Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    RE: .0 Carole,
    
                     I have asked God to give me "speaking in tongues" if
    it is real and it hasn't happened yet.  Be aware that this is a *VERY* 
    volatile subject.  I liked what John McCarther (SP) said about
    tongues. He related that in every segment of history, society and
    peoples, you find references of speaking in tongues.  This includes 
    most religons and even those who have no religion.  With that fact, I
    have trouble believing in them....but I am open to it.
    
    
    Dave

I lived with a Charismatic Christian for nine months about eight years
ago.  Naturally, there was a lot of emphasis on the Gifts of the Spirit
(including tongues, interpretation and others).  He himself has evidenced
many of these gifts.

I have the gift of tongues, although I use it only rarely.  I wonder at
times if I should be using it more (I think I should), but it's easy
to not use these gifts when the church you're with is not focused 
on these gifts.

Collis

    I received the gift of tongues at a church meeting, shortly after my
    exorcism (which later proved to be false). Since the atmosphere in
    which I received the gift was highly emotional, I discount it as merely
    being carried away at the time.
    
    Since nobody's every interpreted me, and it sounds like gibberish, I
    call it gibberish. Since I no longer associate with charismatic
    christians, it has long since fallen out of use for me.

    
    Thanks for the replies so far.
    
    What I really would like to know is 'what is the Christian perspective
    on this phenomena?'  Where do you think it comes from?  What is its
    purpose?  How does it work?  That kind of stuff. ;^)
    
    Thanks again,
    Carole

    From a Christian perspective, speaking in tongues is either:

    o The Holy Spirit speaking/praying through you
    o A trick of the devil
    o mass hysteria

    I've heard all three from committed Christians. I tend to lean towards
    the first. My wife used to pray in tongues but doesn't now because I
    don't. A long story which I will not get into.

    I believe that it can be helpful for some people. To those people
    the Holy Spirit gives that gift. There are a number of "gifts of the
    Holy Spirit" and that one is not, in my opinion, one of the major
    ones.

    				Alfred

    I agree with Alfred.  Tongues, for me, has all the benefits and dangers
    of channeling, with the added dimension that you don't know what's
    being said.  On the one hand, this could free what's being spoken from
    editing by the mind of the person; on the other hand, there are
    documented cases of profanity and other things happening during
    glossalia.  All the caveats about centering oneself and challenging the
    spirits would be appropriate for anyone who speaks in tongues.
    
    In recent history it has been divisive, and it has the ironic effect of
    effecting a strong conservatism, 'though in itself, tongues are the
    epitome of non-structure.  (No one who has studied Jung should be
    surprised at that!)  
    
    Somewhere in this file I related my own experience with not-speaking in
    tongues.  
    
    DR

    
    
    For the Christian, what is the purpose of speaking in tongues?
    
    C.

    I don't have my Bible with me, but I believe St. Paul stated that
    speaking in tongues is edifying for the prayer; if there is no one
    present at a prayer meeting gifted in the interpertation of tongues
    then it is better to pray in regular words.
    
    Somewhere is scripture there it is written that we do not know how
    to pray properly and that the Holy Spirit, therefore, is asked to
    pray that which we cannot pray.
    
    I look upon this in two ways; first, one should pray that the Holy
    Spirit lead one in prayer, even if it is to be done in our language.
    Secondly, I think legitimate prayer in tongues is a form of the
    Holy Spirit praying that prayer that we do not know how to pray.
    
    I recieved this gift of the Spirit while listening to some Marilyn
    Hickey tapes discussing the reception of the Holy Spirit; the 
    tongues were accompanied with interior 'visions' and 'prophesy'
    which helped to confirm the reception of the gift.
    
    Since I am not in a Charismatic group due to my work schedule, I
    have never prayed in tongues with others; usually such prayer 
    happens intermittantly during my personal prayer particularly when
    in deeper prayer. At those times I feel a very close presence of
    the Lord and something of an 'interior fire' of the Spirit. Often
    these times of deeper prayer seem to be forerunners of some challenge
    in my life and I personally believe that this is a time when strengths
    and perhaps direction is being recieved from the Lord; generally I
    recieve some impression of what is ahead also.
    
