Charismatic Glossolalia: An empirical-theological study 0754615960, 2001041342, 9780754615965

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Abbreviations
Foreword
Acknowledgements
1 Introduction
2 An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology
Introduction
The Empirical Theology of Johannes A. van der Ven
An Evangelical-Charismatic Hermeneutic
Epistemology
3 The Voices and Context of the People
Introduction
Methods
Church Context: Sudley Christian Fellowship
Interviewees
Data Analysis
Results
Categorization of Data
Discussion
Concluding Remarks
4 A Survey of the Literature
Introduction
New Testament Studies
Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology
Behavioural Science Studies
5 A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia
Introduction
Quantitative Research: A Definition of Some Terms and Concepts
Theological Perception and Reflection Summary
Hypotheses
Operationalization
The Survey
Description of the Research Population
Scale Construction
Results
Theological Interpretation: Reflection on the Glossolalia Symbols
6 A Theology for the People
Introduction
The Empirical-Theological Process of Glossolalia
The Symbolic Configuration of Glossolalia
A Trinitarian Sacrament of the Kingdom of God
Charismatic Glossolalia and Theologia Crucis
Practical Theological Consequences
Concluding Remarks
7 Conclusion
Summary
Methodological Reflection
Future research
Bibliography
Author Index
Content Index

Citation preview

CHARISMATIC GLOSSOLALIA 'Given the exciting and energetic spread of Charismatic Christianity across the world, the systematic empirical exploration of a fundamental aspect of Charismatic practice (speaking in tongues) is long overdue. Mark Cartledge's scholarly and readable text provides a foundational study that future readers and scholars will not be able to ignore.' - William K. Kay 'Mark Cartledge has put us all in his debt. This work crystallizes his methodologically innovative, sure-footed, and theologically perceptive, analysis of glossolalia. This is an important model for all future studies of religious experience in the contemporary scene.' - Max Turner, London Bible College, UK What is the nature and function of the Pentecostal/Charismatic gift of speaking in tongues? Charismatic Glossolalia aims to answer this question. Drawing on detailed observations and interviews with people who themselves speak in tongues, as well as survey data, Cartledge presents explanations on the meaning of this gift for both the participants and their churches. Cartledge argues that an understanding of the gift of speaking in tongues emerges as a symbol of divine-human encounter, especially associated with the context of prayer and worship and symbolizing a sense of beauty, awe, power, intimacy and faith-building. In theological terms, speaking in tongues may be described as Trinitarian, sacramental and as demonstrating an important feature of the Kingdom of God. An extensive literature review considers material from the New Testament, Pentecostal and Charismatic theology, and the behavioural and social sciences. This book offers a unique contribution to Pentecostal and Charismatic scholarship, as well as the emerging scholarly tradition of Practical Theology.

ASHGATE NEW CRITICAL THINKING IN THEOLOGY & BIBLICAL STUDIES Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Theology & Biblical Studies presents an open-ended series of quality research drawn from an international field of scholarship. The series aims to bring monograph publishing back into focus for authors, the international library market, and student, academic and research readers. Headed by an international editorial advisory board of acclaimed scholars, this series presents cutting-edge research from established as well as exciting new authors in the field. With specialist focus, yet clear contextual presentation, books in the series aim to take theological and biblical research into new directions, opening the field to new critical debate within the traditions, into areas of related study, and into important topics for contemporary society.

Series Editorial Board: Paul Fiddes, Regent's Park College, University of Oxford, UK Anthony Thiselton, University of Nottingham, UK Jeffrey Astley, NEICE, University of Durham, UK Timothy Jervis Gorringe, University of Exeter, UK Alan Torrance, St Andrews University, UK Adrian Thatcher, College of St Mark & St John, Plymouth, UK Mary Grey, Sarum College, Salisbury, UK Richard Roberts, University of Lancaster, UK Judith M. Lieu, King's College London, UK Terrence Tilley, University of Dayton, Ohio, USA Rebecca S. Chopp, Emory University, USA Miroslav Volf, Yale Divinity School, USA Edward Farley, Vanderbilt University, USA Stanley J. Grenz, Carey Theological College, Vancouver, Canada Vincent B rummer, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands Gerhard Sauter, University of Bonn, Germany

Charismatic Glossolalia An empirical-theological study

MARK J. CARTLEDGE St John's College, Durham, UK

13 Routledge Taylor &> Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 2002 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX 14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © Mark J. Cartledge 2002 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Cartledge, Mark J. Charismatic glossolalia : an empirical-theological study. (Ashgate new critical thinking in theology & biblical studies) 1. Glossolalia I. Title 234.1'32 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cartledge, Mark J., 1962Charismatic glossolalia : an empirical-theological study / Mark J. Cartledge. p. cm. — (Ashgate new critical thinking in theology & biblical studies) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7546-1596-0 1. Glossolalia. 2. Pentecostalism—England—Merseyside. I. Title. II. Series. BT122.5.C372001 234'.132-dc21

2001041342

ISBN 13: 978-0-7546-1596-5 (hbk) Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this book but points out that some imperfections from the original may be apparent.

Contents List of Figures List of Tables Abbreviations Foreword by Leslie J. Francis Acknowledgements

vii ix xi xiii xv

1 Introduction

1

2 An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology Introduction The Empirical Theology of Johannes A. van der Ven An Evangelical-Charismatic Hermeneutic Epistemology

7 7 7 17 22

3 The Voices and Context of the People Introduction Methods Church Context: Sudley Christian Fellowship Interviewees Data Analysis Results Categorization of Data Discussion Concluding Remarks

29 29 29 32 37 39 40 52 53 57

4 A Survey of the Literature Introduction New Testament Studies Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology Behavioural Science Studies

61 61 61 70 85

5 A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia Introduction Quantitative Research: A Definition of Some Terms and Concepts Theological Perception and Reflection Summary Hypotheses V

131 131 131 134 137

vi

Charismatic Glossolalia Operationalization The Survey Description of the Research Population Scale Construction Results Theological Interpretation: Reflection on the Glossolalia Symbols

141 142 143 145 147 172

6 A Theology for the People Introduction The Empirical-Theological Process of Glossolalia The Symbolic Configuration of Glossolalia A Trinitarian Sacrament of the Kingdom of God Charismatic Glossolalia and Theologia Crucis Practical Theological Consequences Concluding Remarks

