« I dunno... | Main | Googleness »
August 31, 2003
Reader Question
My question has to do with 1 Corinthians 27-30, where27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent.
This passage has concerned me for sometime. I have intermittently attended Catholic Charismatic prayer groups over the last few years,and would like to begin going more regularly. But I've noticed that
none of the groups seem to abide by Corinthians-- in other words, many, many people pray in tongues all at once. Also, I've yet to hear anyone "translate" the tongues. This seems to be in direct contradicton to what St. Paul wrote.
Can anyone give some insight on this question...note, I said, this question - not the question of the charismatic movement in general, but this particular point.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83421973053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reader Question:
Comments
You can find an excellent article on Paul and speaking in tongues in Krister Stendahl's "Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays", pp. 109-124. It should be easily available in paperback from Fortress Press. As I remember, he said that for Paul, glossolalia was just one of many possible gifts and should not be exaggerated out of importance. Here is one quote from the book (p. 111):
"Thus, in Paul's mind, the gift of glossolalia is not a sign of spiritual accomplishment, it is not the graduation with high honors into the category of the truly spiritual. To him glossolalia is the gift that fits into his experience of weakness. All this is quite in keeping with Paul's consistent argument against any piety or theology marked by triumphalism, i.e., by an overstatement of spiritual superiority and gnostic flight from the powers of sin and death."
Posted by: Leon Zitzer at Aug 31, 2003 2:14:53 PM
Mass hysteria? Peer pressure? My own view that this is not a true religious phenonmenon but rather an emotional contagion that somehow participants find pleasant and empowering. This kind of group activity is mood altering and is probably akin to snake handling and whirling Derish kind of activity. Altering one's mood whether through drugs or physical activity that gets the adrenalin pumping does not bring one closer to god except in one's own mind, and then again, even if this is the case, who is to say that it isn't helpful to people in their quest for spiritual experience?
All the best,
David
Posted by: David at Aug 31, 2003 2:16:32 PM
There is a distinction between "speaking in tongues" and "praying in tongues".
A friend of mine, while in the Ukraine a year or two ago, prayed over a local resident. The man being prayed over related to my friend that he was speaking in his native language. The Holy Spirit, it would seem, wanted to give this guy some manifest sign of encouragement. (You can read about this incident on Ralph Martin's Renewal Ministries web site). Although, in this incident, there was prayer, the Holy Spirit wanted to "speak" to somebody personally through the prayer. Usually, when one speaks in tongues, he is delivering a prophecy or a word of knowledge to a community or to an individual. Somone with the gift of interpretation of tongues is need to translate the message. Praying in tongues, on the other hand, is a form of communal or individual praise and worship. It is usually not a language known to man, but rather promptings that the Holy Spirit gives to aid us in worship. Some may point to 1 Corinthians 14:13-17 to dispute this. I've always felt that praying or singing in tongues was a legitimate and sometimes beautiful form of praise. I'm just too lazy to dig through my old charismatic libray to find the arguments that support my feeling.
Posted by: Frank Gibbons at Aug 31, 2003 2:17:30 PM
Could Mr. Gibbons enlighten us as to what religion he professes? I cannot place anywhere in Roman Catholicism the holy-roller phenomena he describes.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Aug 31, 2003 3:31:28 PM
Paraphrasing St John Chrysostom, speaking in tongues isn't useless, but it's very nearly useless......
Posted by: Joseph at Aug 31, 2003 4:05:33 PM
I agree with Mr. Gibbons, and point Mr. Kubiak at the Renewal movement in the Roman Catholic church. I once attended the Southern California Renewal Conference in Anaheim, California; it was a huge event, sanctioned by the local dioceses, and indeed prophecies and so forth occurred during the general sessions in line with St. Paul's recommendations. (This was in the mid-1980's; perhaps things have changed.)
In the passage from Corinthians, Paul is speaking about how to conduct orderly church services. The kind of prayer groups about which the question was asked are engaging in spontaneous group praise, through the medium of tongues, which would be inappropriate during the middle of the Eucharist.
As for the notion that speaking in tongues is due to "mass hysteria" or "peer pressure", all I can say is that that isn't my experience--and I was extremely skeptical about it for many years.
Posted by: Will Duquette at Aug 31, 2003 4:09:36 PM
Thanks Amy, for posting my question. I just realized that I forgot to identify the chapter in First Corinthians: it's from 1 Corithians 14: 27-30.
Thanks for your comments, particularly Mr. Duquette's (though it's not clear to me that Paul is speaking *only* about how to conduct orderly church services, and not making a more general, stronger claim--can you elaborate?). Please keep them coming. Yours in Christ!
