Glossolalia or Xenolalia?

[Homer]

In regard to the ongoing controversy over the continuation or cessation of "spiritual gifts", usually meaning miraculous gifts, I have long been puzzled about one aspect of the debate about speaking in tongues. It seems to me that the debate is pointless unless there is an agreed upon definition of what tongues are. If the gift has continued (or reappeared), then it would seem necessary to show that the "tongues", as practiced today, are the same in kind as that practiced in earliest church history. If not, then there is no "continuation".

The first thing that ought to be established is what the "tongues" spoken today are. There seems to be a variety of definitions among modern Charismatics/Pentecostals. For the sake of this discussion, a few word definitions must be made.

1. Akolalia: a speaker speaks in one language and the hearer hears in his own language (or one he understands)

2. Glossolalia: a speaker speaks in a language that has no correspondence to a known language

3. Xenolalia: a speaker speaks in a known (foreign) language unknown to him

The impression I have is that most, or all, Charismatics/Pentecostals today believe "tongues" fit into category #2 or possibly category #1. The problem is that glossolalia has such a wide definition, such as "prayer language", ecstatic speech, and even, as some leading Pentecostals (Spittler, Hollenweger) posit, it has no rational content, but is like music, and means different things to different people. And an even greater problem is that it is a known phenomenon all over the world among a variety of groups. Linguistic experts have found that there is no distinction between glossolalia as practiced by Christians and that practiced by followers of non-Christian religions. In the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, Spittler states that glossolalia is a "human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity nor even religious behavior".

In my opinion, the problem for the Charismatics would be eliminated if definition #3 was their position and it could be shown that xenolalia was a gift today in the church. Several different sources point out that this was the belief of the early church fathers, such as Tertullian, Origen, Pachomius, and Augustine. Everett Ferguson, in Early Christians Speak, vol. II, says that foreign languages was the common patristic understanding. Interestingly, in the early history of the Pentecostalism that also was the common view. Alleged cases of xenolalia were the 1896 North Carolina revival, The Januarary 1, 1901 experience of Agnes Ozman, who thought she spoke in Chinese, and the 1906 Azusa Street revival. All gave glowing accounts of xenolalia. The initial experiences of A.J. Tomlinson and T.B. Barrett were said to be xenolalic, and Charles Parham was an outspoken critic of tongues that were not xenolalic. Pentecostals went to foreign lands expecting to be endowed with the appropriate language.

It seems to me a weakness of the cessationist view is that unless all miracles are denied, it is very difficult to maintain that xenolalia might not occur. And for the Charismatic/Pentecostal, given that the early church understood that the tongues in scripture, and also that were claimed to occur during the patristic period, were actual foreign languages, then modern glossolalia is not a continuation of that early practice, and the cessation/continuation (or reoccurance) debate has no basis in fact.

[RickC]

Hello Homer! God bless you!

1. Akolalia: a speaker speaks in one language and the hearer hears in his own language (or one he understands)

2. Glossolalia: a speaker speaks in a language that has no correspondence to a known language

3. Xenolalia: a speaker speaks in a known (foreign) language unknown to him

The impression I have is that most, or all, Charismatics/Pentecostals today believe "tongues" fit into category #2 or possibly category #1. The problem is that glossolalia has such a wide definition, such as "prayer language", ecstatic speech, and even, as some leading Pentecostals (Spittler, Hollenweger) posit, it has no rational content, but is like music, and means different things to different people. And an even greater problem is that it is a known phenomenon all over the world among a variety of groups. Linguistic experts have found that there is no distinction between glossolalia as practiced by Christians and that practiced by followers of non-Christian religions. In the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, Spittler states that glossolalia is a "human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity nor even religious behavior".

In my opinion, the problem for the Charismatics would be eliminated if definition #3 was their position and it could be shown that xenolalia was a gift today in the church.

I'm a former Pentecostal (AG) and "participant" in the "charismatic movement" (which began in the 60s). Numbers one through three have been "acknowledged as real" in Classical Pentecostalism. The same goes for the charismatic movement; at least back in the early 70s.