187 187 187 190 193 200 203 205

7 Conclusion Summary Methodological Reflection Future research

215 215 216 217

Bibliography Author Index Content Index Scripture Index

219 241 247 251

List of Figures 2.1 3.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

The empirical-theological cycle of charismatic glossolalia The purpose of glossolalia: categories and subcategories Glossolalia: the theological-conceptual model Trinitarian models The glossolalia symbol of beauty The glossolalia symbol of awe The glossolalia symbol of power The glossolalia symbol of intimacy The glossolalia symbol of faith-building The glossolalia symbol of vulnerability

vn

16 54 137 140 170 171 172 173 174 175

This page intentionally left blank

List of Tables 3.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22

Experience of glossolalia The churches Correlation between gender and glossolalia symbols One-way analysis of variance: age by glossolalia symbols One-way analysis of variance: marital status by glossolalia symbols Correlation between glossolalia symbols and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Correlation between glossolalia symbols Correlation between glossolalia and prayer symbols One-way analysis of variance: frequency of glossolalia by glossolalia symbols Correlation between glossolalia symbols and experience/ understanding of glossolalia Correlation between glossolalia symbols and experience/ understanding of glossolalia Correlation between glossolalia symbols and the experience of the Charismatic movement One-way analysis of variance: denominations by glossolalia symbols Correlation between glossolalia symbols and Trinitarian theology One-way analysis of variance: Trinitarian theology by glossolalia symbols Regression analysis (1): glossolalia Regression analysis (2): glossolalia Regression analysis: prayer Regression analysis: Trinitarian theology Regression analysis: charismatic experience and socialization Regression analysis (1): glossolalia experience and understanding Regression analysis (2): glossolalia experience and understanding Regression analysis: Eysenck Personality Questionnaire

IX

41 144 148 149 150 151 151 152 153 154 155 155 156 157 158 159 161 163 164 165 167 168 169

This page intentionally left blank

Abbreviations AJPS BibSac CBQ EJT EvQ ExpT HTR JAAR JASA JBL JBV JET JPT JSSR JTS NDT NTS NovT Pneuma RRR SJT TDNT TS WTJ

Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies Bibliotheca Sacra Catholic Biblical Quarterly European Journal of Theology Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Harvard Theological Review Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Beliefs and Values Journal of Empirical Theology Journal of Pentecostal Theology Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Journal of Theological Studies New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988) New Testament Studies Novum Testamentum PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies Review of Religious Research Scottish Journal of Theology Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-) Theological Studies Westminster Theological Journal

XI

This page intentionally left blank

Foreword When the Journal of Empirical Theology was launched within the Catholic University of Nijmegen in the mid-1980s it became clear that an innovative and challenging way of doing practical theology had come of age in Continental Europe. Mark Cartledge has built creatively on this tradition and has helped demonstrate the relevance of empirical theology for the ministry and mission of the Churches in Britain. The strengths of empirical theology are twofold. On the one hand, empirical theology takes seriously problems set by the Churches and does so in a theologically informed way. For the present study the problem is that of charismatic glossolalia. On the other hand, empirical theology takes seriously methods shaped by the social sciences and does so in a scientifically informed way. For the present study these methods include both qualitative techniques like participant observation and quantitative techniques like psychometric scaling. To combine these two perspectives the empirical theologian must be professionally competent in both theology and the social sciences. In Charismatic Glossolalia Mark Cartledge offers a clear model of empirical theology in practice. Behind this presentation there is a great deal of painstaking and careful collection and analysis of data. These data provide the evidence on which informed judgements in practical theology can be made. My hope is that the author is already busily engaged in organizing the empirical data for his next study. The Church stands to benefit from such a commitment to evidence. At the same time, ordinands, clergy and bishops need to be trained in understanding and appreciating the contribution of empirical theology to the ministry and mission of the Church. Here is a clear contribution which can be made by the Chaplain and Tutor of such a wellestablished college concerned with ministry training. Leslie J. Francis Centre for Ministry Studies University of Wales, Bangor

Xlll

This book is dedicated to the memory of my parents: William Edward Cartledge (1922-1999), Carmel Mary Cartledge (1925-2000).

Acknowledgements This book started life, as have many before it, as a doctoral dissertation. Therefore the list of the many who have helped me along the way includes those who assisted in the doctoral work and those who enabled the dissertation to be turned into a book. I want to thank my immediate family, my wife Joan and daughter Rebekah, for support throughout this research. Joan has encouraged me continually and offered support particularly with computer help at various stages. Rebekah has, unfortunately, been deprived of her father at times when she could reasonably have expected me to be there. Her question as to when daddy would become a doctor of velocity has become a continued source of fun. She can now say the word 'philosophy'! I only hope that she has noticed the move from doctoral to post-doctoral research and writing! I also want to thank my doctoral supervisor, William Kay, not only for his enormous help but for becoming a friend. I am grateful to him for his constant encouragement, not only with this dissertation/book but also with publications associated with it. I am especially grateful to him for rereading Chapter 5 as it was being prepared for this publication. Also, I want to thank Leslie Francis for advice and support throughout my research. I am extremely grateful to those churches which participated in the study. I owe a special debt to those who participated in this study, especially those involved in the empirical research process and who remain anonymous: you know who you are! Thank you. There are other people who deserve to be mentioned by name for their assistance at various stages. These include: Mark Bonnington, Gill Boughton, David Davies, Bob Fyall, Rob Innes and Iain Slater. Jeff Astley suggested that I approach Ashgate as a publisher and I am thankful to Sarah Lloyd for guiding me through the process of publishing my first book. My interest in pneumatology has its roots in undergraduate study (1982-1985). For this I am indebted to Max Turner's New Testament lectures and writing. Max continues to be a source of inspiration and encouragement for which I am extremely thankful. St Luke's College Foundation provided a grant which eased the financial burden of fees. This was most appreciated both then and now. I wish to acknowledge permission for previously published material to be reproduced in this book. Permission has been gratefully received from the named publishers for the following articles I have written:

xvi

Charismatic Glossolalia

Paternoster Press, PO Box 300, Carlisle, Cumbria, CAS OQS, UK for: 'Practical Theology and Empirical Identity', European Journal of Theology, 7(1), 1998, pp. 39-42; 'The Nature and Function of New Testament Glossolalia', Evangelical Quarterly 72(7), 2000, pp. 135-50. Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium for: The Symbolism of Charismatic Glossolalia', Journal of Empirical Theology, 12(1), 1999, pp. 37-50. Sheffield Academic Press, Mansion House, 19 Kingfield Road, Sheffield, Sll 9AS, UK for: 'Empirical Theology: Towards an Evangelical-Charismatic Hermeneutic', Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 9, 1996, pp. 115-26. Taylor & Francis Ltd, PO Box 25, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3UE (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals) for: 'Empirical Theology: Inter- or Intra- Disciplinary?', Journal of Beliefs and Values, 20(1), 1999, pp. 98-104. Scripture citations are from the New International Version (NIV) © 1973, 1978, 1984 by the International Bible Society.

