However, all my studies have not given me any valid reason for changing my views on glossalalia, even though purposely I have sought to keep an open mind on the subject. I have bent over backward to be scrupu lously fair in my evaluation. But I am still convinced that tongues-speaking as practiced today is not of God. Of course, I do not go to the opposite extreme, as some do, and say that this is of the devil. No! However, I believe the devil can use glossalalia to detour Christians from more important to less important activities under the guise of a superior spirituality. For the most part, I say that the modern activity known as “ tongues-speaking” is a psychological attempt to meet a deep-seated need in an extremely superficial manner. That the need is there cannot be denied. Many church-going pople have sensed the utter emptiness of a life without a personal Redeemer as the governing force in their existence. Many have found that the rou tine ritual of their church services simply fails to meet the deep-seated spiritual needs of their lives. Thus they have turned to cultic systems of every sort. Some time back it was “ positive thinking.” Today, it is “ glossala lia.” Regardless of what the presumed cure might be, the need is real and can only be adequately met by a full commitment of life to Jesus Christ. Dabbling in cultic ideology may assuage the emptiness for awhile, but it will give no lasting satisfaction. It is for this reason that I speak of contemporary glossalalia as being a superficial attempt to meet the real need. It is an attempt to treat the symptom, not the cause. Besides, today’s tongues-speaking, I firmly believe, is a vastly diflerent thing from the glossalalia of the first-century church. That Christians spoke in tongues in Paul’s day cannot be denied. The Bible says so and we simply accept this. Yet, I have never been convinced on biblical grounds that the tongues they spoke were not the existing lan guages of the day, with perhaps one exception. Appar ently some o f the Corinthian Christians were attempt ing to imitate the- sounds of existing languages which they could not really speak in a proud attempt to pre tend they could speak these tongues also. And when others failed to understand what they were talking about, they went on to boast that they were “ speaking in the tongues of angels.” / tn is was the reason for Paul’s rather sarcastic opening to First Corinthians 13_J —“ Though I speak with the tongues of men or even of angels . . .” Actually, pride had gone to the heads of these Corinthians and they were talking gibberish. However, I strongly emphasize that the tongues-speak- iug of contemporary times is not the same as tongues- speaking engaged in by the first-century Church. I be lieve our subsequent study will bear this out. Let us remember that the original tongues-speaking in the early Church took place on the day of Pentecost. Peter and his fellow-apostles descended from the upper room and mingled with the motley crowd of foreigners who had come from other lands for the festivities of Pentecost at Jerusalem. The apostles, who knew only Aramaic as their mother tongue, a smattering of He brew and Greek, plus a few Latin words—found them selves talking tongues they had never studied: Egyp tian, Persian, Arabic, etc. Besides, not only were they speaking these languages; they were really being under stood by those who used them! This was a true glos salalia or speaking with tongues. It is the only tongues- speaking the New Testament knows anything about. Later, as the Church advanced, this miracle was re peated as the occasion demanded. However, I believe there is one most important fac tor that is lost sight of in this modern-day furor on
an intense evaluation of the practice based on theology and psychology. However, in the last couple of years, as most of our readers know, there have been both a resurgence and an
. . the need is real and can only be adequate ly met by a fu ll comm itment of life to Jesu s C h r is t / ' expansion of this glossalalia or tongues-speaking. De nominations other than the so-called “ Holiness” groups have begun to dabble in this phenomenon—the Presby terians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. These are churches which are not normally given to emotional upheaval, and yet they have begun to expe rience what they call “ tongues speaking.” Like a brush fire, modern glossalalia has spread across the country and is, today, one of the most talked-about and written- about themes in Christendom. My files on the subject are bulging with clippings from such magazines as Time, Saturday Evening Post, Christian Herald, Pres byterian Life, Dialog, Sunday School Times, etc. Every one is expressing some view on what virtually has be come a national religious fad. The question I faced, therefore, as I came to prepare this study of First Corinthians 14, was: Is it necessary for me now to change my viewpoint, in the light of this contemporary upsurge of tongues? That is, in view of the fact that “ everyone’s doing it,” shall I now alter my earlier opinion concerning glossalalia? Must I now acknowledge that tongues-speaking is of God, rather than just a psycho-emotional phenomenon which arises from an intense desire to “have the experience” ? I will be honest and admit that I have grappled seri ously with this problem before preparing this study. I have read everything I could get my hands on which related to the subject—both pro and con. I have talked with people who move in glossalalia circles, to get their opinions. A good friend of mine, a Presbyterian minis ter, is writing a book on tongues which is to be an objec tive analysis of the whole movement. He has made tape recordings of tongues-speaking, to which I have lis tened. We have discussed the field rather thoroughly. Indeed, tape recordings of actual tongues-speaking are now being analyzed by Dr. Eugene Nida of the Ameri can Bible Society who is an expert on linguistics. His purpose is to ascertain whether contemporary tongues have anything at all to do with existing languages — whether there are any similarities.
THE KING'S BUSINESS
32
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter