Corinthians I, 12:7-11

12:7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
8 To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge
according to the same Spirit,
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to
another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
11 All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually
just as the Spirit chooses.
(New Standard Version Translation)

Speaking in Tongues

1. Relation to life and ministry:

In my ministry of teaching philosophy in a religiously affiliated institution, one of

the early distinctions made, especially in the introductory and philosophy of religion

courses, concerns the points of convergence and divergence between my discipline and

that of religion and theology. In the popular imagination they may often be confused as

two sides of the same coin, but this simplistic view requires rectification if students are

to better understand the nature of each field. While an overlap of common concerns

does exist (metaphysics and theology are both interested in ultimates such as the

questions of the existence and nature of God and a deepening interest in understanding

human nature and destiny) they emphasize different fonts of data and methodologies.

Philosophy, for the most part, makes its inferences from the range of experiences and

awareness commonly available to all human beings. Religious beliefs, especially

among the three great monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are rooted

“Speaking in Tongues” 1
in prophetic utterances, in the words of certain persons who claim to be speaking for

God or some supernatural entity that occur in unique and disparate moments of history.

The motive of credibility given as to why such persons are worthy of being believed is

often some sign or wonder that appears to go beyond the range of mere natural or

human possibility. One of these has been the ability to speak in tongues.

Socrates held that philosophy prepares one to accept death cheerfully, 1 but being

essentially of human origin (unaided human reason at work) philosophy can give little

guidance or assurance for what happens beyond this life. Philosophy makes no salvific

promises, though it may hope for them in silence. Courses in theology aimed at

acquiring a wider and deeper understanding of truths transcending the purely natural

are essential for my spiritual development.

In the past, my appreciation for the part the Holy Spirit plays in the life of the

church and the sanctification of its members could hardly be described as satisfactory.

Part of the reason can well be that the Holy Spirit gets such restricted visibility. One

example is the Apostle’s Creed which is limited to a five words sentence “I believe in the

Holy Ghost” where unto the Nicean which adds “the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds

from the Father and is worshiped and glorified.” That does not add much in the way of

imaginable content to an understanding of who the Spirit is as much as it does of our

obligations to Him via worship and glorification. The only other activity with which He is

credited besides being “the giver of life” is that “He spoke through the prophets.” That’s

pretty short shrift compared to the lengthier descriptions concerning the Father and the

Son.

“Speaking in Tongues” 2
 Over the last several years I have developed a deeper appreciation of the place

the Holy Spirit plays in the life of the church. I cannot recall where I heard or read that

the period from Pentecost on was really the age or time of the Holy Spirit, but its impact

has remained with me. The Acts of the Apostles might well be re-titled The Gospel of

the Holy Spirit for it is within the pages of this text as well as the letters and epistles that

we encounter the Spirit’s accomplishments in the church Jesus founded. Unfortunately

they are easy to miss because the mind, or rather our imaginations, are focused on

what the human agents described in these pages are doing. One must read between

the lines, so to speak, to appreciate the deeper, almost unseen, inspirations at work

within them empowering the early Christians to accomplish the mandate Christ gave

them.

An opportunity to study more deeply the Spirit’s charisms was just too good to

pass up. However, because these phenomena are so complex and my sources more

extensive than first imagined, prudence required that I limit my subject to that treatment

of ecstatic tongues. I decided to focus on this one gift because of its resurgence in the

life of so many Christian communities.

2. Initial reactions:

Of the various gifts itemized by St. Paul in Corinthians I, 7-11, speaking in

tongues and its corollary, interpretation of tongues, falls at the end of this list. Oddly, it is

usually seen in the popular imagination as more dramatic than prophecy (unless one

mistakenly takes the word to mean ‘foretelling the future’ an aspect of prophecy on

which a television series “Ancient Prophecies” [circa 1990s] was focused), and is likely

“Speaking in Tongues” 3
to beat out the more subtle and slower workings and manifestations of knowledge and

wisdom (not human wisdom, but that of Christ as taught by the example of the cross 2

where He emptied himself out for us).