Chapter 1

Introduction In the last quarter of the twentieth century there was an explosion of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity. Indeed, the churches which appear to be growing are from these traditions characterised by exuberant worship, dynamic evangelism, spiritual gifts and healing. The Pentecostal and Charismatic movements are now producing an increasing number of scholars who are critical participants. This scholarship has been especially interested in what many have considered to be the focus of such movements - 'speaking in tongues', otherwise known as 'glossolalia'. As the literature review (Chapter 4) makes abundantly clear, there has already been a vast amount written on the subject of charismatic glossolalia, so any further work needs to take a slightly different perspective. Hence this study is from the perspective of 'empirical theology' - an emerging paradigm within practical theology. Since Chapter 2 reviews this methodology, and my own contributions to it, only a brief outline is given at this juncture. This study has two principal aims: first, to reconsider contemporary charismatic glossolalia from within the British context; and, second, to employ the empirical-theological methodology of Johannes A. van der Ven in the research task.1 First, the central question which this study aims to investigate is: what is the nature and function of charismatic glossolalia? In this regard the project is interested in charismatic glossolalia as it is manifested within the New Church movement in Britain, formerly called the House Church movement, although it is also interested in classical Pentecostal and other free Churches within the Charismatic movement, but excluding Church of England churches. Within this main question there are other questions concerning the linguisticality of glossolalia, its acquisition, context of practice, purpose and significance. These areas provoke subquestions within the overall question. It is because the orientation of this study is with the faith and practice (that is, theological praxis) of those within the contemporary Charismatic movement that an empirical-theological approach was chosen. The overall question is being asked within the discourse of theology, although the social sciences are used to enable the exploration. In this sense, this enterprise is a study of the theological praxis within the life-world of the Charismatic movement on Merseyside. It is suggested, however, that the results of this exploration have wider implications for the British context. Vern S. Poythress defines speaking in tongues, or glossolalia, as 'free 1

2

Charismatic Glossolalia

vocalization' - that is, a connected sequence of speech sounds which do not properly belong to a language that the speaker knows and which the speaker cannot identify. It occurs most frequently in the context of Christian worship2 and the casual observer might suppose that the sounds emitted constitute an unknown language. This provides a useful working definition because it clearly identifies the phenomenon and yet remains open to questions regarding its linguistic validity and function. There is often a distinction made between 'xenolalia' as referring to real human languages and 'glossolalia' as speech which defies linguistic classification and may be 'nonsense' language. The literature reviews map out the terminology in more detail. This study uses the term 'glossolalia' as a synonym for what Poythress calls 'tongues speech'. Therefore it may or may not be xenolalia; that cannot simply be assumed a priori. The aim is to avoid begging such an important question at the outset of the study. The present Charismatic movement is an inheritor of twentieth-century Pentecostal spirituality, the main tenets of which it has assimilated. In other words, it is a continuation of the Pentecostal spiritual tradition outside Pentecostal denominations. Although Pentecostalism has roots in the Wesleyan Holiness movements, its beginnings are associated with the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles led by William Joseph Seymour in 1906.3 The Revival lasted three years, but it spread to Holiness churches throughout the USA and beyond. Alexander A. Boddy, an Anglican priest working in Sunderland, and his colleague and supporter Cecil Polhill, are associated with the early Pentecostal movement in Britain from 1908: this produced Pentecostal denominations in the period after 1915, which remain to this day.4 The Charismatic movement in Britain is normally associated with the inauguration of the Fountain Trust in 1964 as Pentecostal spirituality began to affect established Protestant and Catholic denominations.5 At this time, there emerged a separate charismatic group of churches known as the House Churches, because they originated from meetings in houses.6 Although some suggest that this movement is an offshoot of the main Charismatic movement, many House church leaders have maintained that they originally had no connection with the Charismatic movement and the renewal of existing denominations. Joyce Thurman has argued that while the House churches originated independently of each other and the Charismatic movement, their ranks were increased by charismatic Christians leaving traditional denominations.7 These House Churches are now called New Churches and they are a settled feature of British Christianity. It is estimated that approximately 150-200 000 adults align themselves with these New Churches, and this makes them half the size of British Methodism and larger than the British Baptist Union and the United Reformed Church. However, unlike these other denominations, 80 per cent of people from the New Churches are within the 18^1-5 age range.8 In addition to these groups, there emerged in the 1980s a group which has

Introduction

3

been labelled Third Wave'.9 These churches are associated with the Vineyard network of churches and the ministry of John Wimber.10 They have been very influential in the British Charismatic movement to date. Churches within the Charismatic movement are identified primarily by their emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and the Church. In this regard it has specific features from classical Pentecostalism, namely: a crisis spiritual experience known as 'Baptism in the Spirit' (alternatively known as being 'filled by the Spirit', 'released by the Spirit'); and the exercise of spiritual gifts such as prophecy, healing and glossolalia. Early charismatics stress the importance of the 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit' (evidenced by glossolalia), but more recently it has been regarded as less significant. Instead, prayer ministry has become the focus, together with notable experiences which attend such ministry - for example, the Toronto Blessing (falling over, laughing and weeping as the Spirit encounters people). Michael Welker, a theologian and outside commentator on the Charismatic movement, gives a useful description of its contours in terms of the following characteristics: 1 Members of the Charismatic movement emphasize that they have experienced with new power the reality and presence of God. One particular component of this experience is recognition of the vitality and contemporary meaning of the biblical world. Another component is development of the capacity - often experienced for the first time - to pray, to enjoy prayer, and to talk about God in a new way with joy and power. 2 Members of the Charismatic movement emphasize that they have come to a new awareness of community and to new community experiences. In this regard members often emphasize the connection between enjoyment of the community and communal proclamation and glorification of God. 3 Members of the Charismatic movement emphasize that, among themselves the abundance and diversity of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12. 8-10; Rom. 12. 6-8; 1 Pet. 4. 10-11) are taken seriously. They also insist that the gifts and endowments of individual human beings are thereby discovered and valued. They say that this leads to dismantling the separation of persons within the community into professionals who play the lead roles and laity who have only minor parts. 4 Members of the Charismatic movement emphasize that for them, the relativizing and removing of confessional boundaries, and an attendant opening to an ecumenical Christianity, have become an important sign of the power of the Spirit's action. 5 Finally, members of the Charismatic movement emphasize the experience termed 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' - an experience that is evidently difficult for them to describe. This baptism can be followed by speaking in tongues. For members of

4

Charismatic Glossolalia Pentecostal churches and for Neo-Pentecostals, the succession is inevitable. Speaking in tongues is regarded above all as the acquisition of a new form of prayer language, a new way to express oneself in prayer, to give utterance to spiritual power, and to praise God.11

