have as much right to your beliefs and experiences as any religion... I just think you're all a little kooky... azyoodo). Many would say that Satan mimics God's miracles (even though there is no biblical example of Satanic tongues), that being the case if believed, then anyone who can speak in tongues needs to undergo further investigation by Revivalists to see if they are actually God tongues or Satan tongues... perhaps you should look for other things in a person (showing love for one another etc... hmmm?). Seems the tongues sign can't really be totally trusted since even E.T. can do it.

Tongues - An Unsound Evidence of Salvation

By Nick Greer

"as we were going to the place of prayer, we met a slave girl who had a spirit of divination ... Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, 'I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.'" (Acts 16:16-18)

Acts 16 is a deep Scripture - deceptively simple, but one of those scriptures we come across from time to time that is bursting with meaning beneath the surface. Paul was much annoyed with this girl who had a 'spirit of divination'. Let's look at those words. In Greek, she had a pneu'ma py'tho·na, or literally, "a spirit of python". The NRSV Harper-Collins Study Bible notes of Acts 16:

"Spirit of divination, lit. 'a spirit of the Python,' which was associated with the Delphic oracle."
The Python was a mythical beast which guarded the Oracle of Delphi, near Corinth. At the Oracle of Delphi, travellers would congregate to hear a prophecy of the future for themselves or their country. According to some historians, the Pythoness (priestess) would cry out in unintelligible sounds which were interpreted by another person to form ambiguous verses. To have a spirit of the Python would be to be like the Pythoness - it would be someone who was filled with the demonic spirit of the oracle... someone who would prophecy by crying out in unintelligible sounds!

And as such, there is scriptural evidence in Acts 16 for false tongues. That is not to say that all tongues are wrong. While Paul excorcised this slave girl in Acts from the spirit of the Python, he himself spoke in tongues, and was glad of the experience (1.Cor.14:18).
...
What have we learned from the experience of the slave girl? When someone 'speaks in tongues' we cannot be sure that they have salvation, becuase tongues is not a solely Christian phenomenon. According to Professor Maja-Lisa Swartz of the Helsinki University, after her research of the Tanzanian tribes people, "speaking in tongues is nothing specific for the Christian religion. It appears in all religions and is no guarantee for what type of spirit it is that the speaker is speaking for".
...
For example, John MacArthur writes, in Charismatic Chaos, "Ecstatic speech is a part of many pagan religions in Africa, East Africa. Tonga people of Africa, when a demon is exorcised, sing in Zulu even though they say they don't know the Zulu language. Ecstatic speech is found today among Muslims, Eskimos, Tibetan monks. It is involved in parapsychological occult groups. Did you know that the Mormons, even Joseph Smith himself advocates speaking in tongues? ...." An Encyclopædia of Occultism says, "Speaking and writing in foreign tongues, or in unintelligible outpourings mistaken for such, is a very old form of psychic phenomenon."

Continued at http://rc.cutlweb.net

Indigo Children speaking STAR language

On John Safran's talk show they had a guest on who identified herself as an Indigo Child. They are part of a worldwide group of 'New Age' believers that believe mankind has been experiencing a new step in evolution as significant as the time we waddled out of the water and grew legs (yep, that sounds as studid to me as the Indigo Children).

These spiritually enlightened people started morphing into this new stage of evolution around about 1980 and was predicted by the famous sleeping prophet (1920s) as a people who would attain a new spiritual language called STAR Language. They are also very asceptable to seeing your aura and reading your emotions.

This particular Indigo child testifies to recieving a language and when coming into contact with other Indigo children and speaking this new language, the other Indigo children could understand them. Last night on the show John asked her to speak into the camera and he then invited the audience to e-mail in their interpretations to see if there were indigo children who could interpret the language. The challenge was to find people who interpreted the message in the same way.

When she spoke in her STAR language I nearly fell off my seat. It was exactly the same as the "ladashasumdiddy-yar hoolashoola yeekidddiiyaya" we heard every meeting in Revival. It seems that either new agers are being filled with the same Spirit as the Revivalers... or... it's the sort of sound string anyone makes when they pretend to make up a language.

Just thinking.. Robert Deniro did it in 'Cape Fear' too ... and that girl in the movie 'Saved' - they must have the magic language too.. or are they just able actors? ... or Indigo Children speaking STAR.

Is Speaking in Tongues Valid and Biblical Today?

This study suggests that the gift of tongues ceased a long time ago...