    As others have expressed, speaking in tongues seems to be considered
    one of the 'lesser' gifts of the Spirit. (If it's possible to consider
    a gift of the Spirit as lesser!!)  It certainly should not be used as
    a benchmark to judge one another as Christians, but it should be used
    as a gift for the benefit of the Church.
    
    The desire to recieve the gifts of the Spirit, tongues among them,
    should be based on the desire to be closer to our Lord and to be 
    better able to serve Him and the Church. Other intentions are not 
    likely to be honored by the Lord.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
     
    
    

    THANK YOU MARY!
    
    DR

    RE: 7
    
    In my understanding, speaking in tongues is form of prayer, of the
    subconscious needs or even unperceived needs.  It is also the most
    "perfect" prayer in that it is the Holy Spirit that prays for us, on
    our behalf.  The speaker of tongues usually should know what the spirit
    is saying, one can sense/feel what it is saying sometimes, but
    sometimes we don't know what is said.
    
    Tongues, as a form of prayer, serves 1)the speakers unperceived needs,
    2)intercession for others.
    
    In these last times, speaking in tongues will be more valuable and
    used, because of the deception that Satan will have over the minds of
    the people, we won't know what to pray for or about and tongues will be
    the only sure way to know that you have made the right prayer.
    
    Please accept this as MY belief and opinion of the Word, and not as THE
    ONLY way to look at it...this is my disclaimer on THE ONLY...
    
    Playtoe
    

	Thanks for the further replies.  Below I've entered an excerpt
        from the book I am reading for my class at Lesley College
        (Drumming, Rhythm, and Healing).  The book is called "The Healing 
    	Drum - African Wisdom Teachings" by Yaya Diallo and Mitchell Hall.

    	I was intrigued by it because it mentions speaking in tongues, and
    	I had always thought this was a Christian phenomena.  Now I come to
    	find that it was an accepted occurrence in a very old culture, and
    	seems to be more mechanically understood than it is in our culture
    	today.
    
	"Trance is an integral part of traditional Minianka rituals.  In a
	state of trance, the individual loses emotional self-awareness.  The
	Minianka say that a spirit has mounted the individual's body and
	temporarily displaced the person's double (this is something like
	our etheric or possibly our astral body - cf).  Trances do not
	usually occur during the secular dances of communal celebration.
	They are intentionally induced only during the ceremonies of the
	secret initiatory societies.  As in other cultures where trance
	is a part of religious ritual, the entranced Minianka speak in
	tongues, that is, in strongly metered utterances incomprehensible
	to the average person.  These utterances require interpretation
	by special initiates and are held to be messages from the invisible
	world.

	Cross cultural studies have shown a remarkable consistency in the
	actual sound of glossolalia, which seems to have nothing to do
	with the native language of the speakers.  Interpretations of the
	utterances, however, *are* culturally specific.  In all cases where
	trance and glossolalia are known to occur, they are socially 
	validated, ritualistically induced, and meaningful within the
	cultural context.  Social scientists have interpreted trance,
	glossolalia, and spirit possession as ways of empowering people
	through contact with the spirit realm, releasing deep tensions,
	validating belief systems, coping with social stresses, and getting
	authorization from invisible sources for difficult decisions."

    
	I find it fascinating that this phenomena occurs in native cultures
	exactly the same way it has in the bible and does today in charismatic
	groups, and amongst others.  I don't know much about it personally,
	but have always been under the assumption that it was a strictly
	'Christian' experience.  

	What strikes me even more strongly about this account is how much
	more clearly the people in this Minianka culture know about what
	is happening to them when this occurs.  In our culture today, it
	seems that people are experiencing this but because of how our
	Western culture has cut itself off in many ways from very useful
	knowledge, we really don't know what we are doing, what is 
	happening to us, or why we are doing it.

	Again, fascinating!

	Carole

    Re:.11
    
    I just wish to note that when a christian uses one of the gifts of the
    Spirit they are totally in control of themselves and not 'taken over'
    or in a trance-like state.  This is one way of detecting satanic
    manifestations as opposed to being from God.
    