I recall reading a book some years ago (its title is beyond remembering) on the

history of religious denominations in the United States. In the nineteenth century, many

of them began as a result of devout persons coming together and imploring divine

guidance in finding a religious community to which they could commit themselves. Often

they weighed the available options as seriously wanting, but at some point in their

communal prayers they were astonished to find certain ones of their group speaking in

tongues. This was taken as a sign that further searching was now unnecessary for the

Spirit had blessed such fledgling gatherings with their own raison d’etre and the right to

establish themselves as equal (if not superior) to the other Christian communities in the

region.

Such descriptions were to me at the time little more than an oddity and as they

were not encountered or rarely mentioned within my religious tradition, the tendency

was to discount them and question their legitimacy as true spiritual manifestations. As

one educated from elementary school through college in Catholic schools, along with

my year as a novice and three years in a Dominican stadium of philosophy, and into

almost half of my career as an educator, I had never heard much about such events

other than in the readings of scripture. I recall no Sunday sermon on the topic, parish

classes or workshops analyzing its nature, no must-read-best-seller that captured the

popular imagination. Still, the phenomena did not go unnoticed. Following on a spate of

reports in the media in the 50s about mainline Protestant happening of ecstatic activities

“Speaking in Tongues” 4
including and especially speaking in tongues, there surfaced within a decade reports of

similar incidents in Catholic publications as to the spread of its own incipient

‘charismatic movement’ grew in popularity. While such descriptions piqued an interest,

the usual paucity of information as to when and where charismatic Masses and prayer

gatherings were held was never sufficient or publicized enough to make my going there

a practicality. Moreover, Catholic spirituality in general, it seemed to me, did not need

such events or it would have been given greater prominence by church leadership. The

prevalent attitude was that such gifts, once useful to the early Church, had “now

ceased”3 as some church leaders held, or were at best only rare and marginal

occurances. Before researching this topic, I could have been easily persuaded to agree.

3. Speaking in tongues:

The above view was and is not the case among other Christian groups where

such occurrences are not only frequent but held as central to the faith and practices of

these communities. In the early part of the twentieth century, the phenomena of

speaking in tongues as an integral part of what its devotees called the ‘Baptism of the

Spirit” began as a mostly rural one among marginal Christian congregations. By the mid

to late 20s it turned into a flood of conversion to Pentecostal and Holiness churches that

were recording membership increases of from 100 to over 250 percent. 4 In many cases,

converts to these groups came from more traditional Christian denominations, not only

from the un-churched. By the mid twentieth century the movement had spread to the

point of having an obvious impact on staid, mainline reformation churches such as the

Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist and Episcopal Church. Even the Roman Catholic

“Speaking in Tongues” 5
Church began taking a more than offhanded glance at what was first seen as an

“accidental addition, but (now) as part of its nature.” 5 Not only did the popular media

come to take note of these occurrences but so did researchers in the scientific

community.6

St. Paul tells us that the religious truths to be believed by the faith community are

revealed in prophetic utterances. Much of scripture preserves these prophecies from the

virtual beginning of the tradition begun with the Israelites. The sign or wonder that

attests to the credentials of a prophet can be found in a variety of manifestations

including ecstatic speech, although this appears to be a Christian phenomenon initially

and does not make itself known in Judaism until New Testament times. 7 What is said in

such instances however, is rarely recorded unless it is of prophetic worth. Otherwise it is

an experience that passes only between the speaker and listeners, as both the

utterances and their interpretation (and that need not necessarily be a translation but

rather a summary of the meaning or significance of what has happened either by the

speaker him/herself or another) are not retained in any detail as is the case with

prophecy. While tongues makes its appearance with more of an éclat it did not seem to

me to rank as high as other gifts whose manifestations are more subtle. Possibly it was

an allusion to this seeming disparity that prompted Paul to write that God has arranged

things so as to “give greater honor to the inferior member.”(I Cor. 12:24) Prophecy is an

example of a charism valued as higher than ecstatic speech by Paul. His rationale is

understandable. The Christian religious tradition could well have existed without anyone

speaking in tongues (the Jewish one certainly did) but it could not have come into being

or been adequately sustained without prophecy.

