What is it then? I have heard of people identifying peoples 'tounges" as real languages.

Reply to : pilinut

First of all please don't take this as an offence.  I am not for one second calling you a liar.  I am looking for the truth in my criticism of  tongues, not simply looking to tear it down.

I too have heard such stories before but with no back up at all.  When one tries to contact the peolple involved in these stories, they are often not contactable or they tell a different story.  I would also ask you to make a clear distinction between those who 'sounded like'  they spoke such or other langauge, and those who did actually speak a recognised language and how they were verified and what was said.  I have heard tongues that sounded like Russian or Chinese, etc, but of course they weren't able to be tested as I didn't speak those languages.  And content is all important.  So what if someone hears the Chinese word for cup repeated over and over again.  You catch my drift?

Another all important question is why is it that some of us were in tongues groups for years and NEVER heard another identifiable language or met someone who did and yet you seem to have it occur regularly?  Did we have greater faith and so didn't need a 'sign' or did we have lesser faith and so couldn't see the miracle?

Perhaps you would like to contact the people in your examples above andask them to document their stories and then post them here.  That would certainly be a step towards converting many of us back to our tongues experience.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/31-35/31-1-05.htm

S. J. Mead, a missionary who labored for over twenty years in Liberia, attended the Azusa Street meetings. He heard many African dialects spoken with which he was familiar. A colored woman spoke at length in tongues as the Spirit was pleased to use her. Immediately after she had spoken, Brother Mead arose and interpreted the message and gave the name of the tribe in Africa that spoke the language.[31]

Samarin's analysis of recordings which he has heard led him to con­clude that glossolalia often has many superficial similarities with those languages which the speaker is generally familiar, such as intonation, simple words and phrases, and syntax-like features.[32]

The example cited above is subject to question in light of his find­ings. A "colored woman" is the speaker. It is quite possible that she was "generally familiar" with an African dialect and that in a state of altered consciousness, she could have reproduced general intonation, a few words or phrases, etc. The competence of Mead's ability to recognize "many African dialects" must also be questioned. Ian Stevenson's research leads him to conclude: "Persons only casually familiar with for­eign languages ... who perhaps studied them superficially in high school, but never mastered one-may easily mistake the semblance of a foreign language for the reality."[33] Given the initial Pentecostal world-view and its expectation for glossolalia, Mead would be predisposed to his conclu­sion based on a few words or general intonation.

Samarin cites a similar case that he was able to investigate. It involved a woman who had grown up in a Pentecostal church.

A man rose to give a message in tongues. She immediately recognized it as the language she had learned in Africa as a missionary several years before. And as he spoke, she under­stood the sense of what he was saying. Immediately after the meeting was over, she met with her husband and son, who also spoke the language. All of them had been amazed to hear it from the lips of someone who could not possibly have had the opportunity to learn it as they had.[34]

Talking with the woman later, Samarin discovered that, although she had some knowledge of the language, she spoke it with a heavy accent and did not know the intonations of its structure. Furthermore, the length of the discourse that she had recognized as the language was less than a: minute, and she could only report that the man had been praising Jesus. After investigating several reports of a similar nature, Samarin concluded: "Cross-examination destroys the credibility of this sincere person who claimed to hear a language she personally knew."[35]

http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/31-35/31-1-05.htm

3. A Convert's Testimony. The third category of tongue-speech which is recognized as known language involves an unbeliever of a non­English speaking origin who attends a Pentecostal meeting, hears an exhortation in his own language, and as a result, becomes a convert to the movement. A. W. Orwig summarized the countless such incidents which occurred at the Azusa Mission as follows:

Persons of many nationalities were also present, of which Los Angeles seems to be filled, representing all manner of reli­gious beliefs. Sometimes these, many of them unsaved, would be seized with deep conviction for sin under the burning testi­mony of one of their own nationality, and at once heartily turn to the Lord. Occasionally, some foreigner, although somewhat understanding English, would hear a testimony of earnest exhortation in his native tongue from a person not at all acquainted with that language, thereby be pungently convicted that it was a call from God to repent of sin; often such repent­ance followed just as on the Day of Pentecost.[36]

Many such accounts are of a second-hand nature and, like the first category, can be attributed to an uncritical acceptance of hearsay and rumor. The Pentecostal world-view predisposed the reporter to accept the claim without question. Others, like the summary cited, are eyewitness accounts and cannot be easily dismissed without challenging the integrity of the observer. Samarin's findings help to explain these cases. The "lan­guages" heard in such instances are often those known by some members of the group. Although unknown by the speaker, this person would be "generally familiar" with the language and could have reproduced intona­tion, some words or phrases, etc.

There is a critical difference among the reports in this category, how­ever. The person who understands the language is an unbeliever who does not share the Pentecostal world-view. Yet this person is convicted of sin and is converted as a result of the message.

Eddison Mosimann, a psychiatrist who studied the glossolalia phe­nomenon in Switzerland, provides a possible clue. His investigation stemmed from an interest raised in this subject when one of his patients, a Pentecostal, claimed that she heard real languages. In his investigation, Mosimann found that: (1) there were many reported cases of this occur­rence among Pentecostals; (2) the people involved were absolutely sin­cere in their belief; (3) the message provided an answer to a crisis they were facing; and (4) the actual utterance, when analyzed, was no lan­guage at all. His conclusion was that the "miracle" was in the hearing rather than in the speaking.[37]

---

I can also recognise related languages such as Malay, Indonesian and the various filipino dialects even though I don't understand what people are saying.

---

 My point exactly.  How many of your stories, were we to chase them up, are actually just like this? The person recognised a language BUT did not actually understand it or translate it.  But in the re-telling it becomes much more than what actually occured at the time.

The best demonstration of how to mock tongues I ever heard was someone who said (in a tongues like repetition):

"What colour my undies, what colour my undies, what colour my undies" 

The trick, according to him, was to start forcefully and loud and re-emphasise the word "what" on every repetion.  Then, make sure you taper off the volume at the end of every third repetion.   

He was joking of course, but he had a point.  it sounded JUST like tongues.  he had it down pat.

And that is the Day of Pentecost according to many...

Shirley Warren is dead now though... Unverifiable.

Some Turkish visitors ...  Unverifiable?

That may have involved Bob Addison...  May?

It wasn't standard French but it was obviously related...  Are you enough of an expert on French and French variations?  You have said no.

I couldn't understand it all. (I'm not sure who it was) ...  Couldn't understand it all and don't know who it was.  Unverifiable.

Brett Warren spoke Arabic when he was praying for a woman ...  Who was she?  Can we verify her story?

It was identified by a Chinese sister in the church...  Who were these people?  Can we verify their story?

A guy who received the Spirit in Quezon City jail spoke in Greek and Arabic...  A guy?

Someone was praying for someone ...Jack said when he heard it it sounded like the speech of natives of Borneo...  Someone?  Sounded like?

I know you don't believe me, but the very fact that I am prepared to discuss this with you shows that I am in fact open to be shown it to be true.  We need some facts here, not 2nd hand or 3rd hand stories.  So far, we cannot verify onbe of your stories as being a genuine miracle.  I don't doubt that YOU believe it.  I am nont calling you a lair.  Only that so far, its all heresay or maybe...no definite proof...even in your own experience.

shigida shigida shigida

All tongues seems to do is provide an elitist schism. Us vs them. Saved vs unsaved. It's tick a box Christianity. Sure, it allows naive newcomers to marvel at the weird unusual goings on and in turn allows them to think about the wondrous miracle of God to be able to give people languages that can't be understood... great!