    Paul writes that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the
    will of the prophets.  I don't have a bible handy to look it up.
    
    Tony.

    I get the impression that a good many people who speak in tongues don't
    understand what they are saying, and that on-lookers don't understand,
    either.  Is this true?  Are there any (conference readers) who speak in
    tongues who *do* understand what they are saying (as though you were
    simply speaking a foreign language that you knew)?  If so, what have
    you said?  Similarly, for those who speak but don't understand, has
    anyone ever translated what you said, and if so, what did you say?

     Re.13

      Mark:
             Interesting question. I have to wonder if it can be
        called speaking if you don't know what you are saying and 
        those listening can't understand you either. When we use
        the term "speaking" aren't we implying some kind of 
        understandable communication ?

                                                               Mike

Mike,

Indeed there is communication taking place - between the individual
and God.  Usually, the individual speaking in tongues does not know
what is being said unless an interpretation is given (either to
someone else who shares it or to the individual speaking).

Collis

    
    I understood that mostly people pray in tongues, or sing in 
    tongues. In this case prophecy or messages are not the goal
    but merely worship. 

    I went to  a healing service many years ago, when Fr. Diorio was
    just beginning at St. Bernard's in Fitchburg, Mass. When they began to
    sing in tongues, it sounded as if heaven opened up and you could hear
    the angels singing. Through the years I've attended different prayer
    services where tongues where manifested. Some sounded legit, and others
    sounded phony.  But hey, who am I to judge ? If you tell me God spoke
    to you, who am I to say he didn't ?


    Peace
    Jim

    
    RE: .12 
    
    So, Tony, you are saying that, because you believe that that Christian
    phenomena of speaking in tongues happens in a different state than
    what the author referred to as trance, it is different than what other
    cultures experience as speaking in tongues?  I don't know.  I've seen
    film footage of a charismatic service where people are speaking in
    tongues and they certainly don't look normal to me.  Don't read too
    much into the term 'trance'.  It could just be one cultures way of
    describing exactly the same thing that happens to Christians.  It 
    doesn't mean that they are not in control of themselves, and, in
    fact, this African culture seems to understand the process better than
    our modern culture does.  They always interpret what comes through and
    it is always useful to the community.  If that isn't under control, I
    don't know what is. ;^)
    
    I think it is important to understand that this phenomena goes back
    a long way and covers a wide range of cultures.  Don't you find that
    fascinating and intriguing?  
    
    
    Carole

re Note 216.15 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Indeed there is communication taking place - between the individual
> and God.  Usually, the individual speaking in tongues does not know
> what is being said unless an interpretation is given (either to
> someone else who shares it or to the individual speaking).
  
        I wouldn't call that communication if the individual had no
        knowledge (and presumably has no control) of what is being
        said.  At least I wouldn't say that that individual was a
        party to the communication (any more than a telephone is a
        party to a communication).

        Bob

    
    Re:.17
    
    I accept that using the term 'trance' could me different things to
    different people.  I can only speak (or write!) from my own experience
    and my understanding of what the bible has to say on the subject - I do
    not claim to know all the answers.
    
    As a Christian (this is Christian-Perspective) I believe speaking in
    tongues can come from various sources: the Holy Spirit, other spirits
    (i.e. deamon possesion), and from oneself.  This is why Paul tells us
    to 'test the spirits'.  He knew that we are human and are likely to
    make mistakes.
    
    I believe that the later two cases above do occur in many cultures, and
    sadly in (some areas of) Christianity.
    
    As for the person involved being in control - they may not understand
    what they are saying (I can tell the difference between me speaking in
    tongues interceding and praising) but they can stop and start
    voluntarily and never are 'forced' to speak.
    
    As I said earlier I do not claim to know all the answers.  God is
    bigger than my understanding.
    
    Tony.