“Speaking in Tongues” 6
 Glossolalia, the religious technical term for tongues(-speaking), is understood

variously in a theological dictionary8 as (a) “unintelligible ecstatic utterance (1C 14.2)”,

(b) “heavenly language (1C 13.1)”, or (c) “foreign languages not learned through natural

means by the speaker (AC 2.4).” It is tongue-speaking according to the (a) and possibly

(b) definition that Paul seems to be exclusively concerned in the above passage,

indeed, in the letter as a whole, whenever he mentions the occurrence. The association

I have habitually made whenever I encountered the term was with the events reported

in Acts 2: 4-41 where the Apostles, after the Spirit had descended on them, began

speaking in tongues to the multitude of worshippers (both Jews and converts to

Judaism) who had come to Jerusalem from such distant lands as Parthia,

Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, even from as far away as Rome for the Feast of Harvests

(Weeks). In this case the visitors were able to hear the various Apostles speak to them

in their own languages. While Acts is unclear as to how they understood Peter (who in

this case was prophesying), one can only presume that those who did not understand

Aramaic still understood Peter in each one’s maternal language or natural dialect—

otherwise how could so many of them have been converted? In this case, the value and

significance of this supernatural manifestation is made clear in the vast numbers that

were suddenly added to membership in the fledgling community of Jesus’ believers. But

the question remains in such incidences whether the person speaking is manifesting a

ton pneumatikon or if the activity of the Spirit is in the hearers by their being granted the

‘gift of ears.”

No such ambiguity exists as to the manifestations with which Paul is concerned.

Clearly the focus can only be on the speaker as what is being said is not understood

“Speaking in Tongues” 7
word for word and, if at all, only generally interpreted. I have personally witnessed this

kind of speaking in tongues on two occasions. One occurred while watching a TV

program where an evangelist and his assistant were laying healing hands on persons

(who often fainted backwards as they were touched) while making a series of sounds

that were both unrecognizable to me and often punctuated by short bursts of laughter. I

was not able to discern any seeming underlying syntax to what was being said, but that

may be more as a result of either my queasiness about ‘revival tent’ forms of religious

practice or my inability to discern a vocal pattern rather than the sounds themselves

lacking any linguistic organization. I wondered if anyone could be found that would be

able to translate what was to this listener a steady stream of gibberish. Taking that a

step further, I wondered if these TV evangelists or anyone associated with them had

ever submitted these recordings to language experts for their evaluation of what was

said during this and other like occasions. *

Two things make such an eventuality unlikely. First, there are approximately

2,800 known languages still in use today, and an untold number of those that have

become non-extant. The second fact militating against an objective translation can be

appreciated from my other experience with tongues that took place some two years ago

during a healing service of the Society of St. Luke that I attended at the Chapel of St.

Andrew. While the Episcopal priest, Fr. Steven Zimmerman was reciting the traditional

*
Investigative reporter John Sherrill, for 20 years a staff member of Guideposts and a founder of Chosen Books
Publishing, invited six linguists (two specialists in modern, three in ancient languages and one in language structure)
from Columbia University, Union and General Theological Seminaries to listen to a series of recordings of tongues-
speaking he had made—into which he had included two instances of someone making nonsense noises. “No one
had heard a language which he could identify…but one reported that he felt that one tape had been structured in
much the same way as is a modern poem….(saying) ‘although I didn’t understand the sense of her words, I did catch
the emotional content.’” They did conclude that all the examples, except the two made-up gibberish ones (which
they all quickly identified as such) had the “shape of real language, the variety of sound combinations, infrequency
of repetition and so forth (that) is virtually impossible…to reproduce by deliberate effort.” (Sherrill, 113.)