In many 'Charismatic' and Pentecostal churches today we see the phenomena of 'speaking in tongues' whereby people are told that when they are very spiritual and are baptized by the Holy Spirit, this is EVIDENCED by being able to 'SPEAK IN TONGUES' which they say is a 'heavenly prayer language which offers praise to the Lord! Anyone who doesn't 'speak in tongues' if left to feel not as 'spiritual' as those who do speak in tongues! Is this true? Are tongues for today and is it a sign or evidence of being baptized by the Holy Spirit? Or are people being seriously MISLEAD? What does the Bible say about tongues and this so-called 'tongues movement'? As we look at tongues in the Bible we see in Acts 2 in the early days of the Church, tongues appeared as one of the 'sign gifts' that the Lord gave to certain people in which they were supernaturally able to speak in known earthly languages without going to school to learn them. They used this ability to speak the gospel to the foreigners who had gathered at Jerusalem during the yearly Passover. The languages are listed in Acts 2:8-12! It is not some 'heavenly' angel language at all! For example, it would be like me being able supernaturally to speak the German language to a German man so I could give the gospel to him so he could take it back to his people. You see, in the early days of Acts, God was trying to get this new 'Gospel' out to the world. There was no completed bible yet, nor any media outlets such as radio, TV, or even newspapers! God used tongues and other of the 'sign gifts' to bring attention to this new program He was starting...the Church! Once the bible began to be completed (around about AD 60), these sign gifts, including TONGUES, were done away with and CEASED. (1 Corinthians 8-10) With this background, we also see that God gave certain guidelines for the use of tongues in those early church days as described in 1 Corinthians 14. Isn't it strange that charismatic groups today don't even follow these guidelines that Paul gave? We learn several things about the gift of tongues from the Bible when it was present and available during the early years of the church. In the church services in that day, an interpreter MUST be present or the tongues person must remain QUIET! (1 Cor. 14:27, 28)…and only 3 at the most could speak during a service and then only one at a time…and women were not to speak in tongues AT ALL! (v. 34) Do those speaking in tongues in churches TODAY follow these guidelines? If not, why not? Paul indeed said in 1 Cor. 14: 39 to forbid not those who had the gift of tongues to use it because when Paul wrote those words around AD 50 tongues was still present! Tongues did cease according to church history, and now have only come ‘back to life’ in the last 100 years when women preachers in the Holiness movement began to claim to have the gift and claimed it was a secret prayer language only angels and God could understand (yet wasn’t Satan an angel??). This can not be backed up in the Bible, for tongues in Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 12-14 were known earthly languages (see Acts 2:8-10)! Tongues was NOT a sign of “SPIRITUALITY” to other believers, but was a sign to unsaved UNBELIEVERS of judgment to come because the Jews had not obeyed God! (1 Cor. 14:22). Read this verse! It clearly says that TONGUES is not a SIGN to other BELIEVERS of one's spirituality, but it is a SIGN to unsaved, unbelieving Jews that Judgment is coming! Charismatics clearly deny this plain Scripture because it is obvious they imply that speaking in tongues is mark of spirituality! I challenge anyone to look at every instance of tongues in the Bible and you will see it is always a sign to people that because they have disobeyed God, judgment is coming! Tongues is found in 5 instances in the Bible and it is always a sign that the Jews had disobeyed God! Tongues would then come as “foreign languages” as a sign of judgment and dispersion would soon come. Study carefully the following 5 examples and you must agree:
(1) Gen. 9:1; 11:4-8 - Here God instructs the people to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Instead, the people disobey and get involved in Astrology and Occultic worship at Babel and even build a tower for satanic worship. God confounds their languages (sends 'tongues' so to speak) and scatters them throughout the earth. (2) Deut. 28:1-62 -in this passage we see God instructing the people to serve and follow Him. If not he will send foreign armies 'whose TONGUE thou shalt not understand’ (Deut.28:49). This is exactly what happened!
(3) Jeremiah 4:1; 5:3-19 - Here God instructs the people to 'return unto me' (4:1) or He will send foreign language or tongues of enemy nations to scatter and disperse them..a "nation whose LANGUAGE thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say". They were dispersed and taken as slaves to 'serve strangers' in another land! (5:19). This was the Babylonian captivity as told in the Old Testament!
(4) Isaiah 28:10-13 -Here again God warns the people to come back to Him, lest more judgment come and enemy nations speaking with 'stammering lips and another tongue' shall come in judgment and dispersion will follow. We see this did happen and we have the 'lost tribes' of Northern Israel to this day!