    
    RE: .19
    
    Thanks for the replies Tony.  Can I ask you a few more questions?
    (thanks!)  Can you give me the bible references that discuss this
    subject so that I can read them myself?  Does the bible tell you
    that there are different types of 'speaking in tongues', i.e.
    the Holy Spirit, daemons, and yourself?  How do you know that it
    is the Holy Spirit speaking through you?  How do you know that it
    is not the Holy Spirit speaking through people in others cultures?
    
    Carole

    This is a fascinating subject Carole.  I really found the excerpt in 
    .11 to be intriguing particularly:
    
    > Cross cultural studies have shown a remarkable consistency in the 
    actual sound of glossolalia, which seems to have nothing to do with 
    the native language of the speakers.  Interpretations of the 
    utterances, however, *are* culturally specific. <
    
    I've come across other references by various cultural 
    researchers and social scientists which state basically the same 
    thing, that glossolalia or 'speaking in tongues' is pretty universal 
    among many cultures on earth with the same basic understanding of it 
    that Christianity has, and in some cases as you mentioned, a more 
    comprehensive understanding of it.
    
    Imho, one *implication* which can be drawn concerns the Universal quality 
    of the Holy Spirit, for 'speaking in tongues' occurs amongst people 
    who sometimes have never heard of Jesus Christ, or within a religious 
    context other than Christianity.  Therefore receiving the Holy Spirit 
    may indeed be independent of a particular set of cultural/religious 
    beliefs, be they Miniankan, Christian... or whatever.
    
    If so, that has even greater implications for religious 
    'discussions'.  Perhaps it is evidence that no one group has a 
    monopoly on *the* truth... the Holy Spirit and/or God.  Perhaps it
    points to the reality *and* validity of ecumenism.  
    
    But alas, my 'bias' is coming through because that confirms what God 
    has already written on my heart. ;-)  Regardless, this is good food 
    for thought! :-)
    
    Thanks *all*,
    
    Karen                      

    
    Yes Kb, that part of the extract brings up a very intriguing bit
    of information.  It's basically saying that speaking in tongues
    sounds the same no matter what the native language is.  How does
    that work, I wonder?
    
    Always curious,
    Carole

    re: .22,
    
    If it's a *psychological* phenomenon rather than a religious one, that
    could explain it.

    Interesting point Nancy (.23).
    
    > If it's a *psychological* phenomenon rather than a religious one,
    that could explain it. <
    
    As my memory serves me I cannot recall any incidence of 'speaking in 
    tongues' which occured outside of a religious context.  Perhaps it is a
    psychological phenomenon which happens primarily within a religious, or
    spiritual context.  
    
    Jung focused a lot of work in the area of what he called the "collective 
    unconscious", a place in the human psyche where we share certain 
    experiences common among all human beings regardless of race, religion, 
    age, gender, physical ability, etc...  It dawned on me that glossolalia 
    could be a psychological phenomenon manifested directly from this
    place, the "collective unconscious".
    
    Karen                              

    Re: 12
    
    I don't agree.  How can a person speaking in tongues (really speaking
    in tongues and not faking it) be in total control of self?  The bible
    clear states that it is the "holy spirit" speaking.  Surely some of the
    gifts of God we can perform with conscious control but I wouldn't say
    all of the gifts are like that.  Furthermore, when we are in submission
    to God isn't he/his spirit suppose to be in control, as we consciously
    watch him work through us?  As it is written, "his spirit beareth
    witness with our spirit," and again, "and I will come and sup with
    you".  All possession by spirits aren't evil spirits, spirits are both
    good and evil.  Each spirit also has a name...oops I'm getting too
    deep.
    
    Playtoe

    re: 14
    
    Although it hasn't really been emphasized, speaking in tongues is to
    the Father, God.  And because of his exceedingly high level of
    understanding, we must speak to him in a language only he can
    understand.  We can do this only because he is in us, enabling us to
    speak to him by his spirit and power.  

    RE: 18
    
    I don't agree.  The spirit in us, in the first place can make truth
    known to you without spoken words, it shows us visions and inspires
    feelings, from which we extract/glean meaning and put into words in the
    conscious language we know.  A telephone has no feelings or concerns to
    offer up, but a human soul does, and though we do not conscious know
    what we are saying, be sure the soul does.  Our own concerns are being
    communicated to God in tongues.  
    