I've personally experienced numbers 2 (glossolalia, of the various types) and 3 (xenolalia) as the "tongues speaker" and heard a story about xenolalia - from a friend who "saw and heard it." (Btw, my xenolalia experience happened just once).

Regarding 1 (Akolalia) - I don't recall hearing any stories of it, though it seems I may have. In one of Steve's lectures, he mentions that one of the Reformers took an "Akolalia position" on what happened on the Day of Pentecost.

I have no problem with seeing glossolalia as a "human phenomenon" (which I do).

Re: "no rational content, but is like music, and means different things to different people."
In glossolalia prayer and/or praise there IS "rational content." This is to say: When I'm praying or praising the Lord in tongues I (most definitely) AM "thinking" about God, which cannot be "irrational"!!! (Stuff like this is hard to explain)....

But anyways.

"These days" - with so many newer teachings, movements, and debates about the same; I can't really comment on "what all (else) might be out there now."

Take care!

[mattrose]

It seems to me that the Scriptures may record both 2 (Corinthians?) and 3 (Acts?). I don't think we can deny something is a spiritual gift on the grounds that it is also a human phenomenon though. There may be something distinct about the Christian use of the gift. After all, non-Christian humans can also preach, teach, give, etc. I do like your point that modern practice should correspond to biblical practice. And I think that raises a red flag for what happens in many charismatic/pentecostal settings.

[Homer]

Hi Rick and Matt!

Matt wrote:

It seems to me that the Scriptures may record both 2 (Corinthians?) and 3 (Acts?).

What I had found was that the early church fathers equated the tongues at Pentecost with those at Corinth; they believed them to be one and the same.

Rick wrote:

(Btw, my xenolalia experience happened just once).

Hey, that's neat! Did someone verify it? Paidion had written about witnessing a similar occurance.

The difficulty in determining what tongues were and whether they existed in the patristic period is due to the meager number of accounts. Most all accounts appear to be not much more than hearsay, and if the accounts related to the Montanists are left out, there is almost nothing. This could point to the gifts fading away as the cessationists argue, but on the other hand, as Everett Ferguson points out, it might only show that tongues were non-controversial. Things that were non-controversial were not written about. Ferguson is about as even-handed as anyone you can read, and held in highest regard by his peers in church history.

Whatever tongues were, one historian pointed out they were supressed after the church became institutionalized due to the divisiveness that they caused. And I guess they still do.

God bless you both!

[RickC]

Rick wrote:
(Btw, my xenolalia experience happened just once).

to which Homer replied:
Hey, that's neat! Did someone verify it? Paidion had written about witnessing a similar occurance.

The difficulty in determining what tongues were and whether they existed in the patristic period is due to the meager number of accounts. Most all accounts appear to be not much more than hearsay, and if the accounts related to the Montanists are left out, there is almost nothing. This could point to the gifts fading away as the cessationists argue, but on the other hand, as Everett Ferguson points out, it might only show that tongues were non-controversial. Things that were non-controversial were not written about. Ferguson is about as even-handed as anyone you can read, and held in highest regard by his peers in church history.

Whatever tongues were, one historian pointed out they were supressed after the church became institutionalized due to the divisiveness that they caused. And I guess they still do.

God bless you both!

Xenolalia, Two Accounts

First, mine. I was praying with a friend who had asked me to come see him. He had some pretty severe problems going on in his life and wanted to talk in private. This was when I was in an AG Bible college. Both of us were students. After we talked a while, we began to pray. Then the Spirit "came over me" and I began to do an "utterance in tongues." I "sensed" it was the type which would have an interpretation. However, no interpretation "came" through either of us. It got very quiet and we both opened our eyes. My friend looked at me with a "stunned" or "amazed" gaze. "Do you know Latin, Rick?" he asked. "No, just a word or two from theology terms. Why do you ask?" I replied. "Because you just spoke in perfect Latin! I took it for four years in high school! Are you sure you don't know Latin?" he queried. "I'm positive," I said. I asked him what I was saying. Still in awe, he replied that I had said (something like), "O, Jesus, Jesus! Praise be to You! For You are the Chief Executive of the Most High! - above all powers in the heavenly realms! O, Glory to You, Glory to You, Jesus, O, Jesus!" That's as best I can recall it - (and isn't that really awesome? Praise God)! This was in about 1979. I have not seen my friend since about 1980 and don't know if he ever overcame his problems. He was to have married a lady from college, but confessed to me he had been a homosexual before his conversion and coming to Bible college. He couldn't seem get over his attraction to men at the time and broke off the engagement - (being very, very sad as he loved his fiance, but had no sexual attraction to her). I've tried to locate him with no success, and don't know if he is still following the Lord. If he's still alive, I'm sure he will never forget our "prayer meeting." May the Lord be with him, Amen.