These characteristics can, and must, be expanded to include exuberance in praise and worship, the use of the body such as the raising of arms, the laying on of hands in prayer and features such as dance and the use of the arts in worship. Indeed, Mark Bonnington states that '[wjorship stands at the heart of House Church self-consciousness'.12 In this study, the term 'charismatic' is used as an adjective describing those participants within the movement. These definitions are simply working definitions to enable the reader to chart his or her way through the mass of material on the Charismatic movement contained within this book. More detailed definitions and descriptions will be found throughout Chapter 4. This study uses the empirical-theological methodology of Johannes A. van der Ven as a basic framework and includes both qualitative and quantitative empirical data as a means of exploring the research question. This research process is based on an understanding of theology that is essentially practical. One starts with the concrete belief and action (theological praxis) of people and returns to it. Therefore, after the initial formulation of the research question, the researcher enters into the concrete situation of those whom he or she wishes to investigate. Empirical material gathered from that exploration is then taken and used in dialogue with the theoretical and empirical literature. From this engagement, certain specific theories and hypotheses are formulated and tested. This means encountering empirical data a second time, although with a different set of people. The results from this empirical data then feed back into a theological discussion, which in turn makes recommendations for renewed theological praxis. Chapter 2 offers a substantial engagement with the work of van der Ven and, as the nature of van der Yen's approach means that any serious engagement will be of a technical kind, some readers may wish to omit this chapter initially and return to it at a later stage. The construction of the book reflects this methodological approach (see Figure 2.1). Chapter 3 demonstrates a case study approach to a church in Liverpool, which is the first engagement with concrete theological praxis. The material from this case study is used inductively and enables the empirical context itself to raise questions not previously considered within the literature. Chapter 4 is the literature review chapter and reflects the research which has already been completed in this area. In Chapter 5, empirical material is refined in the light of the literature review and specific hypotheses operationalized by means of a questionnaire survey of 29 churches in the Merseyside area. Chapter 6 discusses the implications of this research and, in light of a dialogue with contemporary Pentecostal and Charismatic theology, offers an empirical

Introduction

5

theology of charismatic glossolalic praxis that is both critical and constructive. In the light of an empirical theology of charismatic glossolalia, recommendations are made to the case study church in terms of theological praxis. As such, it is a form of contextual theology. Chapter 7 gives a summary of the research findings, offers an empirical-methodological reflection on the process of research, and then suggests lines of inquiry for future research.

Notes 1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9

10 11 12

Van der Yen, Johannes A. (1993), Practical Theology: An Empirical Approach, Kok Pharos, Kampen. Poythress, Vern S. (1979), 'Linguistic and Sociological Analyses of Modern Tongue-Speaking', WTJ, 42, pp. 367-88 at p. 369. See: Hollenweger, Walter J. (1972), The Pentecostals, London: SCM; Hollenweger, Walter J. (1997), Pentecostalism: Origins and Development Worldwide, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson; Cox, Harvey (1996), Fire From Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Tewnty-First Century, London: Cassell; Synan, Vinson (1997), The Holiness—Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kay, William K. (2000), Pentecostals in Britain, Carlisle: Paternoster. See Scotland, Nigel (1995), Charismatics and the Next Millennium: Do They Have a Future?, London: Hodder & Stoughton; also Harper, Michael (1965), As At the Beginning, London: Hodder & Stoughton. See Walker, Andrew (1985), Restoring the Kingdom, London: Hodder & Stoughton; cf. Turner, Max (1989), 'Ecclesiology in the Major "Apostolic" Restorationist Churches in the United Kingdom', Vox Evangelica, 19, pp. 83-108. Thurman, Joyce (1982), New Wineskins, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, p. 23. Bonnington, Mark (1999), The New Churches', unpublished paper, Durham: St. John's College, p. 1. Springer, Kevin (ed.) (1987), Riding the Third Wave: What Comes After Renewal?, Basingstoke: Marshall Pickering. In this typology, the first wave is Classical Pentecostalism and second wave is the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960s-1970s. See Wimber, John with Springer, Kevin (1985), Power Evangelism: Signs and Wonders Today, London: Hodder & Stoughton; Wimber, John with Springer, Kevin (1986), Power Healing, London: Hodder & Stoughton. Welker, Michael (1994), God the Spirit, Minneapolis: Fortress, pp. 11-13. Bonnington, 'The New Churches' (n. 8), p. 1.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 2

An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology Introduction The area of practical theology is a fast developing discipline as the impact of the social sciences continues to have a vital influence upon it. Within this discipline there is emerging a subdiscipline called empirical theology, which seeks to integrate empirical methods into theology. The notion of empirical investigation being used by theology is not new and has been explored earlier in the twentieth century. However, it was not until the Department of Empirical Theology was established in the 1970s at the Catholic University of Nijmegen that publications in this area started to appear; and it was not until 1988 that the Journal of Empirical Theology was launched to advance empirical theology internationally. In 1993 Johannes van der Ven, the Professor of the department in Nijmegen, published Practical Theology: An Empirical Approach which advanced a paradigm for the discipline.1 It is this model which forms the starting point for this discussion. The hermeneutical foundation is described together with the use of empiricism in the empirical-theological cycle, but the aim of this chapter is to move beyond it and suggest a distinctive perspective which emerges from my own evangelical-charismatic commitment. The Empirical Theology of Johannes A. van der Ven Van der Ven argues that theology should be conceived as an empirical discipline in the sense that it aims to explore, describe and test theological ideas contained within a specific context. The direct object of empirical theology therefore is the faith and practice of people concerned. The social sciences are used to further this enterprise, and theology is dependent on these disciplines within practical theology. He argues that theology gathers into itself the appropriate techniques and methods to facilitate this development that is, the overall framework of thought is theology and the hypotheses to be tested are theological. In this sense theology's relationship to the social sciences is described as 'intra-disciplinary'.2 This is an innovation in the discussion of the relationship between theology and the social sciences. 7

8

Charismatic Glossolalia

Hermeneutic Communicative Praxis Van der Ven draws from the wells of liberation theology but his equally dominant theoretical position is borrowed from Jurgen Habermas - namely, his theory of communicative praxis.3 Everything in the realm of practical theology is viewed through the merging lens of communicative praxis and liberation theology which becomes a hermeneutical framework.4 The praxis concept is taken from the more recent interest of Catholic theology in heilsgeschichte, 'which holds that God's saving grace is realised in and through the historical actions of [hu]mankind'.5 Therefore theology can be understood as a critical theory of religious praxis. The basic structure of such praxis is: ... the communication between people within the societal conditions formed of economic, political, social and cultural institutions, of which the church is one. Practical theology ... focuses, as a practical science, on the question whether and how this communicative activity within the conditions of the church and other societal institutions occur, whether and how it should and can be improved. The question of improvement is not purely technical or methodical... [it] is founded in the normative, or religious-normative basis of communicative activity, which has its origin and its goal in universal solidarity.6

This is connected to a concern for a liberation from suffering and the hermeneutical task of interpreting modern and ancient texts within the Christian tradition. This process is regarded as a dialogue through which meaning emerges. Indeed, such an approach results in many interpretations and theological diversity. However, despite these conflicts of interpretation, 'priority must be given to those who suffer from economic, political and cultural discrimination, lack of freedom and alienation'.7 This in turn is coupled with an ideological-critical approach which seeks to disclose connections between ideas and power. While communicative praxis will inevitably contain pluralism and conflict, van der Ven understands the goals of communication as operating at three levels: first, the exchange of views; second, an understanding of these views; and, third, a striving for consensus. One ultimately attempts to achieve consensus. In this communication there remains the free exchange and understanding of opinions, measured against the standards of truth, Tightness and authenticity.8 In addition, van der Ven posits four criteria for what he calls normative praxis. The first criterion is equality - that is, the acceptance in communication that the other person has the same right to speak and to disagree with me. Second, the principle of freedom encourages an attitude of openness, tolerance and respect. Third, that freedom of communication is rooted in the subjectivity of those engaged and it is directed against deception and self-deception. This means that no one may be excluded from