Posted by: Cris Rapp at Aug 31, 2003 4:24:44 PM
In my Pentecostal days this is how we handled this. Praying in tongues is a private activity because it only benefits the prayer. BTW, praying in tongues was an ability for all and distinct from the gift of praying in tongues. The gift of praying in tongues was for public edification as are all the 1 cor 12 spiritual gifts.
Public praying in tongues, i.e., the gift, was only to be done if there was someone who it was established had the gift of interpretation of tongues. The distinction between public and private speaking in tongues is not one of volume but audience. Everyone during worship could and would speak loudly in tongues-still that was private prayer because the audience is the individual and God.
The public praying in tongues was when there was silence and someone spoke in tongues to the congregation and it was public because the congregation was the audience and the tongues were expressing a burden and something applicable to all the people. Our explanation for why only three public speakers in tongues was that by the third person, what the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate to the people had been communicated and everything else would simply be repititious.
I haven't had any experience with Catholic charismatics so I'm not sure how the do these things. But to my reading 1 Cor 12-14 seems straight forward if you distinguish between the private and public speaking in tongues and if that distinction is based not on volume but intended audience.
Another interpretation of the gift of tongues was the ability to speak an unknown human language for the purpose of evangelization.
Posted by: Ono at Aug 31, 2003 5:35:03 PM
Mr Kubiak,
You need only look back to the Catholic Charismatic conference held in Rome where people prayed in tongues at St. Peter's and where prophecies were delivered from the alter. The Charismatic Renewal had the blessings of both Paul VI and John Paul II. You can research the 1980 or 1981 Rome conference where charismatic representatives met with John Paul II and professed unwavering loyalty to him. And, believe me, he appreciated it.
The gift of tongues is considered the least of the charismatic gifts. Some of the other gifts are prophecy, healing, the word of knowledge, and the discernment of spirits. Jesus used these gifts in His ministry. For example, when He tells the woman at the well that she is indeed not married to the man she is with and that she has been married five times before, He is exercising the word of knowledge. Jesus said that His followers would perform even greater works than He did. Go through the Gospels and count the number of times Jesus heals people and tell me that healing is not meant to be a ministry of the Church. Many of the saints exercised extraordinary gifts and even in recent times, Padre Pio was known to have experienced bilocation. The extraordinary gifts of the Spirit are meant to be used in love to build up the church. They are not necessarily a sign of personal holiness -- the fruit of the Spirit are evidence of holiness and they enable us to put on the character of Christ.
Many of the leaders (not all) of the Charismatic Renewal were very orthodox individuals. To gauge their orthodoxy, read "A Crisis of Truth" by Ralph Martin (written in 1981 you might say that is "prophetic"). I suggest that you read books, pro and con, on the use of the extraordinary gifts.
Posted by: Frank Gibbons at Aug 31, 2003 6:56:51 PM
But the so-called Rome prophecies haven't come true, according to a charismatic friend. I'm trying to find out what they said for a research project. In case anyone could point me to a publication or website, I'd appreciate it.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Aug 31, 2003 8:04:59 PM
Sandra,
Well, the prophecies, as I recall, mainly dealt with the church having its structures shaken. We've just had a very influential Cardinal resign in disgrace recently and the "hedge" that was hiding many of the crimes committed by the clergy has been removed. Our seminaries have shown that they're in serious need of an overhaul. Does this mean the Rome prophecies were true or have come to pass? I don't know. But I don't know how one could summarily say that they haven't. However, the point that I was trying to make was that charismatics were welcomed to Rome in 1975 and that John Paul II in 1981 acknowledged their fealty to him.
I just found a few hits on Yahoo using "Rome 1975 prophecies" as my search string. There are a few hits that you might find interesting.
Regards
Posted by: Frank Gibbons at Aug 31, 2003 9:48:36 PM
The gift of tongues in prayer is quite real and can have a place in the spiritual life, especially when God uses it to ask a proud or reserved person to submit to Him or place trust in him. It does not imply holiness, however; in actually no spiritual phenomena of this type do by themselves. Holiness is of another order than simple phenomena.
However, it is a truism in the spiritual life that as surely as consolations are sought by people who pray, those consolations can be a danger to spiritual growth if they become a goal or a desire which interferes with faith or love for God and/or others. Persons for whom these sorts of things don't become a goal are probably not harmed, but people like that may be somewhat rare. Good spiritual direction is probably necessary to discern what is going on. Care must also be taken that evil does not intrude on the practice.
Tongues can serve a legitimate purpose, but they take their place among prayer types properly, whichever purpose they serve.