“Speaking in Tongues” 8
healing prayers over a supplicant, he suddenly switched to speaking/praying in a

language I could not identify although it did seem to have a recognizable underlying

structure. Having studied several romance languages including Latin as well as

Russian, this pattern was unlike anything I ever heard. I interviewed Fr. Zimmerman as

to his own evaluation of what he was experiencing when speaking in tongues. His ability

to speak in tongues came about through his meeting a university professor of classics

lecturing at his parish on an unrelated topic for the church’s adult education series. As a

result of prayers she said for him relevant to a family concern, she opened him up to the

possibility of praying in tongues which he later attempted and found himself able to

realize. He does not know what the words mean, but only recognizes them as a form of

prayer, especially when the words are sung rather than rendered in speech. If this is

typical, then we cannot expect translations from those speaking in tongues.

Most reported cases of glossolalia today are not as dramatic and clear cut as

described by Luke. In contemporary setting, one person, or several separately, speak in

words they do not recognize or understand. Unlike normal speaking, as Fr. Zimmerman

described it, there is no concern as to grammatical forms such as word order, noun verb

agreement, tenses, or the like as is the case when we engage in ordinary discourse.

Instead, the words come out in a of free-flow style with no ‘editorializing’ on the part of

the speaker. The same characteristic, mutatis mutandis, appears to be true among

interpreters as well, no searching for proper words, terms, or exact phrases. There is a

pervasive sense that what is being spoken or sung is being conveyed in the best

manner possible. The human voice is merely a channel for making sounds properly

“Speaking in Tongues” 9
controlled by another. Yet while each event strengthens the speaker’s faith initially, and

the hearers and interpreters as well, the sum effect of their experiences is ordered to

something greater than the totality of its individual parts. “Paul was discussing tongues

not as a one-time outpouring but a continuing experience.” 9 Ultimately, such individual

instances are directed to the cumulative effect of up-building the Christian community.

While those with the ability to speak “in a tongue may build themselves up,” such a

charism is worthless unless, like prophesy it “build(s) up the community.” (1 Corinthians

14:4)

I was, however, aware from my college days (1957-1961) at The Catholic University

when the book The Exorcist was all the rage, of a dark side of speaking in tongues.

Diabolical possession is also marked by persons being able to suddenly speak in

languages or understand those spoken by others that they have never learned or had

opportunity to even hear someone else employing--certainly never long enough to

develop the kind of proficiency the possessed is capable of when in such a state. 10 At

the extremes, the ability to distinguish the diabolical from the divinely inspired forms

appears rather straightforward. The former will also have in its train behaviors that are

bizarre, insulting to listeners, and even detrimental to safety or welfare of the person

serving as the medium for such utterances. In the latter, as exemplified above in the

conversion of Jewish pilgrims the effects are beneficial and long lasting. It was not

simply a wonder being manifested for the wonder’s sake but as a means to a greater

end. But in some instances, the greater end to which it is ordered seems less easy, if at

all, to identify. And in cases of ecstatic speech that are more into the center and that

occur to one or several individuals only and outside the setting of a congregation, their

“Speaking in Tongues” 10
source becomes more difficult to discern the less one is capable of setting such

experiences into a context. This seemed to me to be one of the more important marks

of prophecy as superior to glossolalia and why Paul says he prefers that the Corinthians

prophesy rather than speak in tongues (I Cor. 14:5) and why the church likely

discouraged its use in later times. Prophecy comes in the form of understandable

language and into a tradition of beliefs and practices to which new revelations must

conform in some way with respect to the convention of which they claim to be a part.