An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology

9

communication - the principle of horizontal universality. To this he adds the dimension of history and the idea of vertical universality, which includes the martyrs, the victims and the dead, who still have something to contribute to the discussion. These two principles point to a fourth criterion, namely universal solidarity.9 The liberation concern is once again to the fore when he says: '... commitment to freedom, universality and solidarity that is intrinsic to all real communication necessarily demands absolute universal liberation and reconciliation in the religious sense'.10 To develop this theme further, van der Ven uses the idea of time and, in particular, eschatology. He sees the eschatological approach to time within the historical religious traditions as dialectic, with 'its attention to the "now" of the present'.11 'Characteristic of the eschatological approach is an attitude of critical memory of the past, providing unceasing inspiration and orientation for a praxis aimed at realizing the potentialities of the future'.12 Van der Ven also turns to the communicative praxis of Jesus, and in particular, his use of the basileia symbol. This symbol is used both 'to evoke an intense experience of God's being as king (God's 'king-dom') and to stimulate engagement and participatory praxis' B and to enable a 'disclosure experience' of God and to enable commitment. It has a plurality of meanings and it is subject to multiple interpretations. It is not a concept but rather 'a socio-historically functioning symbol',14 hence the inevitable corollary of plurality of meaning. The symbol is linked to the wisdom theology of creation and eschatology and thus provides a focus for a liberation theological interpretation. From a normative perspective, this symbol forms a 'metaethical basis from which questions about the success and failure of human communication can be adequately examined'.15 Van der Ven argues that the ethical principles of freedom, equality, universality and solidarity are essentially motivated by the basileia symbol, and all of these point again to the liberation motif. Empiricism Van der Ven sees the need for the praxis concept to be complemented by the concept of empiricism.16 For him this means that an empirical approach aims to describe and explain hermeneutic-communicative praxis as it occurs in reality which in turn involves determining the differences between characteristics of the praxis and tracing the relationships between them. This is achieved by making use of categorizing concepts, used in classifying subjects, and discovering the relationships between the characteristics. Either quantitative or a qualitative approach can be used, since both attempt to be objective by being inter subjective. The difference between description and explanation is the concern of explanation for the direction of the relationships between the categories. It seeks to explain the 'why?' of the relationship. The aim of such research is primarily for knowledge and secondarily for change -

10

Charismatic Glossolalia

that is, the pushing back and transcending of the limits encountered in hermeneutic communication towards normative and eschatological perspectives. The direct object of practical theology is hermeneutic communicative praxis, while God - usually conceived as the direct object of theological study - is, in causal terms, removed to being the indirect and ultimate object of practical theology. This is because an empirical study of cause and effect in theology is questionable, if not impossible. To discern causality by empirical means, van der Ven adopts a critical rational position: 'On the one hand it says that causal relationships are not directly perceivable, but on the other hand it takes the view that scientific theories refer to causal links about which they develop reasoned hypotheses, which at least are empirically falsifiable.'17 Finally, he opts for an interactionist view of the relationship between people and their environment, so that both may be perceived potentially as having causative effect. Van der Ven understands that the relationship between investigating a phenomenon and causing change is complex. He sees change as potentially being both the effect of research and its object and outlines five structural aspects of intentional change. First, the external, environmental conditions such as the use of power and the presence of conflict may influence the situation for change. Internal influences such as personalities and mutual relationships can also have an influence. Second, the goals which are set for the study can contribute by producing positive change or preventing an undesirable outcome. The criteria for deciding the goals are those previously mentioned: equality, freedom, universality and solidarity. The direction once again is liberation. Third, the means are financial and personal, whilst the methods refer to what are known as the final-causal relations between the totality of the actions and the goals, that is, the actions are considered to be the selected causes ("causal") and the goals the intended results ("final")'.18 Fourth, the enterprise is evaluated by asking whether the desired effects were achieved and what factors were involved. The result of this evaluation may be a change of goals. Fifth, the time intended for completing such a project is mapped out, together with the intended changes which are to take place within a given time period. The empirical research is to be evaluated within the hermeneutical communicative praxis. This hermeneutic is concerned with the pluralism and the conflicts of interpretations and the transcendence of the limits towards normative and eschatological perspectives as previously mentioned. The use of the definitive pronoun in such an evaluation is to be resisted since there are no definitive interpretations of the gospel. All approaches must be seen to be limited and therefore necessarily perspectival and aspectival. The evaluation is to be accomplished according to the internal criterion of whether the results of the study corroborate the original hypotheses. The external criterion of evaluation refers to the comparison with other studies and information, and by judging the results in light of the normative and eschatological principles previously noted.

An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology

11

Van der Ven considers whether practical theology should be viewed as monodisciplinary - in other words, as the application of theology to situations in church and society. In this approach ideas drawn from historical or systematic theology are applied to a concrete situation. However, there is no standard approach as to how theological insights might be applied in practice. Nowadays the multidisciplinary model is also used. This is a two-phase approach, in which an empirical description by a social scientist is followed by theological reflection, so that the theological enterprise is highly dependent on the social science analysis of the present situation. Alternatively, some have suggested an interdisciplinary model. This is an interactive model between the social sciences and theology which stresses reciprocity. If a multidisciplinary model is viewed sequentially as a series of monologues, then an interdisciplinary model is seen as a number of cooperative parallel dialogues. But, van der Ven asks, what are the criteria by which the practical theological hypotheses are evaluated? Are they social science or theological criteria? He suggests that often there is a power imbalance in the relationship because the social sciences do not need theology, but practical or empirical theology needs the social sciences. Finally, he opts for an intradisciplinary model, arguing that such a model requires that 'theology itself become empirical, that is, that it expand its traditional range of instruments, consisting of literary-historical and systematic methods and techniques, in the direction of an empirical methodology'.19 The term 'intradisciplinary' refers to the idea of borrowing concepts, methods and techniques from other disciplines and integrating these into another science.20 Van der Ven then deals with the objections to such an adaptation within theology. First, the question of adequacy is considered. Paul Tillich's assessment of the empirical-analytical approach to experience in theology can be summarized by the following. Tillich viewed the object of theology (that is, our ultimate concern and its concrete expressions) not to be an object within the whole scientific experience. It cannot be discovered by detached observation but only by surrender and participation. It cannot be tested by scientific methods of verification. The object of theology can only be verified by participation and takes a lifetime. In response to these objections, van der Ven agrees with Tillich that the believer apprehends God through faith and not directly through the practice of theology: The statement that God is the direct object of faith but not the direct object of theology means that we consider fundamentally important a clear distinction - not a separation...between faith and theology'.21 Van der Ven argues again that God is the direct object of faith and that faith is the direct object of theology. In addition, faith is also the goal of theology. Since no science is value-free, theology is bound to the value of faith. Faith also serves as a source of inspiration and orientation for theological activity. Therefore van der Ven holds that Tillich's reservations about empirical methodology do not apply. Tillich's second criticism regarding participation and commitment is responded to by van der Ven with