    Playtoe 

re Note 216.26 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST:

>     And because of his exceedingly high level of
>     understanding, we must speak to him in a language only he can
>     understand.  We can do this only because he is in us, enabling us to
>     speak to him by his spirit and power.  

        But if we can't understand what we are saying, then we are
        only an instrument, like the receiver in a telephone, and are
        not truly the speaker.

        So the bottom line implication of the above is that we can't
        speak to God -- if we speak in a way we understand, he can't
        understand, and if we speak in a way he can understand, then
        we can't understand what we are saying!

        Bob

    re .26 (SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST)
    
>    Although it hasn't really been emphasized, speaking in tongues is to
>    the Father, God.
    
    	Then why did Paul write:
    
    		"tongues are a sign not for believers, for
    		for unbelievers ..." (1Cor 14:22 RSV)?
    
    Frankly, when I read that whole chapter, it's evident to me that
    tongues were meant to be understood by those hearing, either because
    the tongues were the native language of those hearing, or that someone
    interpretted that sayings (in tongues) into the language that those
    present understood.
    
    	Paul also wrote;
    
    		"... in church I would rather speak five words
    		with my mind [i.e., with words in his native
    		language, which is the language he thought in],
    		in order to instruct others, than ten thousand
    		words in a tongue."  (1Cor 14:19 RSV)
    
    If the "tongue" spoken isn't understood or interpretted, people may
    marvel at the miracle, but no one is "instructed".  Since Paul was
    clearly an authority on just what "tongues" were to be used for, isn't
    it obvious that God wants us to understand what he has his servants
    speak (whether with their "minds," in their native language, or under
    influence of the "spirit", in a tongue)?
    
    								-mark.

    The most famous Biblical report of speaking in tongues is Pentecost
    when the Holy Spirit first came upon the Apostles. At that time
    (Acts chapter 10) the people all heard Peter in their own language.
    I've always believed that the best use of tongues was to allow
    believers to talk to people in their own language even though they
    themselves don't know it. I believe this does happen. I also believe
    that one of the gifts of the Spirit is that He gives us words we would
    not normally use or even know when speaking to others of the Gospel.
    To me it's all related.

    			Alfred

    Re: 28
    
>        But if we can't understand what we are saying, then we are
>        only an instrument, like the receiver in a telephone, and are
>        not truly the speaker.

    The subconscious mind is talking.  Are you to say that we understand
    everything you're saying?  Or, do you think "we know what you mean"? 
    Only thing is sometimes we really don't understand you, but God
    understands EVERY utterance that comes from the Mind.  
    
    I do see what you're saying, that the "Holy Spirit", or in the case of
    demon possession "evil spirits", possess you you're being used like a
    "telephone."  However, the evil spirits this may be true, but in the
    case of "Holy Spirit" which is within you and working with you to raise
    up YOUR spirit, like the sun light within the plant and working with it
    to raise it up.  You see with the evil spirit there is know benefit for
    the possessed one, but with the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues on your
    behalf you will receive a benefit. 
    
>        So the bottom line implication of the above is that we can't
>        speak to God -- if we speak in a way we understand, he can't
>        understand, and if we speak in a way he can understand, then
>        we can't understand what we are saying!
    
    Oh yea, we speak to God (those who do speak to God) in both clear and
    plain words but also with unknown languages.  Have you every heard
    someone "moaning" about sometime (not necessarily because they are
    physically hurt, but their heart is hurting), and felt you understood
    the agony that the person is going through, because you could hear it
    in the "moaning" what the person is going through?  This is something
    very much like "speaking in tongues.
    
    Playtoe  

    re 29
    
    Yes, but Paul also said "I speak with tongues more than anyone". 
    
>    		"tongues are a sign not for believers, for
>    		for unbelievers ..." (1Cor 14:22 RSV)?
    
    I believe you left out some important words.
    
>    the tongues were the native language of those hearing, or that someone
>    interpretted that sayings (in tongues) into the language that those
>    present understood.
    
