How are we to understand tongue speaking? It is an
irrational religious frenzy, an encounter with the
unconscious, a gift of the Spirit, some of these, or
something else? What world view would lie behind your
response to these questions?
Tongue speaking is recognized in Scripture (I Corinthians,
the ending of Mark, and Acts), and was practiced in the
early church until about the third century. Then, with
sporadic exceptions, it died out in the Western Church until
the nineteenth century. Now, it is a world wide phenomena,
particularly in association with the spectacular growth of
the Pentecostal churches. The Eastern Church, with its
strong mystical leanings, never fully lost the gift of
tongues and made provision for its regulation and use.
Historical developments have led to several misconceptions
regarding tongues. Science, Enlightenment, rationalism, gave
rise to the idea that tongues speakers are irrational,
neurotic, in a trance. This is not the case. Normally,
tongue speaking is consciously willed speech, usually
melodious, which is completely subject to the conscious
control of the speaker although the speaker is usually
unaware of its meaning. It may or may not entail emotion,
but if Paul is any guide, it enables the speaker to relate
to God in deep ways beyond the reach of ordinary modes of
communication. Morton Kelsey, after a careful and scholarly
review of the matter, concludes that tongues contributes to
well being and integration when properly used and
understood. Morton T. Kelsey, Tongue Speaking,
chapter VII, pp. 218f.
Another misconception, often held by biblical literalists
(rationalists of another sort), is that tongues and other
"miraculous" matters were valid for the early church but not
today. Others, in reaction to the presumed "sterile"
religion of the mainline churches, claim that Scripture
presents tongues as the only sure sign of receiving the
Spirit. These two misconceptions are incompatible with
Anglicanism with its strong emphasis on liturgical worship,
its sense of continuity with the past, and its awareness of
the breadth of scriptural teaching on the Spirit.
This really leaves us only with two alternatives. Either
tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit, or it is a strictly
human phenomena, benign at best, neurotic and divisive at
the worst. But more than tongues is at stake here. The same
historical forces that led to the rejection of tongues
undermined any sense of God whatsoever. Freud, Fuerbach,
Hume, Marx, Ayer, and many more, formulated attacks on
religion so comprehensive that no shred of the transcendent
remained. The conventional thinking that denies tongues has
already been applied to religion as a whole with far greater
rigor and effect.
Tongue speaking is a very good gift of the Spirit, but it
cannot replace the Eucharist as the manifestation of the
risen Jesus and the church triumphant at God's table in the
age to come. Nor is it equivalent to a living Word of
Scripture that both comforts and confronts us as it did
Luther. Nor is it a substitute for Christian love and all
the varied gifts and ministries of an active Christian
community. Once these realities are given their proper
emphasis, as manifestations of God of considerable power and
depth, tongues can become what it is, not an end in itself,
but a gift of the Spirit that contributes to these greater
things.
Paul doesn't seem to believe that God gives this gift to
everyone, (I Cor. 12). It is, however, a good gift of God,
and God could chose any one of us to receive it. For that
matter, it is good for Christians to seek all God's gifts,
including tongues. Like any gift, it affects the user and
can be abused. It would be good to study the matter
biblically and to seek the support and counsel of someone
with experience and common sense.
The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
March, 1995