12

Charismatic Glossolalia

a critique of positivism, in agreement with Tillich. He again advocates critical rationalism and interactionism with the explicit definition of presuppositions and prejudgements. He defends the use of hypotheses by explaining the use of null hypotheses and the principle of falsification as distinct from verification.22 Therefore the view of verification, as held by Tillich, is no longer applicable and his criticism thereby invalidated. Finally, on the question of the objectivity of empirical research and the necessary faith commitment of theologians, as Tillich understands theology, van der Ven counters by arguing that theology does not function exclusively out of a 'participant perspective'. He sees theology as part of the general scenery of religious, philosophical and cultural perspectives. 'Within this dialogue the Christian claim of universality is not an axiom but rather a hypothesis to be critically tested'.23 The exclusivity of the quantitative method to which Tillich referred no longer exists with the increased use of qualitative methods in empirical research. Such qualitative methods require participation as distinct from the detachment of which Tillich speaks. Second, van der Ven asks: does empirical methodology hold a positive interest for practical theology? He seeks to answer this question by reference to hermeneutic-communicative praxis. There is a bipolarity of past tradition and present experience that is actualized in a process of communication. Empirical theology seeks to understand the present pole and contributes to the development of a hermeneutic of experience. Following Tillich again, he observes that Tillich understood that the Bible be studied using exegetical methods and Church history with the aid of historical methods and that culture be understood in the same fashion. However, Tillich fails to provide an answer as to how this might be done. In reply van der Ven provides the answer: Empirical theology ... is directed systematically and methodically toward the pole of the present, as manifested in the culture of the society in question, in the church in this society, and in pastoral work. It seeks to 'read' the 'ultimate concerns' of the present and understand their dialectical relationship with contemporary Christian faith.24

Empirical methodology enables practical theology to study the religious convictions, beliefs, images and feelings of people. It has both descriptive and explanatory value. This methodology can consequently contribute to concepts and theories within theology. Third, the problem of whether one can test theological concepts and theories on the basis of empirical measurement is evaluated. Van der Ven defines measurement as consisting in the exact definition and counting of characteristics. There are metric and non-metric scales of measurement in contrast to the popular conception of metric measurement only. Non-metric measurement refers to nominal and ordinal scales. Nominal categories include,

An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology

13

for example, gender, while ordinal categories refer to rank - for example, more or less active in church, or more or less religiously committed. 'Empirical research in theology does not study religious people, but rather the characteristics of the faith of religious people. Thus religious people are not "counted" and "tallied up"; only the characteristics which link them are correlated.'25 The modern concept of measurement is concerned with clarity of definition, which is one of the essential tasks of scientific theology. In the sense of clear definitions, theological scales of non-metric measurement exist. For example, typologies are a form of measurement. The use of numbers enables the relationships between the categories to be elaborated, with the use of correlation and regression analysis. This means that explanations can be developed. The Empirical Theological Cycle Van der Ven begins by asking: what is the relationship between experience and empiricism? He answers this question by reference to the experience cycle. This contains: first, perception - that is, the influence of the environment on a person, which is experienced via the senses; second, experimentation, describing the action of the person on the environment and the possible courses of action; third, examination, which refers to the investigation by the person of the alternatives and their contribution to various effects; and, fourth, assessment, which 'circumscribes the efforts to determine the value and meaning of the experiments'.26 In reality, the experience cycle is indivisible; the phases exist for analytical convenience. This approach places experience in an interactionist and action theory framework. Action is divided into active and passive actions - one interventionist the other receptive. Likewise, experience and empiricism can be divided into two aspects - perception and examination, which are deemed to be relatively passive, and experimentation and the assessment phase of experience, which are more active.27 This understanding of experience is foundational to the empirical-theological cycle.28 Perception corresponds methodologically to induction, experimentation to deduction, examination to testing, and assessment to evaluation. To these phases van der Ven adds the original one of the development of the problem and the goal. 'Empiricism', as used by van der Ven, refers to these five phases, which flow one from the other in a cycle, with the evaluation leading to the development of a new problem. This approach is not objectivist since, during the inductive phase, the researcher uses all the five senses and intuitive perceptions to let the data speak. It is not positivist since testing is preceded by the deductive phase where the interpretive framework is developed. It also guards against the charge of ascribing exclusive power to empirical data, since the evaluation phase safeguards against this by placing the data into a broader theoretical framework, which assesses its significance.

14

Charismatic Glossolalia

Induction refers to the observation of phenomena in the empirical reality: This involves the discovery and naming of classes of phenomena, and the uncovering of comparative, correlative and causal relationships between the phenomena'.29 This is followed by deduction where 'regularities' discovered in the empirical data are pursued by formulating and testing conjectures and expectations. The testing is completed on an entirely different set of data. Since van der Ven assumes that it is impossible to derive universal knowledge from specific cases, he adopts the philosophy of Karl Popper.30 To the question of how one acquires empirically tested general knowledge, he answers 'by deduction'. 'What, then, is the place of empirical investigation in this deduction? Popper's answer is that one must develop general conjectures out of specific (observed) regularities, declare these conjectures hypothetically applicable to other concrete cases, and test the validity of this application to those cases'.31 These conjectures and hypotheses are shaped in relation to existing theories, which in empiricaltheological research are, of course, primarily theological. Such hypotheses are tested by the route of falsification, which requires that the falsification of a null hypothesis should occur for a main hypothesis to be corroborated. The objective of such an approach is not to favour the original hypothesis, but to test it critically. The phases of the empirical-theological cycle are as follows: Development of the theological problem and goal 1 Theological problem development is linked to faith in God as the direct object of empirical-theological research, while God is the indirect object. Any problem or phenomenon which came under this area, as previously defined, would be open to research. 2 Development of a theological goal is also linked to faith in God as the ultimate goal of research, since empirical-theological investigations aim to improve the hermeneutic-communicative praxis and the transcending of the boundaries. Hermeneutic-communicative praxis is the object, goal and condition of empirical-theological research. Theological induction 3 Theological perception includes a range of perception from random to systematic perceptions. A random perception is without a previously established system of categories while systematic perception is characterized by the use of standardized instruments of observation. This includes both the options of participatory and non-participatory perception, overt and covert observation, and indirect and direct perception. Finally the difference between one's perception of others and perception of self must be considered. 4 Theological reflection is in a dialectic with perception, as preliminary conclusions lead to changes in perception. This is achieved by the

An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology

5

6

15

acquisition of literary knowledge of the field, including both theological and empirical literature. It ensures that reflection is guided by theory. Formulation of the theological question is specific and limited in character. It will depend on the previous knowledge in the field as to what type of question is formulated. It may be descriptive, explorative or hypothesis-testing. Empirical-theological research design is an explication of the question previously formulated. It may be quantitative or qualitative, or a combination of the two.