Secondly, from a friend who went to an international charismatic conference in Africa. He was born in America but moved to Brazil at age 8. Thus, he speaks English and Portuguese. During a time of praise in the conference, my friend heard a man from Holland speaking in tongues. The man did not know Portuguese...but "spoke it perfectly"...as I had in Latin. I've forgotten what was "said" - but it was very similar to what had "come" through me: Exalting and praising God and Christ! My friend has terminal cancer and has outlived the doctors' "his predicted end." He's Fr. Joe Kennedy, a former (active) priest; now attending Mass and 2 Protestant churches (as his health permits). I should be seeing Joe in a day or so and will ask him (again) what the Dutch man "said", write it down, and post it - Lord willing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I know a young man on another forum who keeps up with the latest books on charismatic issues. He's charismatic, and a Calvinist. However, unlike many Calvinists, he doesn't make "it" his "big issue". Actually, I'll just give you a link to to -
ScottL's Blog @Theologica
At differing times, Scott has presented some really good book reviews, blog posts, and forum posts on charismatic stuff. I need to get back with him some time....
(as I seldom agree with Calvinists on much)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whatever tongues were, one historian pointed out they were supressed after the church became institutionalized due to the divisiveness that they caused. And I guess they still do.

I'm attending Ginghamsburg Church (United Methodist). Last summer, Pastor Mike Slaughter did a series on the Holy Spirit. At the beginning of the series he announced that he would talk about all of the spiritual gifts, including tongues. (I know from "insiders" that Pastor Mike, his wife, and several others in the church exercise tongues as a "prayer language"). I was expecting Pastor to speak about this, but he never did. I don't know if he may have succumbed to pressure from other people in the church to not speak about it(?). The UMC has a separate "association" within the denomination designed especially for charismatics. However, speaking in tongues - and perhaps - speaking about speaking in tongues, is not encouraged in the denomination. I don't know Pastor well enough to ask him about this. But then again, maybe I do....he is at Bible study early. I just may, I just may.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good to "see" you again, Homer!
God Bless you!

[danieklerr]

Hello, all. First Post..

I have been trying to look it up in the Strongs, but I don't know how to use the version on my computer just yet. Does anyone know if the words in the Greek are different in reference to "tongues" in I Corinthians vs in Acts. Basically, I am wondering if the word in Acts is specifically noted as Xenolalia, or if the word is "γλωσσολαλιά" (glossolalia) like it is in I Corinthians.

Thank you for your time. -Daniel

[Homer]

Hi Daniel,

"Glossollalia" is not in the Greek text. It is a "made up" word, a combination of glossa (language) and laleo (to speak).

Here is an interesting article on the subject (rather long):

http://www.beretta-online.com/articles/ ... 1cor14.pdf

God bless, Homer

[DanielGracely]

Re: The Gift of Tongues: The only thing I ever read that made sense to me were two articles by Robert Zerhusen. Googling his name and the word "tongues" will bring you to at least one of his articles, which (the last time I checked a few years ago) has a hyperlink to the other article.