    No, I wouldn't say that, because I think the bible is clearly speaking
    of another kind of "speaking in tongue" than the usage of various
    social languages.  If you'll remember the situation in Acts, each
    person that was listening to the "speaking in tongues" HEARD it in
    THEIR native tongue, but these men weren't speaking in their native
    tongue...again, it's something like the "moaning" example I gave.
    
    Playtoe

    re .32 (SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST)
    
>    Yes, but Paul also said "I speak with tongues more than anyone". 
    
    	Right, which makes him all the more an authority on how they should
    be used.  Since he used the gift of tongues more than anyone, isn't it
    all the more significant that he emphasized so strongly the need for
    those who heard the utterance to understand it.  In the same passage he
    wrote:
    
    		"Now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in
    		tongues, how shall I benefit you unless I bring
    		you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy
    		or teaching?  If even lifeless instruments,
    		such as the flute or the harp, do not give
    		distinctive notes, how will any one konw what
    		is played?  And if the bugle gives an indistict
    		sound, who will get ready for battle?  *So with
    		yourselves*; if you in a tongue utter speech
    		*that is not intelligible*, how will anyone
    		know what is said?  For you are speaking into
    		the air.  There are doubtless many languages
    		in the world, and none is without meaning;
    		but if I do not know the meaning of the language,
    		I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the 
    		speaker a foreigner to me.  ... Therefore, he
    		who speaks in a tongue should pray for the
    		power to interpret. ... Otherwise, if you bless
    		with the spirit [in a tongue], how can any one
    		in the position of an outsider [who doesn't
    		understand the tongue] say the "Amen" to your
    		thanksgiving when he does not know what you are
    		saying?" (1Cor 14:6-11,13,16 RSV)
    
    Isn't this very plain?  Paul is clearly likening the "tongues" that are
    spoken to other human languages in the sense that they are given so
    that they can be understood by other humans.  He makes the point that
    many of us experience in everyday life, that the speech of others is
    unintelligible to us, and therefore meaningless, if it's in a language
    that we don't understand (i.e, a "foreign" language).
    
    	At the outset, he makes the point that the brotherhood is upbuilt
    by "some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching", which are
    things that we understand with our minds because we've heard them with
    our ears in a language that we understand.  Paul makes it clear that
    tongues are of no real value of the *aren't understood* because he asks
    point blank, "if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible,
    how will any one know what is said?" (v.9).  Paul then says that such
    speech is like "speaking into the air" to the benefit of no one (*not* 
    like speaking to God).  Even what's said in the tongue contains some
    divinely revealed information, if no one understands the language, no
    one will be upbuilt.
    
    	A few verses down, Paul gives very firm instructions as to how the
    gift of tongues are to be used.  He wrote:
    
    		"When you come together, each one has a hymn,
    		a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an 
    		interpretation.  Let all things be done for
    		edification.  If any speak in a tongue,
    		let there be only two or at most three, and
    		each in turn; *and let one interpret*.  But
    		if there is *no one* to interpret*, let each
    		of them *keep silence* in church and speak
    		to himself and to God. ... If any one thinks
    		that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should
    		acknowledge that what I am writing to you is
    		a *command* of the Lord."  (1Cor 14:26-28,37 RSV)
    
    Again, note that Paul writes, as a "command of the Lord," that when
    someone speaks in a tongue, there must be someone present to interpret
    it; otherwise, those with the gift should remain "silent".  There's no
    mention that the utterance *out loud* in a tongue is personal
    communication with God.  Instead, such personal communication between
    the person with the gift and God should be done in silence, so that no
    one present hears it.
    
    	Now, my question is this, do those who speak in tongues follow
    these scriptural rules, such that what they say is interpretted so that
    those present understand what is said?  Or, to the converse, do those
    who speak in tongues ignore these commands, and speak "into the air",
    with no one to interpret?
    