Theological Deduction I Theological conceptualization means that scientific theory must satisfy the requirements of: a) logical consistency, with the use of clear conceptual terms; b) mutual independency of statements - that is, not being derived from one another and situated on the same logical level; c) sufficiency, in the sense that theories 'must contain a sufficient amount of information so that empirically testable consequences can be derived from them'32; d) necessity, by which is meant that theories must not contain superfluous information. 8 The theological-conceptual model determines the operational method as well as the analytical technique. On the basis of the literature the model will contain concepts or variables, relationships between the variables and the research units. A theological-conceptual model contains at least two variables, one of which functions as the principal variable and is theological. From this model hypotheses can be derived. 9 Theological ope rationalization bridges the gap between the theoretical concepts and the empirical reality. It is the defining of concepts in terms of operations. Instruments used to measure hypotheses must be valid and reliable. Empirical-theological testing 10 Data collection concerns issues of questionnaire surveys, population, sample and collection. I1 Preparation of the data set consists of entering data into the computer, checking and cleaning the data. 12 Empirical-theological data analysis includes the phases of: a) description of research population; b) construction of theological and other attitudinal scales; c) determination of the holders of theological attitudes; d) determination of the context of theological attitudes; and e) explanation of the theological attitudes.

16

Charismatic Glossolalia

Theological evaluation 13 Theological interpretation focuses on a summary of the analytical results aimed at answering the theological question, in light of the theological problem and goal, and with particular emphasis upon theological conception. 14 Theological reflection is based on the results of theological interpretation. It is concerned with the discussion of the meaning and relevance of the results of the theological interpretation and the adequacy of the study. 15 Theological-methodological reflection concerns the methodological prerequisites for the implications for empirical-theological research as a whole, and the individual phases of the cycle. The empirical-theological cycle, as it is used in this study, is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Problem: Glossolalia (ch. 1)

Evaluation: Interpretation (ch. 5) Reflection (ch. 6) Methodological reflection (ch. 7)

Induction: Perception (ch. 3) Reflection (ch. 4) Question (ch. 5) Design (ch. 5)

Testing: Data collection (ch. 5) Preparation of data set (ch. 5) Data analysis (ch. 5)

Deduction: Conceptualization (ch. 5) Model (ch. 5) Operationalization (ch. 5)

Figure 2.1 The empirical-theological cycle of charismatic glossolalia

An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology

17

An Evangelical-Charismatic Hermeneutic33 The model of van der Ven is based on the critical theory of Jurgen Habermas and in particular his theory of communicative praxis.34 While this paradigm has some merits in terms of methodology and an understanding of empirical theology as an intra-disciplinary approach,35 its conceptual framework defined in terms of communicative praxis is reductionist and problematic.36 Alongside this aspect is a political-liberation theological commitment which serves to enhance the problematic nature of the conceptual framework.37 Therefore it is necessary to look for an alternative approach to empirical theology - one that starts from different theological presuppositions. To help in the task of finding a suitable hermeneutical approach for empirical theology, it seemed appropriate to turn to the work of Anthony Thiselton38 because not only has he pioneered research in the area of hermeneutics, but he has also suggested a hermeneutic for pastoral theology. It is this model which provides a similar hermeneutical approach to van der Ven, since both models are concerned primarily with the contemporary situation. Like van der Ven, Thiselton also draws upon the work of Jurgen Habermas in particular and attempts to apply his socio-critical hermeneutic to pastoral theology. He criticizes some pastoral theologians for focusing too much attention upon the present situation at the expense of the larger system. This present situation orientation needs, in Thiselton's view, to be de-centred as the fixed point of reference. Therefore, in order to suggest a suitable model, he uses Habermas' concepts - namely, 'trans-contextual system' and 'lifeworlds' - to develop a pastoral theological hermeneutic. For Habermas the life-world refers to the present situation - that is 'the hermeneutical level of inter-personal understanding and co-operative behaviour'}9 But since this hermeneutical level cannot offer a 'psycho-social critique'4® a different standpoint is required 'in which contextual-behavioural features are transcended in a larger system. System provides a frame or dimension for ideological and social critique'.41 Thus only by making a clear distinction between these two categories, and by not confusing them or remaining solely within the life-world, can the reality of the situation be understood and so-called 'fictions' be exposed. The life-world, as Thiselton uses the term, is to be understood in light of the larger frame of reference of Christian theology. Essentially, that is the past, present and future of the Bible and eschatology. For as Thiselton says: 'We understand the present by incorporating it within some larger frame; we do not "understand" simply by making "the present situation" equivalent to the horizon of understanding...theology itself is co-extensive with the larger frame of biblical and eschatological horizons within which sources and interpretations of both past and present operate'.42 The universal principle upon which Thiselton focuses is that of love, which finds particular expression and relevance through the incarnation and the cross of Jesus

18

Charismatic Glossolalia

Christ. Since hermeneutics is a dialectic between the general and the particular, Christian theology offers a critique of the life-world and a metacritique of other criteria which seek to critique the pluralism encountered in the life-worlds. Seen in these terms, the cross moves beyond the present context and becomes a new criterion of relevance, itself becoming a sociocritical principle.43 Together, the cross and the resurrection offer a metacritique which transforms the concept of power (since paradoxically the power of the cross is seen in weakness).44 Furthermore, in addition to Thiselton's perspective, the focus on the Incarnation, cross and resurrection must be seen within the context not just of promise fulfilment but also within the context of an authoritative text which informs a distinct world-view.45 While the focus of Christian identity must remain the cross and the resurrection, the whole of the Scriptures have an authority and a metanarrative force, which can challenge and transform the perceptions of those of a particular culture or life-setting. N.T. Wright has posed an important question relating to the authority of the Bible - the meta-narrative in our hermeneutic. Then, we have to ask, if we are to get to the authority of scripture - How does God exercise that authority? Again and again, in the biblical story itself we see that he does so through human agents anointed and equipped by the Holy Spirit. And this is itself an expression of his love', because he does not will, simply to come into the world in a blinding flash of light and obliterate all opposition. He wants to reveal himself meaningfully within the space/time universe not just passing it by tangentially; to reveal himself in judgment and in mercy in a way which will save people. So, we get the prophets. We get obedient writers in the Old Testament, not only prophets but those who wrote the psalms and so on. As the climax of the story we get Jesus himself as the great prophet, but how much more than a prophet... And how much more must we say of Jesus. Jesus the great prophet; Jesus who rules from the cross in judgment and love; Jesus who says: all authority is given to me, so you go and get on with the job. I hope the irony of that has not escaped you. So too in Acts 1, we find: God has all authority..so that you will receive power. Again, the irony. How can we resolve that irony? By holding firmly to what the New Testament gives us, which is the strong theology of the authoritative Holy Spirit. Jesus' people are to be the anointed ones through whom God still works authoritatively. And then, in order that the church may be the church - may be the people of God for the world - God, by that same Holy Spirit, equips men in the first generation to write the new covenant documentation. This is to be the new covenant documentation which gives the foundation charter and the characteristic direction and identity to the people of God, who are to be the people of God for the world.46