Zerhusen argues that all the languages represented by the Jews present in Acts 2, which involved some 15 places besides Jerusalem and Judea, essentially represented ONLY Greek (in the case of the western Diaspora) OR Aramaic (in the case of the Eastern Diaspora), but in either case not languages unknown to the apostles and Jews in Palestine. (Zerhusen reminds us that Palestinian Jews were generally conversant with 3 languages: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.) Therefore Zerhusen claims that the mention of astonishment or of drunkenness by the hearers in Acts 2 stemmed not from any fact of miracle languages, but from the fact that Hebrew was the exclusive language used in all important Jewish religious convocations, even by those Jews of the Diaspora whose most natural language (“mother,” or “native” language) was not Hebrew. For the Jews the use of Hebrew remained the language of worship chiefly because of its use by God in the Old Testament, and because it served as a unifying cultural and ethnic feature for Jews across their geographical boundaries. (I read another essay where Zerhusen claims that all archaeological, lexical, and historical evidence, e.g. Jewish ossuaries (but also much other evidence), shows that the native (or mother) language was ONLY Greek or Aramaic, never a more local language, such as Demotic Egyptian or Lycaonian. This fact is something we today find hard to understand, since presently there are Spanish Jews, French Jews, German Jews, etc., all of whose mother or native language is the respective local language.) Thus Zerhusen claims that the astonishment in Acts 2 (or even the ridicule about drunkenness) was owing to the Jews no longer hearing the “Higher” language of their worship but the “other tongues” i.e., “Lower” (their common, everyday, mother, native) languages of Greek and Aramaic, neither of which they used in their religious, diasporic settings. The miracle in Acts 2, then, according to Zerhusen, was not miracle languages, but the bold proclamation of the Spirit by ordinary “sons and daughters,” as Joel foretold. I don’t think Zerhusen is arguing that God could NOT have performed a miracle of languages, but simply that miracle languages is not scripturally or historically supportable in Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 12-14. (When I emailed Zerhusen for his opinion about Babel, trying to see his general attitude toward the miraculous and languages, he replied (in effect) that he believed Babel was a divine, miraculous intervention, something I agree with.)

But regarding the Corinthian church, Zerhusen points out that its cultural setting was that of a crossroads seaport, and church members did NOT always understand one another’s mother (or native) language. This is because the group in the Corinthian church, unlike the group in Acts 2, was essentially comprised of Jews AND Gentiles, some of whose native tongue was not Greek. Hence, the church gathering could not be edified if someone wished to speak in a language alien to all or many of the rest. While a speaker in a non-Greek native language would be most fluent in his own tongue, and therefore able to express most succinctly his thoughts in the language most familiar to himself, it would be fruitless to the gathering for him to speak if an interpreter (translator) was not present. (Zerhusen equates “interpretation” with “translation.”) Further, the fact that all worshipers were at least crudely (or relatively) conversant in Greek did not mean that a speaker really understood the nuance needed for the kind of effective translation that truly equated with his speech, and therefore someone with the (especial) gift of translation (“interpretation”) was often needed. As for the statement about the speaker’s mind not being fruitful, Zerhusen explains, based on his understanding of Greek in the context of Paul’s discussion, that this can mean that the speaker’s mind, or thoughts, were (Gr. lit.) “barren” (“fruitless”), by which Zerhusen understands that the thoughts of the speaker were fruitless to the group's benefit, not, of course, to the benefit of the speaker himself. Hence, Paul’s dyadic perspective comes into play, in which the apostle shows that he is more concerned with the Body’s experience than with the experience of any particular member.

[TK]

DanielGracely--

does zerhusen say what the "gift" of tongues is-- does he say it is simply the knowledge of how to speak a different language? I am not sure why that would be a gift- a knack maybe. some people pick up laguages more easily than others-- is this what he says the gift of tongues is-- i.e. the talent to speak a second or third language?

TK

[DanielGracely]

TK,

Oddly enough, I found myself asking the very same question this morning before picking up your comment. I just don’t remember if Zerhusen addresses that point, but I will try to look into it. Frankly, I recently found (when a friend asked me about another point in Zerhusen’s article) that I could no longer recall all of Zerhusen’s answers to the kind of natural objections some readers think of. Plus it's been a few years since I went through his articles.

If I can find the answer to your question I’ll try to get back to you by tomorrow. If I need to write to Zerhusen (assuming I can contact him) I don’t know how long it might take to receive a reply, since these are vacation days for a lot of folks. But thanks for the question—it’s a good one. Either way I’ll try to get back to you by tomorrow.