“Tongues” in other religions (or not)

“Speaking in tongues” is not only a Christian  phenomenon.  Regardless of whether or not the “gift” is for today, one still cannot point at speaking in tongues as “proof” that they are baptized in the Holy Spirit.

~~~

 History of the Church 1:295-297, November 1832: “About the 8th of November I received a visit from Elders Joseph Young, Brigham Young, and Heber C. Kimball of Mendon, Monroe county, New York. They spent four or five days at Kirtland, during which we had many interesting moments. At one of our interviews, Brother Brigham Young and John P. Greene spoke in tongues, which was the first time I had heard this gift among the brethren; others also spoke, and I [Joseph Smith] received the gift myself.”

While Mormons share our Scriptures (while translating and interpreting them differently) and are (in their own sense) followers of Christ (although not a Christ who is in full equality and deity with the Father), are not “saved”, in the way we are.

~~~
The Oracle at Delphi needed interpreters to pass along her “wisdom”.  There is speculation as to whether or not the wisdom was “tongues” or “riddles” that needed interpreting.  There does also seem to be some indication that the trance of the Oracle was due to some intoxicating substances that seeped out of the lower regions of the cave that she prophesied from.

This is not a wonderful example, but it does indicate that “ecstatic speech” was an indicator of the prophetic in religions other than Christianity - and before Christ walked on earth.

~~~

in 1956 Carlyle May wrote an article in “American Anthropologist”, “A Survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Christian Religion.”  I cannot get to the entire article, but the first page is here.

“Ecstatic vocalization in the form of incoherent sounds and foreign words has long been on interest to students of religion.  (…)This paper will show that glossolalia and similar speech-phenomena occur in various forms during shamanistic rites of the New and especially of the Old World. (…)

Herodotus (Lombard 1910:90) speaks of an inspired priest in Greece who suddenly spoke in a barbarian language, and Virgil in the Aeneid (1953: vi. 44-49, 97-99) tells of a Cumaean sibyl who spoke strangely while possessed.  The Old Testament (Lombard 1910:89) alludes to a form of ecstatic behavior similar to glossolalia.   Guillaume (1938:144-45) states that in 853 B.C. four hundren prophets raved in ecstasy before the gate of Samaria, and in ancient Egypt (Erman 1894:352-55) necromancers uttered formulas, believed to be revelations from the gods, made up of foreign words and senseless noises.  The more mysterious and incomprehensible these formulas were, the greater their power was thought to be.

~~~

What about xenoglossia?

• Swarnlatta Mishra:^[1] A girl in India who lived entirely among Hindi-speaking people but was able to sing songs in Bengali, as identified by Professor P. Pal of Itachuna College in West Bengal, who studied the case after Professor Stevenson and transcribed some of the songs.

• Uttara Huddar:^[2] Uttara was a woman in India who normally spoke Marathi but, after participating in a meditation during a hospitalization, began speaking in Bengali, much to the bewilderment of her parents.