I was a Revivalist for nearly two decades, I prayed in it and prayed for people to get it. It's a learned behaviour and the sooner people see through the charade the better. A miracle is when water is walked on or bones are meshed or when a tumour disappears. The unintelligible gibberish we chant to a God who can hear our hearts desire way before we even speak it is far from a miracle.

Those leaving Revival... I make no apologies about underlying this great deception. Tongues, yeah... do it as much as you like... but don't try and force the rest of the world to give up intellible prayer and meditation. Peace...

God blesses... even if you pray without moving your lips. Making sounds that sort of sounded like a language... I did that at age 2.

---

A lot of posters here who have contacted me privately are extremely uncomfortable with your posts because they treasure the gift God gave them.

---

Discomfort is fine... it's good to be challenged. Perpaps I'm getting across the idea that people who don't speak in tongues aren't going to hell (whatever you interpret that as). I dare to insinuate that salvation is not dependant on one's ability to stammer ecstatically.

When I visited a new group, I still felt very proud and Revivalish because the new group weren't uniformly tongue speakers and I argued circular scriptures, backing tongue necessity, with them for a while until it hit me. I wasn't worried about fitting in. Fitting in is for the conformists. I was one previously.

You don't care for my posts... sorry about that but I should trouble you a little further to rebutt this faking mocker title you've labeled me with. I actually fully believed my tongue gift for all those 17 years. It was nice to fit in and be one of the gang in the superfreinds fan club. I didn't question it until only 2 years ago and I don't go to any organised religion now because they pretty much all suck so I'm not a Baptist or a whatever but you can call me a 'wishy washy' whatever if you like.

I thought it was absolutely amazing (or I convinced myself I did) that I could speak in tongues and I went door knocking everywhere so I could persuade the ignorant masses of the salvation that comes through the ability to say Honda Hyundai backwards. I actually practiced my amazing gift well and could mimic many different types of languages (not that hard - and I did believe it was the spiritual linguist power moving me). I never actually said shigida shigida but I know PUHlenty of people who did or even simpler.

---

shigida shigida shigidaAll tongues seems to do is provide an elitist schism. Us vs them. Saved vs unsaved. It's tick a box Christianity. Sure, it allows naive newcomers to marvel at the weird unusual goings on and in turn allows them to think about the wondrous miracle of God to be able to give people languages that can't be understood... great!I was a Revivalist for nearly two decades, I prayed in it and prayed for people to get it. It's a learned behaviour and the sooner people see through the charade the better. A miracle is when water is walked on or bones are meshed or when a tumour disappears. The unintelligible gibberish we chant to a God who can hear our hearts desire way before we even speak it is far from a miracle.Those leaving Revival... I make no apologies about underlying this great deception. Tongues, yeah... do it as much as y

---

WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?

Is it "repent, be batised, and receive the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues"? Well that's what the Revival Centers Leaders teach, and what thier congregations are told to believe to the death. Now, if you are new to all this, be assured that the Revival Center idea is nonsence. You are saved by believing in Jesus. That means holding firmly to the message that Christ died, was buried, and on the third day rose again ( 1Cor.15:1-4 )

If you are a Revival center person or ex Revivalist, well, you'll probable need a bit more convincing, Your're probable even wondering whether it is right for you to be reading an alternate viewpoint.But 2Corinthians 13v5 says it's right to examine yourselves to see whether you are in living in the faith. Its easy just to obey your Revival center leaders and ignore what concerned friends and family bring up. You can even end up ignoring your own thoughts and beliefs. But its best to be sure yourself of the truth, after hearing both sides of the matter. Pro18v13 says," if one gives an answer before hearing, it is folly and shame"

Its very possible to be sure you are right- then find out you were wrong. That type of idea was put in romans 10v2,3 where Paul was writing about some Jews who hadn't come to the Truth: " I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. For being ignorant of the righteousness that cames from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to Gods righteousness.

PROBLEM 1, if we proclaim a false gospel, we are damned.

I believe we must be very careful about the gosple we preach. If we preach a false gospel, we are accursed (GK.'anathema') There's nothing wrong with tougues, but if we say they are part of salvation and they are not, that is preaching a false gosple. ps read the warning in Gal 1v7-9.

PROBLEM 2, the gospel the first christians "recevived" was not tongues

ps pay specical attention to what paul sait to the Galatians " I WOULD REMIND YOU, BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF THE GOOD NEWS (GOSPLE) THAT I PROCLAIMED TO YOU, WHICH IN TURN YOU RECEIVED,IN WHICH ALSO YOU STAND, THROUGH WHICH ALSO YOU ARE SAVED, IF YOU HOLD FIRMLY TO THE MESSAGE THAT I PROCLAIMED TO YOU, FOR I HANDED ON TO YOU AS OF FIRST IMPORTANCE WHAT I TURN HAD RECEIVED: THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS IN ACCORDACE WITH THE SCRIPTURES, AND THAT HE WAS BURIED, AND THAT HE WAS RAISED ON THE THIRD DAY"

So the early Christians received a gospel of Christ's death and resurrection. Unfortunately, the revival Centers pervert that gospel, and now proclaim a gospel of toungues instead. For 16 years while i was in the Revival Centers i hammed down people for not speaking in Toungues, these where often souls who loved God, with all there heart, for which now i am truely sorry. 

Notice that Christ was of "first importance", not tongues. In preaching salvation Paul even said he knew nothing but Jesus! But why was Jesus important? Jesus is important because Jesus died and was buried. Jesus died a s a sacrifice for you, atoning for your sins. By dying he showed us the incredible love God must have for us. Then he was raised up from the dead, and as the first fruits of the the great resurrection Jesus showed us he had conquered death. In doing so, Jesus showed us that we're able to trust him to save us from death as well. Or in Theology terms, our righteousness comes from putting our faith in Christ finished work on the cross. Paul said by "receiving" and "standing" in this gosple or good new, "you are saved"

Paul was actually following the lead of all the early disciples. When they came to a town that hadn't been evangelised, they didn't set up bible Prophecy boards, and harass people about tongues and pyramids or get the piano accordians out and have a sing song, They would enter the town, usually find an open place for evangelism, and talk about Jesus. Nothing strange about this, as Jesus asked the disciples to be his witnesses(ie not tongues,pyramid,britishIsrael) When evangelising, they would often discussing David, the foreruner of Jesus. They would often move on to some allusions to Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures. Then they would move on to how Jesus was born, died, then rose again. They would often end with the a promise that, if the hearers believed that message, they would be saved ,see Acts 2v22-32, 3v13,14 4v1-2, 5v30-32 8v30-35, 10v39-44, 13v26-44 16v30-31 20v20-24