(5) Matthew. 11:28, 23:37; 1 Cor. 12-14; Luke 21:24 is the example of tongues in the New Testament. Here Jesus instructs the Jewish nation to go throughout the world preaching the Gospel and making disciples. The Jewish nation as a whole, especially it religious leaders, disobey and even crucify Jesus! Therefore, we see TONGUES in the Book of Acts as a sign of judgment to come to the Jews. Recall in this last example of tongues in the NT, how tongues were spoken and judgment soon came in 70 AD when Roman General Titus destroyed Jerusalem and Israel was scattered as the 12 lost tribes all over the world. Anyone who carefully studies CHURCH HISTORY will have to acknowledge that TONGUES did disappear for 2000 years! Look at the church history books and you will not find examples of people speaking in tongues in the Church! Why? Because this is what the Bible said would happen! In 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 scripture clearly says when 'that which is PERFECT is come, that which is IN PART shall be done away with'. Now, my friend, what is the only perfect thing on this earth today? It is God's Word. Would you agree? When the Bible began to be completed at around the 2nd half of the first century, history testifies that TONGUES did cease! Strangely, tongues did not come back onto the scene until some holiness women preachers, and notably Agnes Osman, began speaking in TONGUES at the turn of this century! And now they claim it was a heavenly 'prayer language' which clearly it WAS NOT in all the examples in the bible before! World-known expert on the occult, Kurt Koch, who had devoted his life to studying the occult and witchcraft, makes the following AMAZING statement about the modern day tongues movement in his book OCCULT ABC p.207: “tongues and the so-called Charismatic Movement are the most dangerous weapons Satan is using against the Christian Camp….” Amazing statement? Consider the following:
(1) The Tongues Movement places ‘EXPERIENCE’ over and above the Bible! If you’ve spoken in tongues…it doesn’t matter what you believe or what the Bible says…to most Charismatics! My friend, the devil can give experiences…(2 Cor 11:13-15; 2 Thess. 2:9-11) and even do miracles!
(2) The Tongues Movement claims to receive visions and tongues messages, which would ‘add to’ the Word of God! If it is not adding to the Bible, why do we need the ‘tongues message’ since we have the Bible in front of us?
(3) The origin and background of the Tongues Movement is saturated with false teaching…as it still is today. The Tongues Movement teaches salvation can be lost; it places women in positions of authority over men and places them as pastors in churches teaching men when the Bible forbids it! (1 Tim. 2:12) It promotes the ecumenical movement and yoking up with pastors and churches that teach false plans of salvation. Charismatic “Tongues” churches are big members of the very Liberal National and World Council of Churches. In the last years WCC meeting prayer was led to the mother goddess “Sophia”!!
(4) It can cause believers without the gift to feel ‘second class’…and has caused many to become discouraged to the point of becoming ‘shipwreck in the faith’ and drop out of church completely…especially if sham and hypocrisy is seen in the ‘leaders’ and those who claim to ‘have the gift’…(1 Tim. 1:19)
(5) It makes tongues speaking the mark of true spirituality, rather than winning lost souls to the Lord! It causes many to miss the true spiritual life and sidetracks people from the main objective of winning lost souls!
(6) The Tongues Movement has lead to indecent activity and even immorality as married women and young girls “roll” in the floor uncontrollably as they are ‘slain in the spirit’, even to the point where “modesty blankets” are needed to cover the ladies! (1 Cor. 13:5)…But most seriously, it can open one up to DEMONIC & OCCULTIC INVOLVEMENT! You’ll notice in 1 Cor. 14:27-34 ones spiritual gift COULD BE CONTROLLED! For someone to be SLAIN IN THE SPIRIT to the point they are unconsciously laying prostate on the floor, to me is OF utmost DANGER if that is not the HOLY SPIRIT doing that! Always in the Bible the Believer had full consciousness and control of himself or herself! There is absolutely NO example of today’s so-called being ‘SLAIN IN THE SPIRIT’ in the Bible except for DEMONIC involvement! We at Gospel Center agree with Kurt Koch’s assessment above and WARN every Christian to STAY AWAY from the modern-day Charismatic Movement no matter how nice and sincere the members of these churches might be! It is wrong. It is dangerous. These folks, we believe, are badly deceived.
(7) TONGUES have left DEVASTATION whenever it has entered a church. A split almost always results with years of work in a Bible-believing church down the drain over night! If you will check one history of Charismatic church in your neighborhood, I challenge you to discover that most were started as a result of a split from a Bible-believing church where heartache and devastation was the result. I dare you to discover most Charismatic churches got their members from another church due to a split the majority of the time, rather than a few believers starting from scratch as most Baptist churches start out! (1 Cor. 1:10) God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) and declares all things be done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40)…Two commands which we believe are not followed very closely in most “Tongues” churches today.
We believe it is a shame for Christians to be seeking Spiritual Gifts that are not even available today and neglecting the Spiritual Gift God has given us to use for His Glory! God has given each of us some gift and ability to serve the Lord. We need to get busy using it to serve the Lord instead of seeking something that doesn't exist!