• Two hypnotic regression cases: Professor Stevenson is quite skeptical of most hypnotic regression work but he did have two cases that included responsive xenoglossy; that is, hypnotic subjects who could converse with people speaking the foreign language, instead of merely being able to recite foreign words. One is that of Jensen^[3], an American woman who, while under hypnosis conducted by her physician husband, described being a Swedish peasant farmer and was able to converse in Swedish. The other is Gretchen^[4], an American woman who was hypnotized by her Methodist minister husband and began spontaneously speaking in German. She described the life of a teenaged girl in Germany, and Professor Stevenson, who is able to speak German, was able to converse with her. (from wiki…hopefully the links to the citations are there, the link to the page is here.

~~~

It seems clear that (whatever “tongues” is) and whether or not “tongues” is for today, that the phonomena is not limited to Christianity, or even to religion.

In “testing the spirits”, we need to look at all the evidence and not blindly follow.  It may very well be real (in some cases and in some cases not), but we need to look realistically.

“If Mama Ain’t Happy…”

Come on, ladies…You all know how we can get.  All of us…we’re sinners.  There’s a reason for the saying, “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.”

A very wise, very wonderful pastor’s wife - Linda - once told a group of us, “a woman is the barometer of the home.”  If we are content, the home is content.  If we are not content, the house will most likely be discontented.  What a privilege and responsibility - the way that we are (good or not) has an effect on everybody around us…such is the way of human beings.

We are affected by those around us.  If we have a child who is whining, it affects us.  If we have a spouse who refuses to take out the garbage, that affects us.  If we (women) are selfish and controlling…that affects those around us.  If you don’t get like that sometimes…you are a perfect saint and I most likely don’t want to hang out with you because you would make me look bad… 

Now…those of us who are married…our “one-flesh” partners - our heads - can be especially effected by our attitudes (good or bad).  If we are selfish and controlling, he can be angry and cranky…sometimes downright abusive.  Or he can shut down and become a couch potato.  Both are sin…but just as we are sinners…so are men.

It’s the way of this lost and fallen world.  We are sinners…and we are affected by those around us, just as we affect those around us.   It’s reciprocal - human beings react to each other.  Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

The way of the Spirit is the right way.  We submit to our husbands as the church submits to Christ…we follow his good leading (but not into sin).  He loves us as Christ loves the church.  We don’t interact identically, but reciprocally.  We each have our jobs and when we do them to the best of our ability, the entire home runs smoothly.

Glossolalia vs. Xenoglossy

Side note:  Spell check knew “glossolalia”, but not “xenoglossy”.

Both  can be referred to as “speaking in tongues”, but they are different and (as one website put it) should be distinguished from each other as often as possible.

Definitions:

Glossolalia. From (from Greek γλωσσολαλιά and that from γλῶσσα - glossa “tongue, language” and λαλεῖν (lalein) “to talk”) - this is copied and pasted so if it’s not exactly correct, hopefully it’s good enough for a lay person.
Trying to find an “official” definition that clearly defines glossolalia as different than xenoglossy and isn’t biased in terms of Continuationist vs. Cessationist has turned out to be an interesting side trip.  It was easier to get the definition from a secular dictionary.

The ability or phenomenon to utter words or sounds of a language unknown to the speaker, especially as an expression of religious ecstasy. Also called glossolalia, speaking in tongues.

The important key words are “words or sounds”.

A less generous defintion (both from answers.com):

Fabricated and nonmeaningful speech, especially such speech associated with a trance state or certain schizophrenic syndromes.

Xenoglossy.  (from Greek ξενογλωσσία - xenoglossia, from ξένος - xenos, “foreign” + γλώσσα - glossa, “tongue, language”).

This was an easier defintion (from worldwidewords.com):

The ability to speak a language without having learned it.

The important key word:  language.

Compare:

• both glossolalia and xenoglossy use “sounds” or “words” that do not belong to a language that the speaker knows.
• Both can be associated with religious activity.

and contrast:

• glossolalia belongs to no known language.  Pentecostals call this “tongues of angels” and it may be referred to as a “private prayer language” that nobody (except presumably God) can understand.
• xenoglossy can be identified as a real language and can be understood by a person who speaks that language.  In some cases it is claimed that a 2-way conversation has taken place between a native speaker and the “tongues-speaker” who has never been exposed to that language.

In short:  real language vs. not real language.

Other handy definitions:

• Cessationism:  the view that the charismatic (or prophetic) gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as tongues, prophecy, and healing, were only given to the new church for a period of time and ceased either at the end of the apostolic era or shortly after.
• Charismatic: the general term used to describe Christians who believe that these same gifts are available to Christians today (see “Continuationism”).  Closely related to Continuationism, and I’m not sure of the difference, other than continuationism is the belief and charismatic is the movement.  Also see “Pentecostal” - although, you can be charismatic without being Pentecostal.    Mark Driscoll refers to his church as being “charismatic with a seatbelt”, which I think is a way of saying, “we’re charismatic but not Pentecostal.”
• Continuationism: the view that these same gifts continue to this present age and are available for all Christians alive today.
• Pentecostal: the belief that a “born again” Christian can (and should) receive a subsequent experience of a “baptism of the Holy Spirit”, the initial evidence of which is speaking in tongues as the Sprit gives utterance.  Some Pentecostals believe and teach that a person who has not spoken in tongues (received the baptism of the Holy Spirit) is not saved.  All Pentecostals believe that the “gift” of tongues is THE gift that proves the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).  The other gifts were given later and a believer does not have tongues or another gift…it is always tongues plus the rest of the gifts listed later.

Here’s the problem:  Christians are not the only group of people who experience glossolalia and xenoglossy.

The “Abuse Card” or…”Women Who Cry Wolf”

Abuse exists…and it happens way too often (once is way too often).  I am not writing about real abuse.

I am writing about those who cry “abuse” where there is no real abuse present or no abuse intended.

Sexual harrassment