PROBLEM 3- BUT WHAT ABOUT WHAT THE REVIVAL CENTERS SAY?
We have to point first that there is nothing in the bible that explicitly says "you must speak in tongues" What the Revival Centre leader's say is that the doctrine is taught implicitly- by piecing together statements found throughout the bible. Despite the need to do this, they maintain that their doctrine is indisputably correct. Those who doubt it doubt the clear Word of God. People who sincerely believe the Revival Centre's doctrine to be wrong have 'itching ears', are 'lukewarm', or are not interested in the truth.
The revival centers also try to discredit the idea, like John 3:16 that salvation comes through believing in Jesus. Maybe its because its to difficult for them? Most often they are quickly sheved with an explanation" the Greek word for 'believe' doesn't really mean believe- it means 'obey'. We must obey Jesus by receiving the Spirit and speaking in tongues. Well, thats nonsense( firstly, there is a separate word for obeying and that word transliterated is 'hupakoe') You should ask the pastar to show you any commands in scripture to receive the Spirit or speak in tongues. There are none! So if there are no commands to speak in tongues, it has nothing to do with 'obey', anyway!
Do you know what God actully does command us? It is set out in first John 3.
"this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ"

So the christian good news is Jesus Christ! not tongues the focus should be on him, everything else comes latter. Someone asked Paul "what must i do to be saved?" Do you know that Paul didn't even talk about tongues? he talked about Christ. Paul said to him,"Believe on the Lord Jesus,and you will be saved" (Acts 16v30-31) So be clear. Is your salvation only in tougues, or is it in Christ? Will you stay a tonguesian, or will you become a Christian? For 16 years in the Revival center i can truely say i didn't know who Jesus was. I did not know him like the way i am becaming to know him now. But i sure knew alot on toungues!

                                                   Wazza.

I thought we could TRY to discuss the validity of tongues without resorting to personal, character or motive attacks.  I really don't give a rats why you think I don't believe in tongues.  But the truth is, I researched it and it came up lacking.  I can't do anymore than that.  If you want to resort to personal crap then you can XXXXXXXXXXXXX.  The topic was opened up and I gave my 2 cents.  I hardly want to hear from people with an OBVIOUS bias in favour of tongues claim to be so damned objective!  Try examining the evidence without being so emotional and subjective.

Isin't it the Revivalist leadership way to accuse people of being less than 'Godly' when they disagree with them?

Selah...

What colour my undies - Nice example!

This is ultimately the reason I left RF. Once all the arguments are said and done, even when you have argued over brain patterns whilst doing tongues etc. the point is that it cannot be evidence of something as profound as salvation if I PERSONALLY cannot distinguish it from someone saying what colour my undies. Revvies go on and on about how somebody's emotional experiences however amazing cannot be evidence of salvation and the only thing that works is the objective evidence of tongues. When you point out to them that this itself is not reliable, then they have nothing left but to say "well comeon you just KNOW if someone is genuinely giving a real tongue or a fraudalent one" - this is just what other Christians say to Revivalists!

- Terror Australis

The following is an extract from the book "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" by theologian James D.Dunn. I have substituted the English translation for the greek expressions he used.

'He saved us through the washing of regeneration (rebirth) and renewal of the Holy Spirit which he poured out upon us....'

Pentecostals try to separate "washing of rebirth" from the "renewal of the Spirit".
They acknowledge that the "renewal" is linked to the next cleanse describing the Spirit "poured out", but try to have the  "washing of re-birth" as an entirely separate experience from the "renewal" of the pouring out of the Spirit.

But this cannot be. The "washing" and the "renewal" are virtually synonymous. They are not describing two distinct and separate experiences. To be reborn is to be made anew. At most we can say that the two phrases describe the same transformation from slightly different angles. Both phrases are governed by the same preposition "through"

A correct translation would therefore be "He saved us by the cleansing of rebirth and of renewal by the Spirit which he poured out on us". The "regeneration" and the "renewal" are both dependent on the "washing". Again, just as you cannot separate "rebirth" from "renewal", so you cannot separate "rebirth" from "Holy Spirit"  as the Spirit of regeneration.

Rebirth is effected by the Holy Spirit. "He saved us..." therefore describes the saving act of God in which he effects regeneration by the renewing power of the Holy Spirit- One act with different aspects.

Verse 6- The manner in which the Holy Spirit comes for this regenerating and renewing operation is further described in the next clause, for here the outpouring of the Spirit is obviously what effects the (rebirth and) renewal of the Spirit, so that the "poured out" must describe the same event as the "he saved us".

The clear illusion to Pentecost is a decisive check to Pentecostal ideas...... of conversion (that we are 'reborn' by 'accepting Jesus', and later in a subsequent and separate experience we are baptized in Spirit).

For here it is the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit- the baptism in the Spirit- which effects the regeneration and renewal of salvation. Pentecost is regeneration and renewal.

With 'having been justified' (beginning of verse 7) we have once again a coincident aorist. We cannot distinguish the event of being justified from becoming an heir 'in hope of eternal life'. Nor may we separate this 'having been justified' from what precedes it; ' so that having been justified'. The 'so that' clause describes the purpose of the Pentecostal outpouring as well as the 'he saved us'.

The saving purpose of God, which is that we might be justified and become heirs, is effected by the baptism in the Spirit. It is evident that Paul is describing the one event of getting saved in as rich and full a way as possible. The outpouring of the Spirit is not something distinct from the renewal nor the renewal from the regeneration. Neither is the becoming heirs distinct from being justified, nor any of these from being saved.

God's purpose in the act of salvation is our justification and adoption, the means by which he achieves that purpose is the 'washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit which he poured out upon us'.

Since 'rebirth' and 'renewal' are both dependent on 'washing', and neither can be independent of or separated from the Spirit, it is best to take 'regeneration and renewal' as a single concept describing the washing of the Holy Spirit- the washing, regeneration and renewal, of which the Holy Spirit effects.

It is the cleansing and purifying we experience when the Spirit is poured out upon us which brings about our regeneration and renewal.

(James Dunn finishes here and I finish with my own conclusion)

BEING REGENERATED, RENEWED, JUSTIFIED, MADE HEIRS, AND SAVED ALL OCCUR AT ONE TIME AT ONE EVENT IN ONE EXPERIENCE;

BEING BAPTISED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.

 

'He saved us through the washing of regeneration (rebirth) and renewal of the Holy Spirit which he poured out upon us....'

Pentecostals try to separate "washing of rebirth" from the "renewal of the Spirit".
They acknowledge that the "renewal" is linked to the next cleanse describing the Spirit "poured out", but try to have the  "washing of re-birth" as an entirely separate experience from the "renewal" of the pouring out of the Spirit.

But this cannot be. The "washing" and the "renewal" are virtually synonymous. They are not describing two distinct and separate experiences. To be reborn is to be made anew. At most we can say that the two phrases describe the same transformation from slightly different angles. Both phrases are governed by the same preposition "through"

A correct translation would therefore be "He saved us by the cleansing of rebirth and of renewal by the Spirit which he poured out on us". The "regeneration" and the "renewal" are both dependent on the "washing". Again, just as you cannot separate "rebirth" from "renewal", so you cannot separate "rebirth" from "Holy Spirit"  as the Spirit of regeneration.

Rebirth is effected by the Holy Spirit. "He saved us..." therefore describes the saving act of God in which he effects regeneration by the renewing power of the Holy Spirit- One act with different aspects.

Verse 6- The manner in which the Holy Spirit comes for this regenerating and renewing operation is further described in the next clause, for here the outpouring of the Spirit is obviously what effects the (rebirth and) renewal of the Spirit, so that the "poured out" must describe the same event as the "he saved us".

The clear illusion to Pentecost is a decisive check to Pentecostal ideas...... of conversion (that we are 'reborn' by 'accepting Jesus', and later in a subsequent and separate experience we are baptized in Spirit).

