The
New York Times
Sunday Review published a short article by T. M. Luhrmann, a professor of
anthropology, on speaking in tongues titled
Why
We Speak in Tongues (August 17,
2013). In the article, Luhrmann, who has published a book length study on glossolalia,
“speaking in tongues,”
When
God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God,
examines from a scientific view what is going on when Christians speak in
tongues.
Luhrmann has inspected the
phenomenon in the USA, but she has just returned from Africa, where she relates
that
This type of speaking in tongues, glossolalia, is seen by
modern Christians to be related to the practice of the earliest Christian
churches as described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Especially in
1 Cor 14,
Paul describes the practice itself, in which he indicates that the language
which people speak is not intelligible unless interpreted. For instance, in 1
Cor 14:2 he writes “those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people
but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in
the Spirit.” In the same chapter, he says, “if in a tongue you utter speech
that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will
be speaking into the air” (1 Cor 14:9) and “if I pray in a tongue, my spirit
prays but my mind is unproductive” (1 Cor 14:14).
Some Christians compare the practice as described by Paul in
Corinth with the experience of the apostles at the first Pentecost in Jerusalem,
as outlined in
Acts 2,
while others see the experience described in
Acts 2 as related
but separate to the Corinthian experience of the Spirit. Here is the passage,
1 When the day of Pentecost had come,
they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly from heaven there came a
sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where
they were sitting. 3 Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a
tongue rested on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit
and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability. 5 Now
there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. 6
And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard
them speaking in the native language of each. 7 Amazed and astonished, they
asked, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that
we hear, each of us, in our own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes, Elamites,
and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia
and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors
from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—in our own languages
we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power." 12 All were amazed and
perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" 13 But
others sneered and said, "They are filled with new wine."
Those who see it as a different experience call it xenolalia,
“speaking in a foreign language,” and point to the fact that Acts says “each
one heard them speaking in the native language of each” (Acts 2:6), so this
could not be the unintelligible speech of the Corinthians. Those who say it is
the same practice focus on the fact that the apostles “were filled with the
Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them
ability” (Acts 2:4) and it is the hearers who heard the spiritual language “in
the native language of each” (Act 2:6), the very act of interpretation that
Paul might be referring to in his letter to Corinth. This will not be settled
in a blog post, but I wanted to draw attention to this difference in
interpretation.
The
revival of speaking in tongues amongst Christians is a 20th century
phenomenon itself and has generally focused, as Luhrmann outlines, on
speaking “a language God knows but the speaker does not.” Luhrmann notes the
happiness that those who speak in tongues exhibit, but questions whether it is
simply a gift of the Holy Spirit as “the act involves learning and skill” and
it is also quite easy to fake. Nevertheless, she is not on a quest to attribute
speaking in tongues to fakery, but acknowledges that “what dawned on me in
Accra {Ghana} is that speaking in tongues might actually be a more effective
way to pray than speaking in ordinary language — if by prayer one means the
mental technique of detaching from the everyday world, and from everyday
thought, to experience God.” She mentions briefly rote prayer (i.e., the Lord’s
Prayer, Hail Mary, etc.) and then distinguishes between “two kinds of Christian
prayer practice,” the one being “apophatic” prayer, “which looks a lot like
meditation and mindfulness,”
and “kataphatic”
prayer, in which “one fills one’s imagination with thoughts from Scripture. The
classic example is the 16th-century spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius of
Loyola.”
She sees speaking in tongues as a form of “apophatic”
prayer, an attempt to still the restlessness of the mind and focus on “something
meaningless (but understood by the speaker to be divine).” Luhrmann also
mentions that
Scientific data suggest that tongue
speakers enter a different mental state. The neuroscientist
Andrew B. Newberg and his colleagues
took M.R.I. scans
of tongue speakers singing worship songs, and then speaking in tongues.
When they did the latter, they experienced less blood flow to the frontal
cerebral cortex. That is, their brain behaved as if they were less in a normal
decision-making state — consistent with the claim that praying in tongues is
not under conscious control.
Though Luhrmann might not be willing to attribute speaking
in tongues to the Holy Spirit, she definitely believes, and has evidence to
show, that something is indeed going
on neurologically and spiritually in those who speak in tongues.
Interestingly, though, other Christians have their own questions
about speaking in tongues. Many evangelical Christians other than Pentecostals
question the reality or value of the phenomenon and whether it can be compared
to the practice as described by Paul or Acts 2.
Many
Christians see it as a practice which properly came to an end in the ancient
world, though the practice is growing all over the world today, as shown in
Luhrmann’s article.
Catholics certainly understand the gifts of the Spirit in a
broader sense than most Pentecostals and would not see glossolalia as an
essential component for one’s salvation or a necessary or essential sign of one’s
right relationship with God, but there have been
Catholic
charismatic revivals as well and the practice is found among many Catholics.
In my own Archdiocese (of St. Paul –Minneapolis), one can link to the Catholic
Charismatic Renewal Office
on
the official website and
elsewhere.
The Church, of course, sees the gifts of the Holy Spirit as
active throughout the Church, which would include speaking in tongues, but glossolalia,
like any ecstatic or emotional manifestation of spirituality, often raises the
issue of control – or lack of control? - and the source of the behavior. To my
knowledge the Church has not pronounced officially on the current practice of speaking
in tongues, but naturally it understands the action of the Holy Spirit as
authentic and true (see
CCC 696)
and still dynamic (see
CCC 2003:
“Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of
miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are
intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity
which builds up the Church”).
As such, Luhrmann’s understanding of speaking in tongues as
a source of happiness would not be rejected nor, it seems to me, would her
description of the neurological processes which underlie this activity be cast
aside. I think, though, Christians would insist on understanding speaking in
tongues, when authentic, as having a source in the divine, the work of the Holy
Spirit, which may or may not always be comprehensible scientifically or
neurologically.
It is an intriguing issue for the Church today, as the
energy and power of speaking in tongues has attracted many people to Pentecostal
churches, including many (former) Catholics in
South
America and
Africa.
What
is the attraction? The actual speaking in tongues? The happiness Luhrmann
reports? The personal experience of the divine? How can one judge the actual
experience (since fakery does exist)? Apart from someone teaching against the
Church, how can one measure the source of the glossolalia? Have we spent enough
time thinking about this New Testament practice? Or is it, as some evangelicals
have argued, a practice whose time ended centuries ago with the apostles?
Luhrmann ends her article with an appeal:
Speaking in tongues still carries a
stigmatizing whiff. In his book “Thinking in Tongues,” the philosopher
James K. A. Smith describes
the “strange brew of academic alarm and snobbery” that flickered across a
colleague’s face when he admitted to being a Pentecostal (and, therefore,
praying in tongues). It seems time to move on from such prejudice.
Paul does not dispute the reality of tongues, or that these
tongues are from God, neither does Luke in reporting the accounts of the first
Pentecost in Acts of the Apostles. Given the New Testament heritage, is there
more we should be doing than simply moving on “from such prejudice”? Or is
discretion the better part of not being considered drunks at 9 am (“they are
filled with new wine”) as Peter and the apostles were at the first Pentecost or,
perhaps worse, being considered spiritually out of control or frauds?
John W. Martens
Feel free to“Like”
Biblejunkies on Facebook.