A danger signal is precisely the desire to supplant the Holy Mass with them, as the Sacrifice of the Mass is the chief Christian prayer.
Posted by: kazoo at Aug 31, 2003 10:58:44 PM
Actually this passage you cite makes more sense in a wider context--read the whole of 1 Corinthians 14 and you will see it.
Posted by: kazoo at Aug 31, 2003 11:14:45 PM
Thanks, Frank. My friend made the remark 8 years ago or more, before the Situation, so perhaps his remarks have been overtaken by events.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Sep 1, 2003 9:30:22 AM
Thanks, Frank. My friend made the remark 8 years ago or more, before the Situation, so perhaps his remarks have been overtaken by events.
I didn't mean to imply that the Pope was anything but enthusastic about the charismatic movement.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Sep 1, 2003 9:31:28 AM
In response to Mr. Kubiak above, the Pontifical Council of the Laity issued statutes and recognized a lay association of Catholic covenant charismatic communities in 1990 or 91 - the Pope has annually sent a letter of encouragement to this fraternity's annual conference and the Pope is quite fond of the charismatic movement - which he numbers among several "moves of the Holy Spirit" since Vatican II along with (among others) Communion and Liberation(Italy), Neocatechumenate, Couples for Christ.
Posted by: kate dawson at Sep 1, 2003 3:08:32 PM
I take this side of the Pope's enthusiasms to be his pronouncements as a private theologian, and apparently a number of Roman officials agree. I am reliably told that major curial figures are aghast at the Holy Father's support of the Neo-Catechumenal Way, which they regard as a cult, and which they fear is corrupting the majority of the clergy for the diocese of Rome.
And if the Holy Ghost chooses to talk to me, I trust He will do so in Latin, a language which we both understand.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Sep 1, 2003 5:46:03 PM
I have been a participant in the Catholic charismatic renewal for over thirty years; in fact, it was the instrument of my conversion to the Church from unbelief. What Mr. Gibbons has posted reflects the understanding of most Catholics involved in charismatic renewal. For a more theological reflection, you might look at two books by Fr. George Montague, "Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical Tradition" or "Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit" (with Fr. Kilian McDonnell).
As for speaking in tongues, I have been to many prayer meetings at which someone spoke alone in tongues and someone else interpreted. Interpretation is not translation, since in every case that I know of, the language was unknown to all present. I find that in most cases these "messages" are generally expressions of praise to God rather than prophecies directed to the assembly. Mostly tongues are a gift for prayer: "the Spirit interceding with groans too deep for words." I myself have had occasion to wonder, What is this for? I seems very repetitive, for one thing, and besides, it involves little rational thought. Thinking of this, I recall the scenes in Holy Scripture in which the glory of God in heaven is glimpsed, as in Revelations or in Isaiah 6. In those scenes, the behavior of the saints and angels is not characterized by rational reflection, but rather by a great deal of repetitive activity. If I were repeating, "Holy, Holy, Holy" like the cherubim, I would not be less repetitive than when I am praying in tongues. If an entire prayer meeting were singing a complex Gregorian Alleluia together, it would be no more discursive than praying or singing together in tongues, except that in the latter case we don't all need to know the tune. It is a way of being united in worship without the distraction of having to think of something to say, since nothing we can say is equal to God anyway.
As for the 1975 Rome prophecies, here's a link:
http://home.sc.rr.com/morelord/Main/Library/Rome_1975.htm
I was there, by the way. What is at this link is an excerpt. I think we can see the beginnings of the fulfillment of these prophecies; I also think that in the perspective of Church history, very little time has passed since then. I don't know if "Buildings that are now standing will not be standing" refers to actual buildings (most of the people who heard it shuddered, because they thought of the one they were standing in, St. Peter's Basilica) or to figurative structures. I myself recalled that line on Sept. 11th. In the end, all prophecy, whether received at a charismatic gathering or a Marian apparition or the locutions of a stigmatist, must be tested.
I hope this helps.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Sep 1, 2003 6:25:01 PM
Urquhart's and Tapia's books on Focolare and Opus Dei present a picture of the movements that raises a lot of red flags.
It does seem that the Holy Ghost is presenting His gift of glossolalia to a lot of religions, not just Christianity. One tends to wonder why He would be showering this gift on the Theosophists who worship Lucifer the Lightbearer. But apparently that doesn't concern the charismatics, though why it doesn't concern the Holy Father is a mystery to me.
Posted by: Carrie Tomko at Sep 1, 2003 6:28:09 PM
While I have attended a few Charismatic masses a year for the past ten years,I am not associated with any charismatic prayer group. These masses have been at locations all over the country. I have always been touched by the reverence for the Eucharist and awareness of Jesus present in the Eucharist. People are entirely focused on God. The music is sung prayer -- simple prayers set to music. If there is toungues within mass it brief and only at times where expressions of praise are appropriate. The Charismatics I have met have been by and large very orthodox relative to other Catholic subgroups and very warm and caring. They are often well versed in scripture. They are not adverse to traditional devotions and are often promoters of the rosary. I suppose there are some groups where histrionics or cults of personality take over, but I have as yet to see that. They seem to have a lot of internal (albeit informal) checks and balances on these kinds of things. The priests who are leaders in the movement tend to be very gifted (both in the extraordinary and ordinary sense of the word) and theologically orthodox.
Posted by: Consuela at Sep 1, 2003 7:27:44 PM
Carrie,
While my experience with charismatics had always been very limited before I started attending Mass with my fiancee (who grew up in a charismatic Catholic parish), I draw a very definite line between the gifts of the spirit manifest in Catholic and pious Christian communities, and some of the phenomena manifested elsewhere. If they are wise, faithful charismatics will recite prayers asking for protection from evil spirits at the beginning of any prayer meeting, as the members of the local community do.
Something like the (sic)"Toronto Airport Blessing" (which sent people into convulsions, animal noises, etc.) seem likely to me to have been influenced by demonic forces.
Looking to the fruits, and the motives of the community, there are some real differences.
Kate
Posted by: Kate Whittaker at Sep 1, 2003 9:18:53 PM
I did look at some web postings of the Rome Prophecies. It would be hard to come up with a more generic "prophecy" than "buildings now standing will fall." One could just as easily say "people now living will die." It's unfalsifiable. And when has the Church not faced upheavals and Times of Troubles?
Charismatic Catholicism is just not my style. Not even Fr. Scanlan could get the bestowal of the Spirit to "take" on me. Am I supposed to conclude that God is uninterested in me?
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Sep 2, 2003 9:24:15 AM
Brava to Ms. Tomko. What I cannot in any way get over is the idea that an important source of connection to God was removed from the custodianship of the Catholic Church and handed over to Protestants to develop until we benighted Romans finally decided to get with the program. All this 'word of knowledge' vocabulary is pure Oral Roberts to me and will never be anything else.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Sep 2, 2003 12:31:46 PM
David, you wrote, "I am reliably told that major curial figures are aghast at the Holy Father's support of the Neo-Catechumenal Way, which they regard as a cult, and which they fear is corrupting the majority of the clergy for the diocese of Rome."
Which "major curial figures" are aghast at the Neocatechumenal Way? Card. Ratzinger is one of its major curial supporters. So is Card. Arinze. Its biggest opponent in Italy was Card. Martini. Cardinal Schonborn is a big supporter. So is Archbishop Pell. Over half the seminarians for the Diocese of Rome are students at the Redemptoris Mater seminary, which is the seminary under the auspices of the Neocatechumenal Way.
Increasingly in Spain and Italy, the only people who go to Church any more are involved in the "movements," particularly the Neocatechumenal Way and the Charismatics. One reality in S. America that has been very successful stopping the hemorrhage to the sects has been the Neocatechumenal Way. In fact, it has been almost the only reality in Catholic Church that has a track record of bringing ex-Catholics back from the sects, and not just keeping the Catholics we have.
Who is your source? Carrie Tomko cites Gordon Urquhart, a disgruntled ex-Focolarino who left his wife and children, declared himself a homosexual, and writes articles for Catholics for a Free Choice. I hope you're not relying on Urquhart as well!
Posted by: Rob at Sep 2, 2003 2:02:33 PM
I will have to plead confidentiality for my source, since in any company no important employee wants to make public disagreements he has with his boss. But I am convinced of the truth of what I have been told, nor should it be surprising, since a number of diocesan bishops do not permit the Neo-Way in their territories.
The group has a classic gnostic agenda, and practices bizarre abuses of the liturgy. I suspect the Holy Father in fact understands as much about it as he does about the American clerical scandal. He is obviously a man of very inclusive good will.
You do not save people from one cult by substituting another. I come back to a fundamental position I have about the history of the post-Conciliar Church: in a series of suicidal moves we brought on ourselves the crisis we now claim to be solving with a collection of gnostic sects. Somebody wrote about the current 'Protestantization' of the Church, which is not the familiar RadTrad charge, but a realization of the fact that people can now have officially approved religious attitudes so various that they can scarsely be thought to possess the same Faith.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Sep 2, 2003 2:55:21 PM