For here it is the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit- the baptism in the Spirit- which effects the regeneration and renewal of salvation. Pentecost is regeneration and renewal.

With 'having been justified' (beginning of verse 7) we have once again a coincident aorist. We cannot distinguish the event of being justified from becoming an heir 'in hope of eternal life'. Nor may we separate this 'having been justified' from what precedes it; ' so that having been justified'. The 'so that' clause describes the purpose of the Pentecostal outpouring as well as the 'he saved us'.

The saving purpose of God, which is that we might be justified and become heirs, is effected by the baptism in the Spirit. It is evident that Paul is describing the one event of getting saved in as rich and full a way as possible. The outpouring of the Spirit is not something distinct from the renewal nor the renewal from the regeneration. Neither is the becoming heirs distinct from being justified, nor any of these from being saved.

God's purpose in the act of salvation is our justification and adoption, the means by which he achieves that purpose is the 'washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit which he poured out upon us'.

Since 'rebirth' and 'renewal' are both dependent on 'washing', and neither can be independent of or separated from the Spirit, it is best to take 'regeneration and renewal' as a single concept describing the washing of the Holy Spirit- the washing, regeneration and renewal, of which the Holy Spirit effects.

It is the cleansing and purifying we experience when the Spirit is poured out upon us which brings about our regeneration and renewal.

(James Dunn finishes here and I finish with my own conclusion)

BEING REGENERATED, RENEWED, JUSTIFIED, MADE HEIRS, AND SAVED ALL OCCUR AT ONE TIME AT ONE EVENT IN ONE EXPERIENCE;

BEING BAPTISED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Reply to : pilinut [Anonymous]

Pillnut, your observations are valid.  I think there is a case within the Bible to support Dunn's theology you posted. 

But you have to recognise that Pentecostals follow a theological tradition of men such as Finney, Wesley, and many other Xian heroes from the 1700s and 1800s.  And these men taught the baptism in the Spirit was an equipping for service.  The idea of renewal comes from Paul's verse, "Be (being) filled with the Spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs."  The infilling of the HS is said to be ongoing...with times of refilling (ie. refreshing).  But I wont go to the electric chair for this point of view, I just think we should understand what they ACTUALLY say.

But here's the million dollar question...

Does Dunn believe that the batism in the Holy Spirit/Salvation is ALWAYS (or even ever) evidenced by tongues?  If not, why do you choose to ignore him on that point?

You know how some people are incessent name droppers who mention that they know someone important all the time and you just roll your eyes at them. "Oh, I went to pastor soandso's house for dinner and pastor soandso said this and said that..." It boosts their pride to be associated with something they percieve to be important.

Tongues is like that. Revheads et al. love to name drop tongues every chance they get as if it's the special connection to Jesus that they, the special elected holy ones, have got through amazing intelligence, luck and blessing. They're addicted to it. Every testimony, every meeting, every time they go out street harrasing... we got tongues... isn't tongues great... the devil can't understand tongues, it's a secret code to God... you get more blessed when u pray in tongues... you can't pray in the spirit without it... your car will start better with it.

In my experience with RF/RCI  et al. they believe there are five very different types of people and are very quick to  pigeon-hole everyone into one of these five (the pastors deny it but I've spoken to enough, even this year, to see that the mindset is still at large)... this is in order of the best category to the worst:

1. Sensible blessed christians who speak in tongues - The good ones who definitely equate tongues with salvation... and preach it as such. No matter how awful you are... as long as you got the special evidence you're ok by them.
2. Mislead wolves - those who have been able to speak in tongues but don't equate it with salvation or preach it's necessity, thereby condemning possible converts with a false doctrine of wishy washiness (and people who leave mustongue churches are also in this category - ME! Hi!).
3. Christian wannabes - the people who say they are christians but have never spoken in tongues... and, even though they may help the sick and do great things by their fellow man, and love and believe in Jesus and his gospel with all their heart, are only fooling themselves by pretending to be holy. (Revheads hope and justify and wonder if those wannabes actually possibly probably spoke in tongues by accident at some stage.. they MUST have...)
4. Worldlies - People who have never spoken in tongues and who don't follow the bible. People who need saving... get 'em in the tank... get their lips stammering... then everything will be okay. Money will fall out of the sky and pimples will clear up.
5. Catholics - just plain evil... bwahahahaha
6. People who don't indicate at roundabouts. - Had to throw in a sixth for good measure. THESE are the people I'm trying to convert.

Our kids used to do Skits on Sunday nights where the wishy washy Christians were put into a washing machine and sprinkled with tonguesoap to wash them right. Sounds so much like the kids I saw in a KKK documentry. A stark and horrible comparison (sorry... eek) but still, the hate being taught towards other humans at a young age towards people who are perceived as different is much more than horrifying.

---

Ok, so I'll start then...Rather than reinvent the wheel, I call your attention to the following article written by a former RCI pastor:Fifteen Other Salvation Accounts From ActsAn Examination of Salvation in the Book of ActsBy Drew Dixonhttp://pleaseconsider.info/articles/acts/salvation_in_acts.htmSummaryTaking into account the all the Acts even

---

A chinese laundryman visited a charismatic church in which the members were speaking in tongues. One of the elders of the church recognized the chinese man and visited his laundry business the following week. When he asked the chinese man how he liked the church service, the man shook his head in disapproval.

The elder said, "What was wrong? I thought i heard a lady speak in tongues that sounded like Chinese."

The chinese man said, "She did speak in Chinese, and she was cursing God the whole time".

This is just one of many such examples, which individuals who believed that they were praising God, but where in fact cursing Him.

How could this be? Certainly the Holy Spirit would not lead someone to curse God. Could the devil have a counterfeit of the Biblical speaking in tongues?

Over the years I have heard tongues spoken in meetings approximately 1327 times. I have sat next to people that went "ssssss ssssss" for an hour. I endured countless shigada shigadas and allay allay dee dee dee das. My cat displays more inflection and accent in her meows. No offence intended.

I have heard the claim from pastors stating that tongues had been studied and syntax had been evident. What a load of blah. I don't deny that perhaps it is possible in some cases but I defy anyone to prove syntax exists in tongues.  But, in the main, all I have heard is babble and I have listened to many come and go. I teach language to Primary school students and I know what language sounds like. Hagada Higgida aint it. I know Trekkies have developed a Klingon language... but lest one have a universal translator it is forbidden at the federation.

"free vocalization is a normal, God-given human capacity. The person who was unable to do it would be unusual. We regard free vocalization as abnormal only because, in our modern Western cultural milieu, people usually cease to do it after childhood." Reference 

Ha... that's classic

Last night 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.

---

Thanks for letting us know about the program - and any more info you might have.

---

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 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?a, 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 Encyclop?ia 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

---

Tongues - An Unsound Evidence of SalvationBy Nick Greer"

---

Thank you so much for bringing that information up again.  Hopefully someone reading will realize the truth that tongues are spoken by many groups of people with different beliefs, so it can not be THE sign that you are saved.  People speak in tongues who do not even believe in God. 

I did share the information from those articles with my sister when iI found your website-forum many, many, many years ago.  I was so excited to find a group that shared their experiences and opened up about the damage caused by RCI - and especially all the BIBLICAL commentaries against their beliefs.  Thank you so much for writing these and keeping up this board! 