The charism of prophecy, while on occasion accompanied by the tongues’

phenomenon, need not be so linked and are often spoken in the lingua franca of the

receiving community. Old Testament prophets spoke the language of the people they

were addressing. While at “present this is no scholarly consensus on the nature and

extent of prophecy in the early Hellenistic house-churches…(o)ne broad position takes

Paul’s advocacy of intelligible prophecy in I Corinthians 12-14 as the model of how

prophets acts.”11 The primary task was “above all exhorting the church to live out its

calling”12 with predictions and judgments as subservient concerns.

4. My evaluation compared and contrasted to commentaries:

Some of readings attest to the occurrences of speaking in tongues as continuing

on throughout Christian history among Orthodox as well as Protestant groups, even to

Catholics of very high standing such as the Dominican St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Francis

Xavier, St. Claire of Montefalco, to mention just a few--disclaimers about the survival of

tongue-speaking by Augustine, Chrysostom 13 and others not with standing. It must be

noted, however, that the manifestations of tongues in these cases were more likely

“Speaking in Tongues” 11
instance of the (c) version of glossolalia given above than of ecstatic speech as those

who heard them were converted—something less likely if what they attended to were

meaningless sounds. Whatever their form, this information came as a bit of a surprise

as I had been unaware that such abilities were imputed to these saints.

While the descriptions of the ecstatic mode of the gift of tongues in the New

Testament and those of contemporary charismatics, both Catholic and non-Catholic,

may not be as complete as to allow a high level of certitude that these manifestations

are almost or completely identical in nature, it certainly appears that they have far more

in common than not. For Gordon Fee, however, “the issue is moot and probably

irrelevant”14 as there is no way to know for sure. What is truly relevant is the purpose of

ecstatic tongues which is a prayer to God. The testimony of those who sense

themselves as being in the throes of something holy and the sanctifying effects that

carry over long-term into other areas of their lives is hard to discount even to an

‘outsider’ like myself who has never experienced the charism. While given instances

must be evaluated for their genuineness on a case-by-case basis, I have no doubt that

the Spirit is clearly at work here and it is the task of committed Christians to identify the

directions that these promptings call us to take.

Unfortunately what according to St. Paul is supposed to be a cause for unity

within the Christian community was in his time,15 and has in some cases reemerged in

the present day, a reason for discord and enmity. The quotation at the beginning of this

paper is only a short section of a long treatise wherein Paul attempts to bring unanimity

among the assemblies he founded that “had descended into mere anarchy…among the

“Speaking in Tongues” 12
believers. These were not like the disputes between church and synagogue. They were

a division among Christians themselves.” 16

In contemporary times, spokespersons for groups experiencing the gifts of the

Spirit, especially that of tongues, have maintained that only this stands as proof positive

that the recipients have truly accepted Christ in their hearts as lord and savior. Only

They have the mark of being numbered among the truly saved. “For Paul, even the

most basic affirmation, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ is made possible by divine assistance—another

affirmation of God’s grace.”17 Whether it then needs to be confirmed in every believer to

others through a tangible spiritual sign is highly debatable and could even be construed

as a case of testing God.

I totally disagree with those who maintain that speaking in tongues, as a

manifestation of the ’baptism of the Spirit,’ is the one clear and uncontestable mark of a

true Christian and that those lacking said gift have a standing akin to catechumens at

best. J. D. G. Dunn is described as holding to such a view. 18 Now I will admit that there

seems to be some merit to this claim. In Acts 1:5 a distinction is first made between

John’s baptism with water (it is unclear whether all of the Apostles had been thusly

baptized) and the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” that was to come. Its occurrence at

Pentecost was highly dramatic: a violent wind from heaven filling the house, tongues of

fire that came to rest on the head of each, and their ability to express themselves in

different languages.(Acts 2:2-5) The empowerment of the Apostles was no less

dramatic. Formerly scared and cowering, they suddenly changed into fearless and

brave ambassadors of the crucified and risen Christ. Immediately after the Spirit

descended on them

“Speaking in Tongues” 13
 (t)hey were so overwhelmed by the force of these convictions that, with all
their inhibitions released, resources of spiritual power became available to
them, creating new levels of spiritual experience which found abnormal
channels of expression.19