    	Originally, I asked if those who speak in tongues today 1) know
    what they are saying, and 2) have what they say translated so that
    others understand as well.  So far, it seems that the answer is no,
    that those who speak in tongues do *not* understand them, and neither
    do they keep silent when no one is present to translate.  Instead, the
    claim is made that this language is a "private prayer language" (or
    something of the sort) that only God -- and not even the person speaing
    -- understands, which doesn't appear to jive with Paul's command that 
    such communication is to be "in silence".
    
>    I believe you left out some important words.
    
    	OK.  Now I've added a few.  Which ones are still missing?  How do
    you interpret Paul's words?
    
>    No, I wouldn't say that, because I think the bible is clearly speaking
>    of another kind of "speaking in tongue" than the usage of various
>    social languages.  If you'll remember the situation in Acts, each
>    person that was listening to the "speaking in tongues" HEARD it in
>    THEIR native tongue, but these men weren't speaking in their native
>    tongue...again, it's something like the "moaning" example I gave.
    
    	I see what you're saying ... the "tongues" were a mystery language,
    but holy spirit acted as a 'universal translator' (shades of Star Trek
    :-) so that the foreigners present heard what was said as *if* the men
    were speaking their language; but Acts *doesn't* just say that the
    people were only HEARING in their own languages (as though they were
    watching actors a foreign movie which was overdubbed).  They exclaimed:
    
    		"... we hear them *telling in our own tongues*
    		the mighty works of God."  (Act 2:11 RSV)
    
    Since there were probably about 120 believers present at the time (cf.
    Acts 1:15), and it appears that there were just over a dozen languages
    spoken, it seems reasonable that the ability to speak in those
    languages was distributed throughout the 120 so that the foreigners
    present could actually have witnessed the believers "telling them"
    about "the mighty works of God" in their native languages.
    
    								-mark.

    
    
RE: .33 Mark (and also referencing .32 Playtoe)
    
>>    Yes, but Paul also said "I speak with tongues more than anyone". 
    
>    	Right, which makes him all the more an authority on how they should
>    be used.

   Does this sound egotistical on the part of Paul to anyone else?  How can
   someone make a statement like that when they can't possibly know everyone?
   And how do people accept it as authority?
        
>  (the excerpt from (1Cor 14:6-11,13,16 RSV)

>   Isn't this very plain?  
  
   Sounds pretty clear to me.  What I find interesting is that the
   old African culture that I spoke about a few replies back worked
   with the gift of tongues in just this way.  It is only done at
   certain times, only certain people speak in tongues, and there is
   always an interpreter, so that the information can be passed on
   to the other villagers.  Also interesting is that these people
   knew how to work with this process without ever having seen a
   bible or hearing from Paul.

    
 >   	Now, my question is this, do those who speak in tongues follow
 >   these scriptural rules, such that what they say is interpretted so that
 >   those present understand what is said?  
 
 >   	Originally, I asked if those who speak in tongues today 1) know
 >   what they are saying, and 2) have what they say translated so that
 >   others understand as well.  So far, it seems that the answer is no,

   They did in Africa.  (I don't know if these cultures still follow
   this practice).
    
    Carole

    re .34 (WILLEE::FRETTS)/Carole
    
>>>    Yes, but Paul also said "I speak with tongues more than anyone". 
...
>   Does this sound egotistical on the part of Paul to anyone else?  How can
>   someone make a statement like that when they can't possibly know everyone?
>   And how do people accept it as authority?
    
    	Oh, I don't know.  Paul was "an apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom 11:13
    RSV; "to the nations" NW), and spent a lot of time in foreign
    missionary service, preaching Christianity in places that it had never
    reached before.  Since the account of his conversion makes it evident
    that Jesus singled him out for 'special service', I'd say that it
    figures that he'd have had many more opportunities and reasons to use
    the gift of tongues than the average 'stay-at-home' (or non-missionary)
    convert.
    
    	Another thing is that, according to the RSV, Paul said that, "I
    thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all," which indicates
    that he was making reference to "all" in the Corinthian congregation,
    and not necessarily everyone in the entire, international body of
    believers.
    