My sister and her husband would not accept my or Nick's "interpretation" of those verses.  Nor would they accept "my word" that other people speak in tongues.  They need "proof".   Just as they did not believe Jesus' words of salvation; they needed proof.  This shows they do not trust Jesus for salvation and therefore are not saved.  They do not "believe on" (trust) the Lord Jesus for salvation - they trust in their tongues. 

I was excited to see that I may have an opportunity to SHOW them, PROVE to them that people with totally opposite beliefs speak the same "language" as they do!  Then, maybe, their eyes may be opened!!! 

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 - Why they cannot be the definitive sign

An examination of tongues as the ultimate sign.....warts and all

 By Drew Dixon

(excerpt)

A study on Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)

I would first like to present the introduction to a study conducted at the Carleton University Ottawa. It is from an article in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1986, Vol. 95, No. 1,21-23 and is entitled "Glossolalia as Learned Behaviour: An Experimental Demonstration" (for a full copy you would need to perhaps visit your local hospital / medical library).

 "Sixty subjects listened to a 60-s sample of glossolalia (defined to them as pseudolanguage) and then attempted to produce glossolalia on a 30-s baseline trial. Afterward, half of the subjects received two training sessions that included audio- and videotaped samples of glossolalia interspersed with opportunities to practise glossolalia. Also, live modelling of glossolalia , direct instruction, and encouragement were provided by an experimenter. Both the trained subjects and untreated controls attempted to produce glossolalia on a 30-s post-test trial. About 20% of subjects exhibited fluent glossolalia on the baseline trial, and training significantly enhanced fluency. Seventy percent of trained subjects spoke fluent glossolalia on the post-test. Our findings are more consistent with social learning than with altered state conceptions of glossolalia."

Nicholas P. Spanos, Wendy P. Cross, Mark Lepage, and Marjorie Coristine

In the above report, several aspects should be highlighted.

1. After the sixty subjects were all exposed to a short 60 second session of tongues, 20% (12) were able to immediately reproduce a similar fluent phenomena. This would seem to bear an uncanny resemblance to the percentage of Revivalists who receive on their 'first attempt'. 

2. After further exposure and some 'practice' for 1/2 of the sixty people, seventy percent of these were then able to fluently 'speak in tongues'.

3. None of the 'tongues' represented in the above tests had anything to do with the Holy Spirit. 

So here we have a completely 'non-spiritural' generation of something very similar to tongues. Of course, from a 'language' perspective, it would be impossible to judge between a 'real or false' tongue. So the reality is, a person can learn and / or duplicate 'tongues', and the % success can also relate to the environment and the process undertaken.

It is quite common knowledge that some Pentecostal groups literally train some of their converts to speak in tongues, which really throws the whole 'proof' aspect into disarray. However, most Revival groups would strongly deny any form of training or coercion, but they would be wrong. I would agree they do not deliberately train people, but in the end, the process and outcome are often the same.

The new converts training process 

Most Revival groups are keen not to fall into the open 'tongues training' that some others do. However, the reality is, that over the years they have developed (perhaps unconsciously) a very neat little 'training' system adopted by almost all assemblies.

A new prospect is quizzed about their faith and this can take various forms, but it usually boils down to 'do you speak in tongues'. The main focus is that 'God will prove himself to you'. It matters little if a person declares they already have the Holy Spirit, if they don't have tongues, then they are told they are not saved. The old King James is often pulled out and a few choice 'out of context' scriptures are linked together and presented as the 'story of salvation'. The texts would often include the main tongues ones, such as Mark 16, Acts 2:4, Acts 2:38 and Acts 10. The reality is, that virtually any topic can be either proved / disproved via this form of scriptural wrestling, but if the receiver of the lesson is not aware of these things, the case presented can look quite convincing. The prospective convert's own faith and salvation has now begun to be undermined by a very confident 'testimony and scripture presentation'. They are invited to a meeting or some local fellowship group. From here on in, the focus for the fellowship relating to the new prospect is generally two fold, get them into the tank for baptism and get them seeking for the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ himself is really only mentioned as a side issue, more in the context of the giver of the Spirit, rather than the focus of salvation. The meeting itself, the new convert's first real introduction to the people and the group, is in reality, a very controlled event, with most assemblies in a given fellowship running a very similar pattern. When giving their testimonies, Revivalists are 'encouraged' to speak always of the positive and victorious life post-tongues, with problems and difficulties being shelved. Tongues are always to be mentioned as the 'turning point'. Indeed in the Brisbane assembly, if someone failed to mention tongues in their testimony, the MC was usually quick to point out in his summary that this person did actually speak in tongues when they 'received' the Spirit and was baptised by full immersion. Again, all the new prospect hears is all this positive stuff and that really, tongues (Holy Ghost) will solve all your problems. In this manner, a very biased and unbalanced view of 'life after tongues' is presented.

Soon to follow is the 'operation of the spiritual gifts', a process supposedly following to the letter, the instructions given by Paul in 1 Cor 14. Here the new prospect hears tongues (usually for the first time). Often, three tongues are given, each lasting between 5 to 30 seconds. This gives the new prospect the chance to hear the general form, accents, highs, lows and breathing pattern that is common to many tongues. Whether conscious or unconsciously, the new prospect now knows what is ultimately 'expected' from him if he is to enter into the 'salvation experience' according to the Revival Doctrine. The Revival talks are usually directed at the 'spirit-filled' and the new convert will often be left to feel he is an 'outsider'. At the end of the talk, often one or two of the tongues scriptures or Acts 2:38 are again presented and a call for baptism is made^[1]. 

At the end of the meeting, the offer is made for the new prospect to attend the seekers meeting, a place set a side for those to go and pray in tongues or to seek for the Spirit. This is where things get a little strange, with absolutely no scriptural basis what-so-ever. The new convert, accompanied by one or two Revivalists, enters the room where there may already be a number of people already speaking in tongues (some of them quite vocally). As far as seeking goes, the new prospect is encouraged to just repeat a fixed word or phrase, the word of choice is generally alleluia. At the same time, they are told to just think on the Lord and 'ask / seek' for the Holy Sprit. So the new convert sets off on his focused repetition of alleluia, with his helpers speaking in tongues right next to him. Often the helpers will encourage the new convert with such phrases as 'just relax' or 'if you feel your tongue changing just let it go'. The helpers themselves will often slip 'in and out' of tongues, thus giving the new prospect repeated examples of how the 'change over' may sound (unintentionally of course). All this is of course 'training' via one of the most pointed and pressure orientated methods possible (all without people actually realising what they are doing). 

All this is also done with the new prospect under the immense pressure of possible eternal damnation if they don't get it!!

From here on, the new prospect has been coached into accepting that tongues represents the Holy Ghost, and any experience other than tongues they may have previously encountered is automatically dismissed as non-important and definitely not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, after all, isn't that what the Bible says??.

Over my time, I have heard some pretty 'hyped-up' sessions. As the new prospect gets faster and faster with their alleluia, the helpers get faster and louder with their tongue, while encouraging and pushing the new prosect along harder and harder. A typical session may go as follows, keeping in mind a number of tongues running in the background (new prospect in red, helpers in blue)

"alleluia alleluia alleluia, that's it, just praise the Lord, alleluia alleluia alleluia, focus on the Lord, just ask him, allelu allelu allelu, if you feel your tongue change, don't fight it, just let it go, arla arla arla, that's it keep it going, just let it go, harla harla harla, relax and think about the Lord, la la la la da da da da................."