Nothing had changed in their external situation. Even their prior encounters with

Jesus after his resurrection and their coming to understand more fully the prophetic

scriptures relating to the events of the previous days and weeks did not bring about this

sudden transformation in them. The church came to be through this baptism of the

Spirit. Many who are so gifted today speak of a similar sense pervading them when the

Spirit is upon then. No wonder Dunn and others use it as the litmus test for

distinguishing the true from the nominal Christian. But one should question the

discernment of persons claiming that they are thusly baptized when they use it as a

basis for self-exaltation20 and even discrimination (as the Corinthians themselves did 21)

against their fellow Christians who have not received this gift—an ironic reversal as it

was those speaking in tongues who earlier in the past century were the objects of

derision and persecution by their fellow Christians and even co-denominationalists. I ran

across what could be an instance of this in an application for an administrative position

to an Episcopal school in Maryland* that contained the entry “When were you baptized

in the Spirit?” One could only presume that a specific affirmative answer was one of the

qualifying elements that would weigh to some degree in the decision to hire any given

applicant. Others, like Dunn, go further and esteem speaking in tongues as the second

most vital occurrence in the spiritual life of a believer. 22

The imprudence of estimating tongue-speaking as just under the initial

acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior is evident from an examination of the

*
It had been sent to Mary Ellen and me by her sister who lives in Maryland in the hope that it might entice one of us
to apply for the position and move there.

“Speaking in Tongues” 14
conditions relevant to such experiences. In and of themselves, instances of ecstatic

speech cannot easily be put into a context and examined for legitimacy. One needs to

have such sayings translated/interpreted and in many of the manifestations of recent

times this does not seem to have ordinarily been the case. Furthermore, one cannot be

sure without the testimony of several equally experienced experts as to whether the

translations or interpretations that might have followed in given cases were correct or

not. In summation, I find the occurrence of speaking in tongues to be ambiguous in its

nature and while it can have a palliative effect in one area of church life which I will treat

in the conclusion part of this study, one must also recognize that its effects can

endanger the community. Its oddity can lead persons in the thrall of such experiences or

even witnessing them to imagine all kinds of explanations for themselves or their

denominations and claim authorities, right, powers, or privileges to which they have little

if any claim. Universalizing from their own limited experiences, they promote themselves

as some form of the authentic church of true believers to which all other would-be

Christians must conform should they wish to escape the wrath that is to come.

Accepting Dunn’s thesis, it seems to me, is to constrict the range of concerns

that need to be included into the total picture of understanding the place of ecstatic

tongues in the economy of salvation. While experienced as riveting and even awesome

to those involved, tongues is only one of a number of listed charisms (and Paul’s list

makes no claim at being exhaustive 23 in specifying these concretely visible

manifestations24) whose purpose is to strengthen the faith and union of the church, 25 not

indicate divine favor, special election or some kind of ecclesiastical preferment upon the

recipient(s) similar to those described by Ellis in his three part breakdown of Paul’s likely

“Speaking in Tongues” 15
opponents at Corinth, “fanatic enthusiasts who believed that Christians, by right of faith

and baptism, were already in this life confirmed in a state of being similar to the state…

of the exalted Christ in heaven.” 26 “Anyone within the community who disdains the

(other) gifts given to any member disdains the work of the Spirit.” 27 The Spirit bestows

these gifts “for the advantage of the Church. Different people receive different gifts

because of some appropriate correlation between natural and spiritual abilities.” 28 Those

agreeing with Dunn ignore Paul’s own comments on the matter. As he states that he

would rather his congregation prophesies rather that speak ecstatically, the latter is

obviously of lesser worth (I Cor: 14-5). “Paul can thus point to his reader’s former

behavior in paganism as a warning that ecstatic activity by itself cannot constitute proof

that they are obeying God.”29

5. Conclusions:

I have been markedly surprised as to how this study has impacted my view of

one of the avenues of holiness available to believers and that the manifestation of this

among so many Christian bodies would seem to call for a re-evaluation of the standards

presently in place for ecumenical sharing with our “separated sister churches.” The

Catholic Church seems in a position analogous to Peter himself, suddenly surprised at

the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which was so evidently at work within an ostensibly

pagan household. In this case, the church is witnessing the signs of the Spirit’s gifts

among Christian believers that it had for some 500 years kept at a distance from her

self, although this situation took a turn for the better after Vatican II. Yet these Christian

bodies have a far greater sense of understanding and appreciation of the wisdom of

“Speaking in Tongues” 16
Christ than did the centurion and his family when they petitioned Peter to come visit

them. Should we not all be far more willing to share our house with them and they with

us? While not diminishing the work of ecumenists in overcoming centuries of distrust

and animosity and the tangible results of numerous agreements such as those on

“Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry,” “The Final Report,” “The Gift of Authority” and the

agreements on the relationship between faith and works with Lutheran bodies (to

mention just a few) there seems to have been little in the way of serious ecclesiastical

rapprochements in the area of the sharing of the sacraments that would serve as better

examples of the unifying power of the gifts of the Spirit. This is also true with respect to

‘hot topics’ where Rome keeps holding the line even to not allowing them being

discussed because they do not seem as immediately critical to the life of the Catholic

Church. They are, however, of serious import to other denominations and it would serve

as an example of spiritual concern for our sister churches if Rome were to devote some

its resources to a deeper examination of them. In fact, some are already issues being

discussed by devout members, Rome’s prohibition not with standing, and, like the

growing presence of the gifts of the Spirit in surprising places, may well prove

uncontainable, leaving the church at some future point in a position of being less

prepared to deal with such concerns should they reach a critical mass that makes them

unavoidable.

Unity among Jesus’ members is the one constant that He prays for and it is the

great scandal of present day Christianity—indeed for many the worse scandal that

Christianity had ever endured—that Jesus’ flock finds itself in such disarray. Twenty-first

century Christianity reflects to the non-Christian world a fractured face of its founder

“Speaking in Tongues” 17
instead of unified one he prayed for and a poor example of what the Spirit is capable of

working within its members if they were more open to His promptings. Certainly there

are seemingly intractable moral issues that also foster division and they may well give

just pause to those that might otherwise support a speeding up of the process. To gloss

these over would be tantamount to a betrayal of fundamental principles. But it also

seems that the spirit of ecumenism is not served by the older and more traditional

denominations insisting on a maximalist set of prerequisites as to the sufficient

conditions of what it would take to bring about a more visible unity based on a practical

renewal in the body of Christ. Might it be possible to arrive at a wider consensus,

greater accord, and a more perfect koinonia by adopting a minimalist criterion without

surrendering core principles thereby allowing local communities greater scope in their

worship services and spiritual practices rather than limiting and imposing on them the

ecclesiastical traditions, practices, and laws presently employed by the majority

churches? The Spirit is obviously at work within these ecclesiastical communities. That

these are sometimes misused, as they were by some of the Corinthians, constitute

insufficient reason to abandon those assemblies and leave them to their own devises.