• A woman who has an employer that bases hiring and promotion on the cut of her blouse…bad
• A woman who sues a co-worker for telling her that she looked nice on a particular day…get a grip.

Verbal abuse

• You’re stupid and not worth wasting time on…the person saying this should be disciplined by the “powers that be”
• I think that you are showing a lack of understanding on this issue…this is a reasonable statement and could very well be true (or not)…but it is not abuse.

Physical abuse:

• Real abuse is always sin.
• Not abuse: Having intercourse with a guy, then freaking out because you were unfaithful to your boyfriend and crying “rape”.

I believe that a false accusation is a form of abuse.  And “abuse” is an accusation from which there is little or no defense.  Like “racism” - denying abuse may only confirm the accusation.  In this political season, any disagreement with Barrack Obama may be seen as racism…likewise, a person who questions a woman in a debate-like conversation may be accused of “abuse”.

Abuse is NOT a one-way street (meaning that male-on-female abuse is the only way the street runs).

On previous shows, “Primetime” has staged scenes of abuse in which the man is the aggressor, and the woman is the victim. And in these situations, passersby — men and women — often stepped up and intervened. So producers were curious. What would happen if the tables were turned, and the man was suddenly the victim? Would people be just as willing to come to his defense? (…)
“There are some data that suggest that women actually hit more than men do,” says Keating. “Men create more damage, but women hit more than men do.”

A report prepared for the Centers for Disease Control estimates that each year there are over 800,000 serious cases of men being physically abused by women. But the actual figures are believed to be much higher, since many men are often too embarrassed to admit being the victim of abuse by a woman.

One after another, passersby witnessed the abusive scene… and kept right on going.

Mathilda was one of those bystanders. She says she didn’t think the man was in any physical danger, and could probably take care of himself. “I didn’t immediately think to protect the man at all,” she said. “It didn’t look like any harm was being done.”

The reaction of another woman, Lynda, was stunning. As our actress continued to heap abuse on her make-believe boyfriend, she walked by the scene and pumped her fist in a show of sisterly solidarity.

“Good for you. You Go, Girl!” is how Lynda recalls her reaction.

A pattern of false accusation, inattention and (one) actual support for a female abuser - all of this points to a problem of how we deal with abuse.

• Abuse is always wrong.
• False accusation is a form of abuse that has nothing to do with gender
• False accusation is also always wrong.

The more I read about false accusations in the news, the more likely I am to view any accusation with skepticism.

The more people cry “wolf”, the less likely we are to hear when there is a real one around.

(Blinders: ON) But There’s No Slippery Slope…

Leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA) overturned a long-standing ban on the ordination of gays and lesbians Friday, providing yet the latest example of a religious denomination struggling with how, and whether, to incorporate homosexuality into church life.(…)

I feel proud of my church today,” said Lisa Larges, national coordinator for That All May Freely Serve, an organization that advocates for gay equality in the Presbyterian church.

Larges, who lives in San Francisco and attended seminary there, has fought unsuccessfully for more than two decades to become a Presbyterian minister.

“I think a generational shift is what we are witnessing,” she said Friday. “There is a whole generation coming of age for whom acceptance is a given. The church is beginning to experience that sea change.”

No…no slippery slope at all…

And no generational shift, either.

17 18…

The Dugger family is expecting their 18th child - due New Years Day.

This family was the object of (I’ll say) “rage” when #17 came along. Ironically, the (I’ll also say) “scorn” came from the “pro-choice” camp. That was when I stopped calling that political movement “pro-choice” and started calling it “pro-abortion”.

It seems that they approve of “choice” right up until the point you make a reproductive choice they do not approve of.

“choice” means that a family has a choice. If they choose to have 17 18 children - that is their choice.

Eighteen is housefull of kids…and this is a family full of love.

I have two children. I would happily, gladly, thrillfully, willingly, you name the positive feeling…get more.

If it were physically possible (for a variety of reasons it is unlikely) I would have another. Eighteen? Most likely not. But for the Duggers, any “pro-choice” person who criticizes…is not pro-choice. They are pro-abortion, since that is the choice of having 18 children is not one that is “approved”.

Christ and the church

A wife is compared to the bride of Christ - the church. A wife is instructed in Ephesians 5 to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. In that same parallel, the husband is to model the love for his wife after the love that Christ has for His bride, the church. We have a wonderful privilege and responsibility to reflect that to the world.

Our Christian marriages should point people straight to Christ! If people don’t look at our marriages and see them reflect Christ and the church, we are failing.

If the world looks at our marriages and sees anything less than a sacrificial love, we are failing. If the world looks at our marriages and sees a husband putting himself before the needs of his wife, we are failing. If the world looks at our marriages and sees the wife with anything less than the willing and loving submission that the church has for Christ, we are failing.

And…we are failing.

That is why the gender debate matters. The statistics say that Christian marriages are as likely to fail as secular marriages (I have my doubts about the questions asked and think that more should have been asked that would “unskew” the numbers)…but the numbers are not good.

Why is the divorce rate so high? Just like in Jesus’ time…hardness of hearts. On the part of both parties.

If the love/submission is modeled on Christ and the church…if the love is modeled after Christ and the submission is modeled after the church - it is the model of Scripture. Each puts the other first, in a way that reflects Christ and the church.

We are the shadow; the mirror. How do we reflect Christ to the world?

Also “Overheard” in the BlogWorld…

From Toward An Egalitarian Ecclesia at Theology for the Masses (writing of 1 Timothy 2:12):

Interestingly enough, the history of translations of this passage is that the dominant translation of this word before WWII had to do with the violent treatment of men in the congregation – ‘usurping authority’ in the KJV is among the least obvious of these and even it has remnants of the idea.

The notion that “authority” was not seen in the the passage until WWII is wrong - especially reading the study notes and commentaries.

There weren’t all that many translations:

» read more