If the new convert makes it to tongues, the group acceptance and change of attitude toward the person is instantaneous and significant. The sense of inclusion is also both significant and apparent, 'salvation' has come to this lost sinner and the tongues 'proves it'. Unfortunately though for the individual concerned, they may just have lost their sense of Christian objectivity forever as well as their ability to survive outside a 'tongues' group.

Many testify of a change within when they speak in tongues. While this may be legitimate in many cases (though totally unprovable from an outside perspective), one must also consider the incredible emotional release that comes at this time for the new prospect. If they have accepted the Revival doctrine, then in that one tongues moment, in their own thinking, they have 'achieved salvation', 'God has spoken to them and them alone', they are now one of the 'elite few', all of which are exceptionally emotive precepts.

Also, one should keep in mind the very act of 'letting go' (as people are encouraged to do with their tongue) can be (and is) a significant emotional step in a person's psyche as they relinquish control over what is a fundamental human activity (speech) and brings with it a highly charged emotional reaction when done for the first time. As has been demonstrated, the natural equivalent of tongues is not hard to duplicate. I would perhaps offer that 'some' people, when they begin seeking for the Spirit / Tongues, deliberately try not to speak in tongues (i.e. let go), because they don't want to be 'duped'. However, as the seeking time goes on, the pressure mounts, the repetition of words (alleluia) plays on the mind, people get tongue tied, breathing patterns become irregular (due to the rapid repetition of words). Eventually, under instruction from the helpers, some people 'may' just let go and slip into what is simply a natural (perhaps a little odd) human phenomena, all accompanied by the significant emotional releases as mentioned above.

No matter what happens, all these factors combine to create a huge emotional 'pivot point' for an individual already under significant external pressure and makes the person extremely vulnerable in accepting any explanation of the moment that seems to fit. In the Revivalists case, it is universally and uncritically accepted as the Holy Ghost. 

Objectivity is very difficult in moments such as this.

If the new prospect does not get to tongues (i.e. receive the Holy Spirit), then the condemnation is increased, as there is only one reason for failure.....an unrepentant heart. The new convert is told to try again later. I have seen some pretty low states of condemnation as a result of this failure to receive, with some walking away never to return.

Of course every process will have its variations, but the general theme and method remains the same, and is, to put it quite bluntly, a training process. In my last few years within the Revival groups, I became rather sensitive to this form of coaching and ceased the practise it myself. It soon became rather obvious to me how hard it would be to 'get' someone to receive the Holy Spirit (the Revivalist way), if we didn't get their tongue motoring first.

To this day, I still fail to see why someone needs to be 'alleluiaering' (and very repetitively at that), just so God can fill them with the Holy Spirit. It is quite simply ridiculous and totally outside the bounds of Scripture. I also fail to see why someone has to 'let go' of their tongue (and voice control) before the Holy Spirit may gain access?

Borderline statements

Over the years, I have heard some very borderline comments that re-enforce the view that some people 'may' have reached tongues as a learned  / forced behaviour rather than via the Spirit.

-- When I was seeking I felt my tongue starting to change, but it just didn't quite happen
-- We were not sure if I spoke in tongues so the pastor prayed with me to confirm it
-- When I was seeking I got tongue tied and had to stop for a while
-- After I spoke in tongues it still took me a few weeks to realise what I had
-- I got a stammering tongue at first, but after a while it got more fluent

At the risk of being irreverent, a number of people (including myself) can also quite easily 'imitate' other peoples more 'unusual' tongues.

These, and other such statements, demonstrate the very subjective nature of tongues. It is especially frightening when children are involved.  Revival children hear tongues in a meeting situation up to three times a week and also get plenty of exposure at home. Very young children are sometimes heard to try and imitate their parents when they pray. Within these groups, children well understand that if Jesus returns before they get the Holy Spirit / Speak in Tongues, then they will miss out. They may never see their friends and family again. Knowing then that tongues can be duplicated, it is not hard to see how these very impressionable children may be coerced into a learned habit rather than their salvation in Christ. This is a phenomenal pressure on a young child and literally forces their emphasis off Christ, and onto tongues.

Non-Christians 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 :

I?ieus ? ou ? ?a! O Jesus, bond of Yah's righteousness, O Living Water, O Child of Child, O glorious Name! Really truly, O Eon that is, iiii ?? eeee oo uuuu ?? aaaaa, really truly ? aaaa ? ?! O One That Is, Seer Of the Ages! Really truly, aee ??iiii uuuuuu ????, You who are eternally eternal, really truly i? ai? 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.

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, on the other hand, speak in a foreign language and are understood by nobody.

Glossolalics behave in various ways, depending upon 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.

"Long before it's in the papers"
November 02, 2006

RETURN TO THE WORLD SCIENCE HOME PAGE

Brain scans examine "speaking in tongues"

Nov., 2006
Courtesy University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
and World Science staff

When mem­bers of cer­tain re­li­gious sects "speak in tongues," they mouth what sounds like an in­com­pren­si­ble lan­guage, which to them has great mean­ing. Now, re­search­ers have tak­en what they say are the first brain scans of peo­ple speak­ing in tongues.

St. Paul, men­tioned in the Bi­ble as an ad­vo­cate of speak­ing in tongues, in a stained glass win­dow by Ed­ward Burne-Jones (1833-1898).

Interesting post, Conchy. Well done.

I left the GRC about 17 years ago, and of course did the whole speaking in tongues bit. I look back on that aspect of my experience there now with embarrasment, actually. I know I shouldn't be embarrassed as I didn't know any better, but anyway...    Over the years I've only ever told close friends about my experiences there, but never mentioned the speaking in tongues bit - it's just too weird for words. How do you explain that you spent many hundreds of hours uttering gibberish, and not seem like a freak? It still makes me shudder just to think about it.

Does anyone else have anything to say about how they've dealt with this since leaving the GRC? How do you feel about the hundreds (or thousands) of hours you spent with your brain's frontal lobe in shutdown? How have your friends reacted when you mention it (or are you not game to talk about it?)

I'd love to hear your thoughts...

Sean.

---

I was ten years of age when I recieved the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. Nothing new, but this may be: I had never heard anyone do it before me and was not informed on what would happen, my father heard about it and relayed the info on to me simply stating I would 'speak in tongues'. As I remember (and as the all so well known story goes), I said a clear hallelujah, paused, then spoke in tongues. My father had no interaction with me while this happened, he was just watching.

---

True the research has been done, but the glossallaliac won't give those studies any credibility; they'll simply ignore it. Ironically, Revivalists attribute tongues as a proof of the Holy Spirit and a proof of miracles, yet this proof cannot be proven apart from a small handfull of urban myths about visitors from another countries who happen across the tongue speaking and understand it.

Most Christians who do it actually believe it and convince themselves they are speaking an existing language, but it isn't. Usually it's just a repetitive string of phonisms. The first thing revivalists truly need to confront is that the amazing ability to verbalise random noise from their mouths is not miraculous. I truly convinced and persuaded myself, without doubt, I was doing something only 'supernaturally empowered' people could do. I made this real in my head, and I had the misfortune of hanging around a hundred other people who also let themselves believe in this remarkable over-rated ability to make nonsensical 'sounds'. Together we built a huge noisy straw man and worshipped it.