Paul did not take that approach with those who were causing the church scandal and

himself pain. He trusted in the sincerity of their desires and the Spirit’s attestation of His

presence in the community as more important than the divisions and shame some of

the Corinthians were giving to the non-believers in their city. Do church hierarchies

today opt to trust that Spirit, palpably operative in other churches, or will they insist first

and foremost on their own view of things, rules, laws, ceremonies, and structures? To

do the latter seems to say little other than “submit!” and that approach has proved futile

“Speaking in Tongues” 18
for the last half a millennium. The separated churches consider themselves as having

genuine, arguable reservations about a wholesale acquiescence to the others’ ways of

seeing and doing things. While ecumenical discussions and formal agreements on

issues such as the sacraments and church authority are a step in the right direction in

sorting out some of the speculative aspects of these difficulties, one has to wonder how

effective they are in working out the pragmatic components of the problems to a

satisfactory resolution according to the ideals both sides claim to espouse. Does there

not have to be a greater sharing on the level of the highest forms of church life for us to

feel that we have truly made significant headway with the scandal of Christian disunity?

That will require a generosity of spirit that has so far not seemed evident, at least to the

people in the pews where, in the last analysis, it must finally filter down. Adopting a

minimalist requirement can more easily be taken as an invitation to mutually share and

join with one another the gifts of the Spirit we all have to some degree, but can more

fully possess under the common divine parenthood of the Father, the redemptive

activity of Jesus, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit we mutually claim as our own.

“Speaking in Tongues” 19
“Speaking in Tongues” 20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians: Sacra Pagina Series, Volume 7 Daniel J.

Congar, Yves I Believe in the Holy Spirit, Volume II: “The Lord and Giver of Life,”
David Smith, transl., New York, NY: The Seabury Press, 1983.

Ellis, Peter F. Seven Pauline Letters Collegeville, MI: The Liturgical Press, 1984.

Fee, Gordon D The First Epistle to the Corinthians Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.

Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament

Kelsey, Morton Tongue Speaking: The History and Meaning of Charismatic Experience,
NY, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Co. 1981.

Mallory, H. Netwon and A. Adams Lovekin Glossolalia: Behavioral Science

Montague, George T., S.M. The Spirit and His Gifts New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1974.

New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, [English edition] Colin Brown,
ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Press, 1975

New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume X, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002.

Orr, William F. and James Arthur Walther I Corinthians: Introduction with a Study of the
Life of Paul, Notes, and Commentary Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company,
Inc., 1976.

Plato, Phaedo in The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Hugh Tredennick, transl., Edith
Hamilton & Huntington Cairns, eds., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1969.

Roman Ritual, Vol. II, Rev. Phillip T. Weller, trans. & ed., Milwaukee, WI: Bruce
Publishing Co. 1952.

Sherrill, John L. They Speak with Other Tongues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House
Co.) 1964, 1985.

“Speaking in Tongues” 21
Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: The New International Greek
Testament Commentary Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2000.

Wilson, A N. Paul: The Mind of the Apostle (New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.) 1997.

Wire, Antoinette Clark The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through

Zizioulas, John D., Being as Communion, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1985.

“Speaking in Tongues” 22
“Speaking in Tongues” 23
1
Phaedo, 63. e.
2
Fee, 592.
3
Congar, 173.
4
Sherrill, 50-1, Cf. also Kelsey, 95-136.
5
Sherrill, 70.
6
Mallory & Lovekin, passim.
7
Congar, 176 citing J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, (Philadelphia, PA, 1975) 304.
8
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1080.
9
Merrill, 79.
10
The Roman Ritual, 169.
11
Wire, 226.
12
Ibid.
13
Thiselton, 940 quoting Chrysostom, I Cor. Hom., 29:1. Also Congar, 173.
14
Thiselton, 1100.
15
Ellis, 39.
16
Wilson, 167.
17
New Interpreter’s Bible, 942
18
Dunn’s thesis is described by Montague, 5-8.
19
Interpreter’s Dictionary, 671.
20
Kelsey, 75.
21
Wilson, 169.
22
Montague ???????????
23
Fee, 585.
24
Collins, 451, also Fee, 591.
25
Fee, 589.
26
Ellis, 40.
27
Collins, 450.
28
Orr and Walther, 281.
29
Keener, 478.