> >   	Originally, I asked if those who speak in tongues today 1) know
> >   what they are saying, and 2) have what they say translated so that
> >   others understand as well.  So far, it seems that the answer is no,
>
>   They did in Africa.  (I don't know if these cultures still follow
>   this practice).
    
    	Verrrry interesting.  Now, the question is, what did they really
    say (or what did the interpreters say that they said)?
    
    								-mark.

    re: .35  What did they say?
    
    Of course, that is a question one must always ask of interpreters --
    including those in the Christian church.  I must admit, when there was
    interpretation of tongues that I heard, I sometimes wondered whether
    the interpreter's own agenda might be coming through.
    
    DR

    I think it's real interesting that a non-Christian people are
    able to do something that is recognized by many Christians as a
    gift of the Spirit.  Some Christian bodies look for the ability to
    speaking-in-tongues as a kind of proof.
    
    Richard

    RE: .37   Richard,
    
                       My point exactly in .1.

I agree.  However, many of these same organizations readily admit that
Satan can and does duplicate these signs.

Collis

    RE: 33
    
>    Isn't this very plain?  Paul is clearly likening the "tongues" that are
>    spoken to other human languages in the sense that they are given so
    
    Yes, it is very plain that Paul has "likened" it to the social
    languages, but as in all "likenings" they are only "like" but not
    actually that.  Thus, I say "speaking in tongues" is not the social
    languages we use.
    
>   Paul makes it clear that
>    tongues are of no real value of the *aren't understood* because he asks
    >   point blank, "if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible,
    
    I don't think Paul means for us to think "tongues" are of no real
    value, else why would he speak in it more than all of them?  Of course,
    it is of no value to those who don't understand the words, but it is of
    value to the speaker themselves.  I think the parable Paul makes
    between "speaking in (unknown) tongues" and the differences of social
    language is a "common sense" example given to the church as reasons why
    they shouldn't speak in tongues in the church, because newcomers and
    visitors might not appreciate this...plain and simple.
    
    Playtoe

    re .40 (SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST)
    
>    Yes, it is very plain that Paul has "likened" it to the social
>    languages, but as in all "likenings" they are only "like" but not
>    actually that.  Thus, I say "speaking in tongues" is not the social
>    languages we use.
    
    	But, isn't the purpose of a comparision like this that we will
    focus in on the "likeness", despite the other differences (the main one
    being that the "tongues" given miraculously haven't been acquired by
    the natural human learning process)?
    
>>   Paul makes it clear that
>>    tongues are of no real value of the *aren't understood* because he asks
>    >   point blank, "if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible,
>    
>    I don't think Paul means for us to think "tongues" are of no real
>    value, else why would he speak in it more than all of them?  
    
    	No, I didn't say that they were catagorically of "no real value",
    but only conditionally; the condition being if they weren't understood
    by others.  One might understand the tongue because it *is* -- for all
    intents and purposes -- in a natural language that is known by the
    hearer, or it may be understood because it was translated; but the
    bottom line is that the meaning of the miraculously given words in the
    tongue were to be conveyed, by some means, in a natural
    (non-miraculous) fashion.
    
>                                                                 Of course,
>    it is of no value to those who don't understand the words, but it is of
>    value to the speaker themselves.  I think the parable Paul makes
>    between "speaking in (unknown) tongues" and the differences of social
>    language is a "common sense" example given to the church as reasons why
>    they shouldn't speak in tongues in the church, because newcomers and
>    visitors might not appreciate this...plain and simple.
    
    	He didn't say *never* to speak in tongues in church, only that they
    shouldn't do so if no one (including the speaker) could interpret them,
    since they wouldn't be understood.
    
    	You are right that Paul said that the speaker would be edified
    (because he was privileged to be a channel for the spirit to speak
    through); but Paul didn't say that the gift was solely for the purpose
    of edifying the speaker.  Instead, it was for the edification of
    unbelievers, as a sign, so that they might be convinced that God was
    truly operating through the body of believers, but with the stipulation
    that the tongues were to be translated (if they weren't already
    understood).  If they weren't translated, *THEN* newcomers would be
    unappreciative, and think they were all mad.
    
    								-mark.