This is a process called 'confabulation' - and it's not the same as lying. It's when people combine fact and fiction to produce fantasy. Christians want to feel really special and 'super-powered' so they attribute fanciful meanings to basic things... People lie, sometimes they don't even know they're doing it.

It's not uniquely a Christian practice

Several of the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world record the same phenomenon. Some of those most often listed are the Mithra cult of the Persians; the Osiris cult originating in the land of the Pharaohs, and the lesser known Dionysian, Eulusinian, and Orphic cults cradled in Macedonia, Thrace and Greece. Another indication comes from Lucian of Samosata (A.D. 120-198) who in De Dea Syria describes an example of glossolalia as exhibited by a roaming believer of June, the Syrian goddess, stationed at Hierapolis in Syria.

It should be frightening to all Christians that what they see now in the Church, resembles these occurrences of ecstatic tongues that took place in these ancient cults before the day of Pentecost and that what took place at Pentecost does not in any way resemble those occurrences. At Pentecost, it was unarguably the speaking of foreign languages.

The gibberish nonsense tongues is a recently new thing

Believe it or not, tongue speaking as seen in the Church today is a fairly recent phenomenon in Christianity only becoming common in the 20th centure. It came about in four waves.

• The 1st wave of tongue speaking started around 1901 and was founded in the traditional Pentecostal movement by Charles Parham of Bethel College, Kansas.
• The 2nd wave, neo-Pentecostalism or the Charismatic movement entered most Churches in the early 1960's in Van Nuys, California, under Dennis Bennett, Rector of St Marks Episcopal (Anglican) Church. In ten years it spread to all major Protestant families of the world, reaching a total of 55 million people by 1990. It included the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics and many others.
• The 3rd wave, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement started in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 1967 among students and faculty of DuQuesne University, and by 1993 it touched the lives of over 100 million Catholics in over 238 nations.
• The 4th wave of speaking in tongues, the Evangelicals started in 1981 at Fuller Theological Seminary with John Wimber. By 1990, 33 million in the world were moving in signs and wonders, though they play down labels such as "Pentecostal" and "Charismatic".

Paul was instructing his preachers foreign language etiquette... not how to unintelligibly babble

1 Timothy 6:20: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings..."

We are able to speak and flap our lips around to enable the effective communication of thoughts and ideas. In a church context where a gospel is encouraged to be spread and shared what would be the use If those present do not understand your communication - keep silent. Why is it when those Revivalists and others who teach speaking in tongues go to other countries to do some form of mission work that they have to learn the language?

The belief of there being a heavenly prayer language comes mainly from 1 Corinthians 14:14 where Paul says, "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." This is interpreted by some to mean that when Paul prayed in the Spirit, he used a "heavenly tongue" and did not himself know what he was praying. First of all, this raises an important question. How would they ever know if their prayer was answered? What would be the point? Does God's own Spirit just pray to Himself as some would imply?

It's an awkward translation of Greek to English. Paul actually seems to make some logical sense when you consider he was giving some practical advice on how to pray and communicate in a land where there are many languages, "If I pray in a language those around me do not know, I might be praying with the Spirit, but my thoughts would be unfruitful for those listening."

Gross mistranslation of a very simple word

The term tongues when used in reference to speaking just simply means "language". The Greek word is "glossa" and means "tongue, language," and the verb "laleo" means "to speak", producing the word "glossolalia". Here is the definition from the Strong's and Thayer dictionaries:

Strong's Definition: "glossa", pronounced "gloce'-sah" Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue.

Thayer Definition: "glossa"
1) The tongue, a member of the body, an organ of speech.
2) A tongue.
1a) the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations.

References:
http://www.speaking-in-tongues.net/

To quote one example, in Geelong, Victoria, Australia, two men as an experiment (again apart from religion) spoke in tongues after repeating "Timbucktoo" in the right emotional setting. One in just a few minutes and one partly after two hours! (Modern New Tongues" p. 59 - A.S. Hill).

Speaking in tongues Linguistic Study

In a massive study of tongue speaking from a linguistic perspective by Professor William J. Samarin of the University of Toronto's Department of Linguistics, published after more than a decade of careful research, he rejected the view that glossolalia is xenoglossia, i.e. some foreign language that could be understood by another person who knew that language. Professor Samarin concluded that glossolalia is a "pseudo-language." He defined glossolalia as "unintelligible babbling speech that exhibits superficial phonological similarity to language, without having consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not systematically derived from or related to known language." (William J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, ed. Dell Haymes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972 pages. 121-130)

Felicitas D. Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, engaged in a study of various English, Spanish and Mayan speaking Pentecostal communities in the United States and Mexico. She compared tape recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan as well. She published her results in 1972 in an extensive monograph (Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia by Felecitas D. Goodman, University of Chicago Press, 1972).

Felecitas Goodman concludes that "when all features of speaking in tongues were taken into consideration, which is the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and its suprasegmental elements (namely, rhythm, accent, and especially overall intonation), she concluded that there is no distinction in tongues between Christians and the followers of non-Christian (pagan) religions. Goodman in the prestigious Encyclopaedia of Religion (1987) wrote the "association between trance and glossolalia is now accepted by many researchers as a correct assumption". Goodman also concludes that glossolalia "is, actually, a learned behaviour, learned either unawarely or, sometimes consciously." Others have previously pointed out that direct instruction is given on how to "speak in tongues," ie. how to engage in glossolalia. In fact, it has been found that the "speaking in tongues" practiced in Christian churches and by individual Christians is identical to the chanting language of those who practice voodoo on the darkest continents of this world.

Some who speak in tongues are also becoming involved in "holy laughter, drunk in the spirit" laughing uncontrollably, falling down on the ground, rolling around, having seizure like activity, being struck dumb, or being "slain in the spirit." Jesus never behaved that way, nor did He heal that way. The only time you see anything that resembles that behaviour in the Bible is with demon possessed people Jesus delivered that were out of control, writhing on the ground. When Jesus cast out the demons and delivered them, they sat quietly with dignity. 1 Corinthians 14:40 says, "Let all things be done decently and in order." The Bible never demonstrates such disorderly behaviour in the Church.

Very few people realize the tremendous forces locked within our emotional nature. Some are more susceptible than others. With the correct environment, the long hours of praying for one thing, the music, sobs, entreaties of those around, the mind becomes weary and the emotions take over. The effects can be dramatic, almost overwhelming. This can be so even when glossolalia appears outside the necessity of such emotional props.

Glossolalia has even been manufactured by University students in America (some of whom were atheist and had no religious interest at all) as a demonstration of what can happen given the right emotional environment and the right emotional effort. To quote one example, in Geelong, Victoria, Australia, two men as an experiment (again apart from religion) spoke in tongues after repeating "Timbucktoo" in the right emotional setting. One in just a few minutes and one partly after two hours! (Modern New Tongues" p. 59 - A.S. Hill).

Its universal appeal can be seen in its evidence amongst both Catholics and Protestants, Christian and Heathen, those living good moral lives, those living in sin. All can, and do, experience this phenomena. That in these conditions "Tongues" CANNOT be a sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit becomes immediately evident.