glossolalia

Glossolalia is fabricated, meaningless speech.

According to Dr. William T. Samarin, professor of anthropology and linguistics at the University of Toronto,

glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly .... Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language (Nickell, 108).

When spoken by schizophrenics, glossolalia are recognized as gibberish. In charismatic Christian communities glossolalia is sacred and referred to as "speaking in tongues" or having "the gift of tongues." In Acts of the Apostles, tongues of fire are described as alighting on the Apostles, filling them with the Holy Spirit. Allegedly, this allowed the Apostles to speak in their own language but be understood by foreigners from several nations.

Glossolalics behave in various ways, depending on the social expectations of their community. Some go into convulsions or lose consciousness; others are less dramatic. Some seem to go into a trance; some claim to have amnesia of their speaking in tongues. All believe they are possessed by the Holy Spirit and the gibberish they utter is meaningful. However, only one with faith and the gift of interpretation is capable of figuring out the meaning of the meaningless utterances. Of course, this belief gives the interpreter unchecked leeway in "translating" the meaningless utterances. Nicholas Spanos notes: "Typically, the interpretation supports the central tenets of the religious community" (Spanos, 147).

Uttering gibberish that is interpreted as profound mystical insight by holy men is an ancient practice. In Greece, even the priest of Apollo, god of light, engaged in prophetic babbling. The ancient Israelites did it. So did the Jansenists, the Quakers, the Methodists, and the Shakers.

There is evidence that while speaking in tongues people experience a sharp decrease in frontal lobe function, the area of the brain that enables reason and self-control. There is also increased activity in the parietal region of the brain, which takes sensory information and tries to create a sense of self relating to the world. Psychiatrist Andrew Newberg, Director of the Center for Spirituality and the Mind at the University of Pennsylvania, studied five African-American Pentecostal women who frequently speak in tongues. As a control activity, Newberg had the women sing gospel tunes while moving their arms and swaying.*

Newberg gave the Pentecostals an intravenous injection of a radioactive tracer that allowed him to measure blood flow and "see" which brain areas were most active during the behaviors. Newberg and his associates published their findings in the November 2006 issue of Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging. During glossolalia, the part of the brain than normally makes a person feel in control was essentially shut down. The findings make sense, says Newberg, because speaking in tongues involves giving up control and feeling a "very intense experience of how the self relates to God."*

Newberg noted that the glossolalia responses were the opposite of those of people in a meditative state. When people meditate their frontal lobe activity increases, while their parietal activity decreases. In meditation, one loses the sense of self while controlling one's focus and concentration.

The Pentecostal movement seems to have originated in the 19th century,* although the Biblical basis for the practice is traced to the Acts of the Apostles. The practice of Pentecostals differs, however, from what is described in Acts. Pentecostals utter gibberish and claim that they are speaking in a language understood by God* but not by other Pentecostals, but in Acts we are told that those present not only spoke "with other tongues" but "every man heard them speak in his own language."

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. [Acts II; 1-11]

This story is supposed to support the notion that such an event really did occur and it was prophesied by Joel that this kind of thing would happen in the last days. There is nothing in Joel, however, that prophesied that, when the last days didn't come as predicted, plan B would be to wait 1900 years and have a revival and claim that when you speak gibberish it is a sign that God loves you.

See also xenoglossy.

Christian glossolalia, properly understood, is voluntary

I have yet to find the term "prayer language" in either the Bible or in ancient Christian writers.And you would think that people who speak in tongues would have an edge with Biblical languages. But they have the same difficulty that non-glossolalics do.

"So if I'm speaking in a room where no one understands me the only one that could possibly understand me is GOD. Does that fit into the context?"

First thing He'd say is "tone it down. I'm right inside you, not across the room." - 1corinth 14:28

I would suggest that Christian glossolalia, properly understood, is voluntary. This was its practice in the New Testament, where it is seldom if ever characterized as "ecstatic" in the popular sense of the term.In fact, regulations are laid down by the Apostle Paul for the public exercise of glossolalia in which he takes pains to tell people not to exceed three utterances in a tongue because it defeats the goal of the rational edification of those in attendance at gatherings.

Paul gives his own example as one heavily devoted to the practice and discusses how he of his own volition can choose to either speak/sing "in the spirit" or in the vernacular, as it were. You can read about this in First Corinthians chapter 14 if so inclined.

To tie speaking in tongues to the term "ecstatic" clouds the issue in my opinion and we do not typically see "uncontrolled" overwrought tongues speaking in the New Testament.

Full disclosure: I am a charismatic Christian and have been around this for 25 years +. Most people I know who speak in tongues do this voluntarily as and when they so choose and usually tongues is taught to be a volitional act under the control of the speaker who can "turn it on and off" at will.