Healing services and glossolalia have been, and possibly still are, being conducted in the Catholic University of Notre Dame (Christianity Today:, p.40, May 26, 1967.) And so it does not matter whether a person is a Catholic believing in the Pope, or a Protestant, a Christian or heathen. Living a good life or living in adultery, believing in baptism by immersion, or sprinkling, smokers or non-smokers. Drinkers or teetotallers, believing in the Virgin Birth or scoffing at the idea - it makes no difference. All speak with "Tongues!" Obviously the tongues are not self-authenticating. There is no sign here of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit or of anything else.

There have been instances of real foreign languages being spoken in meetings as fun or as an experiment and invariably receiving an "interpretation" wholly at conflict with what had been said! A young Dutch person entered a Pentecostal Assembly recently and rattled off a Dutch fairy story receiving an interpretation that God was asking the assembly to pray for the poor in China! A tape recording of glossolalia will receive totally different interpretations from those purporting to have the gift of interpreting. This is all very sad.

Another aspect that is very noticeable is that an English Pentecostal speaking in tongues, though it may be quite unintelligible, is still recognizably English in intonation and syllable construction. Essentially he is still speaking "English." So also with other nationals. A Scotchman is still "Scottish." A Frenchman still is "French" in intonations and syllable construction. Obviously, however sincere these people are, the whole thing becomes a sham and a fraud. Many become victims of their own emotions "aided by the great deceiver."

It is clear Pentecostals, which we once were, have no right at all to use the term "Pentecostal" for at Pentecost real recognizable languages were spoken whereas amongst so-called "Pentecostals" this never happens.

Pentecostals and others engaging in tongue speaking as seen today normally say any or all of the following;

1. Tongues are a sign of Baptism in the Holy Spirit - but the Bible never says that.
2. All should speak in tongues - but the Bible never says that.
3. The initial experience of tongue speaking at the Baptism is different from the later "gift of tongues" - but the Bible never says that.
4. That tongues are, or can be a heavenly language - but the Bible never says that.
5. Tongue speaking is for the benefit of believers - but the Bible never says that.
6. Tongue speaking is for the most part unintelligible - but the Bible never says that.
7. These unintelligible tongues are Christian - but the Bible and history indicate that they are heathen.

Speaking in tongues Linguistic Study

In a massive study of tongue speaking from a linguistic perspective by Professor William J. Samarin of the University of Toronto's Department of Linguistics, published after more than a decade of careful research, he rejected the view that glossolalia is xenoglossia, i.e. some foreign language that could be understood by another person who knew that language. Professor Samarin concluded that glossolalia is a "pseudo-language." He defined glossolalia as "unintelligible babbling speech that exhibits superficial phonological similarity to language, without having consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not systematically derived from or related to known language." (William J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, ed. Dell Haymes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972 pages. 121-130)

Felicitas D. Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, engaged in a study of various English, Spanish and Mayan speaking Pentecostal communities in the United States and Mexico. She compared tape recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan as well. She published her results in 1972 in an extensive monograph (Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia by Felecitas D. Goodman, University of Chicago Press, 1972).

Felecitas Goodman concludes that "when all features of speaking in tongues were taken into consideration, which is the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and its suprasegmental elements (namely, rhythm, accent, and especially overall intonation), she concluded that there is no distinction in tongues between Christians and the followers of non-Christian (pagan) religions. Goodman in the prestigious Encyclopaedia of Religion (1987) wrote the "association between trance and glossolalia is now accepted by many researchers as a correct assumption". Goodman also concludes that glossolalia "is, actually, a learned behaviour, learned either unawarely or, sometimes consciously." Others have previously pointed out that direct instruction is given on how to "speak in tongues," ie. how to engage in glossolalia. In fact, it has been found that the "speaking in tongues" practiced in Christian churches and by individual Christians is identical to the chanting language of those who practice voodoo on the darkest continents of this world.

Some who speak in tongues are also becoming involved in "holy laughter, drunk in the spirit" laughing uncontrollably, falling down on the ground, rolling around, having seizure like activity, being struck dumb, or being "slain in the spirit." Jesus never behaved that way, nor did He heal that way. The only time you see anything that resembles that behaviour in the Bible is with demon possessed people Jesus delivered that were out of control, writhing on the ground. When Jesus cast out the demons and delivered them, they sat quietly with dignity. 1 Corinthians 14:40 says, "Let all things be done decently and in order." The Bible never demonstrates such disorderly behaviour in the Church.

Very few people realize the tremendous forces locked within our emotional nature. Some are more susceptible than others. With the correct environment, the long hours of praying for one thing, the music, sobs, entreaties of those around, the mind becomes weary and the emotions take over. The effects can be dramatic, almost overwhelming. This can be so even when glossolalia appears outside the necessity of such emotional props.

Glossolalia has even been manufactured by University students in America (some of whom were atheist and had no religious interest at all) as a demonstration of what can happen given the right emotional environment and the right emotional effort. To quote one example, in Geelong, Victoria, Australia, two men as an experiment (again apart from religion) spoke in tongues after repeating "Timbucktoo" in the right emotional setting. One in just a few minutes and one partly after two hours! (Modern New Tongues" p. 59 - A.S. Hill).

Its universal appeal can be seen in its evidence amongst both Catholics and Protestants, Christian and Heathen, those living good moral lives, those living in sin. All can, and do, experience this phenomena. That in these conditions "Tongues" CANNOT be a sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit becomes immediately evident.

Healing services and glossolalia have been, and possibly still are, being conducted in the Catholic University of Notre Dame (Christianity Today:, p.40, May 26, 1967.) And so it does not matter whether a person is a Catholic believing in the Pope, or a Protestant, a Christian or heathen. Living a good life or living in adultery, believing in baptism by immersion, or sprinkling, smokers or non-smokers. Drinkers or teetotallers, believing in the Virgin Birth or scoffing at the idea - it makes no difference. All speak with "Tongues!" Obviously the tongues are not self-authenticating. There is no sign here of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit or of anything else.

There have been instances of real foreign languages being spoken in meetings as fun or as an experiment and invariably receiving an "interpretation" wholly at conflict with what had been said! A young Dutch person entered a Pentecostal Assembly recently and rattled off a Dutch fairy story receiving an interpretation that God was asking the assembly to pray for the poor in China! A tape recording of glossolalia will receive totally different interpretations from those purporting to have the gift of interpreting. This is all very sad.

Another aspect that is very noticeable is that an English Pentecostal speaking in tongues, though it may be quite unintelligible, is still recognizably English in intonation and syllable construction. Essentially he is still speaking "English." So also with other nationals. A Scotchman is still "Scottish." A Frenchman still is "French" in intonations and syllable construction. Obviously, however sincere these people are, the whole thing becomes a sham and a fraud. Many become victims of their own emotions "aided by the great deceiver."

It is clear Pentecostals, which we once were, have no right at all to use the term "Pentecostal" for at Pentecost real recognizable languages were spoken whereas amongst so-called "Pentecostals" this never happens.

Pentecostals and others engaging in tongue speaking as seen today normally say any or all of the following;

1. Tongues are a sign of Baptism in the Holy Spirit - but the Bible never says that.
2. All should speak in tongues - but the Bible never says that.
3. The initial experience of tongue speaking at the Baptism is different from the later "gift of tongues" - but the Bible never says that.
4. That tongues are, or can be a heavenly language - but the Bible never says that.
5. Tongue speaking is for the benefit of believers - but the Bible never says that.
6. Tongue speaking is for the most part unintelligible - but the Bible never says that.
7. These unintelligible tongues are Christian - but the Bible and history indicate that they are heathen.