Wright argues that the writings of the people of God, led by the Spirit, in the Bible are largely narrative, and that God exercises his authority through people telling and retelling their story, especially through the telling of the story of Jesus. But in case we consider such an approach to be too vague, a

An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology

19

'hermeneutical grab-bag or lucky dip',47 he suggests that stories can, in fact, have a shape and a goal and that the biblical story demands an appropriate response to be made. In light of this, Wright proposes the following model based on the supposition of a lost act to a Shakespearian play.48 He suggests that, if such a play existed and one wanted to perform a production of it, then one could employ actors who were immersed in the first four acts of the play and the language and culture of the time. These actors could then be told to work out the fifth act for themselves. The first four acts would be the 'authority' for the task, since each character would need to speak and act with both innovation and consistency. The five acts could be viewed as: (1) Creation, (2) Fall, (3) Israel, (4) Jesus, (5) the New Testament as scene 1, giving some hints as to how the play should end (Romans 8; 1 Corinthians 15; parts of Revelation). As Wright himself says: The church would then live under the 'authority' of the extant story, being required to offer something between an improvisation and an actual performance of the final act. Appeal could always be made to the inconsistency of what was being offered with a major theme or characterization in the earlier material. Such an appeal - and such an offering! - would of course require sensitivity of a high order to the whole nature of the story and to the ways in which it would be (of course) inappropriate simply to repeat verbatim passages from earlier sections. Such sensitivity (cashing out the model in terms of church life) is precisely what one would have expected to be required; did we ever imagine that the application of biblical authority ought to be something that could be done by a well-programmed computer?49

The hermeneutical model of empirical theology that is being proposed would borrow some of the sociocritical hermeneutical concepts from Habermas in the manner in which Anthony Thiselton has already done, but with modifications in light of Wright's model and the criticism of Arden C. Autry.50 The transcontextual system would therefore be the Bible, acting as an authoritative text and promoting the distinctive world-view.51 The life-world or present situation would be the other pole in the hermeneutic. It is this pole which would be researched empirically using the empirical-theological methodology of van der Ven with the standard methods and techniques of the social sciences. To use the language of Wright, the Church would live in the remainder of the fifth act and would seek to relate the transcontextual system to the now of experience in the present life setting with both innovation and consistency?2 By connecting the consistency of the biblical story with the innovation of researching the present situation empirically, theological knowledge and ecclesial practice would be advanced both truthfully and authentically. This idea also finds some resonance with the contextual model proposed by Paul D. Hanson.53 As the Spirit inspired the Scriptures so is he also active in the community of faith, inspiring believing readership and enabling the Church to live under the 'authority' of the biblical story. Therefore, just as the transcontextual system and

20

Charismatic Glossolalia

the life-world are the two poles of this hermeneutic, so indeed are innovation and consistency two poles in a related dialectical relationship. There is an obvious link between the emphasis upon the transcontextual system (of the Bible) and the need for consistency (if the story so far told is to have authority and meaning) on the one hand, and with the life-world (in which the community of faith is situated and in which it is to be researched empirically) and the need for innovation and openness on the other. To develop this idea of innovation and consistency further, it could be hypothesized that the five Paraclete sayings in John's Gospel provide a pneumatological basis.54 That is, the dialectic between these two concepts is itself to be found, in some measure, in the role of the Holy Spirit within the authoritative story itself. Therefore, these sayings will be reconsidered in terms of 'consistency and innovation' in order to ascertain if there is a pneumatological basis for such a model of biblical authority. In John 14:16-17 Jesus makes the connection between love and obedience, and tells his disciples that their love is to be demonstrated by their obedience.55 The Holy Spirit is given to enable them to live as disciples of Jesus, for the Spirit of truth points to the truth of Jesus as he dwells with the disciples.56 The twin aspects of consistency and innovation may be applied to this saying insofar as obedience may be seen to include the idea of consistency, while love includes innovation. That is, to be obedient to the teaching of Jesus is to also be consistent with it. A relationship of love, on the other hand, constantly seeks new ways of expressing itself, and therefore seeks innovation. However, these aspects may also be reversed since there are undoubtedly new ways of obeying Christ in a changing world, and a relationship of love with God must also have an element of consistency since that is the nature of true love; it is stable and secure. In the light of John 14:21, the disciples' love must surely be seen in a dynamic relationship with Jesus and the Father. Add to this the work of the Spirit, and we have a clear Trinitarian dynamic of love and obedience, innovation and consistency. John 14:26 states that the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in Jesus' name, will teach the disciples and remind them of the teaching of Jesus himself. The tasks of teaching and reminding are indeed complementary.57 The Spirit not only enables the disciples to recall the teaching of Jesus but also enables them to grasp the truth of that revelation. In this sense the Spirit's task is to illumine the revelation already given through the teaching of Jesus.58 The concept of consistency would seem to be present in the idea of the Spirit as teacher. The truth of the revelation given through Jesus is confirmed by the Spirit, since the Spirit is given in the name of Jesus. Both consistency and innovation are also present within the idea of reminding. This is clear when we consider some of the speeches in Acts. The reflection by the apostles upon the story of the people of Israel and the teaching of Jesus suggest a new twist in the story of the people of God (Acts 2:14-41; 4:8-12; 7:1-53). No doubt these interpretations of Scripture in the light of Pentecostal experiences

An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology

21

seemed highly innovative to some, and it is perhaps not too speculative to suggest that they arose as the Spirit also reminded them of the teaching of Jesus about his ministry and mission. From our vantage point, centuries later, the Spirit can still remind us of what Jesus has said in a secondary sense, through the passages of the New Testament reflected upon over time. Such reminders may well lead to innovative action for the sake of the gospel. John 15:26-27 continues to speak of the Spirit, being sent from the Father, as one who testifies about Jesus in conjunction with the disciples.59 Since the disciples have been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry, they are aware of material which can be used in such testimony. Again, the idea that the Spirit reminds them of this information of word and event in the ministry of Jesus stands behind the text. Indeed the activity of the Spirit is actually 'conjoined with that of the disciples'.60 It is inseparable from the witness of the disciples and suggests a consistency between the two and with the original witness of Jesus himself. This primarily refers to the role of the apostles as mediators of revelation. However, if this text is to have any normative value in a secondary sense it must also apply to the Church today. The disciples of today must also testify concerning the message of Jesus. We have our stories to tell, our testimonies to give. This will inevitably demand innovation if the gospel is to be presented in a fresh way. Cultural differences and shifts in culture (for example, from modernity to post-modernity) demand the recontextualization of the gospel, if the story is to be heard. This demands innovation not just in the presentation of the message but in the way it is lived and worked out. The Spirit of truth is looked to for inspiration in both the reading of the Christian story and in its living. John 16:7-11 is, perhaps, the most difficult in which to locate the themes of 'innovation and consistency'. Here the Paraclete is again promised when Jesus goes away. When the Holy Spirit comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin, righteousness and judgement.61 The role of the Paraclete seems to be directed towards the world in this regard, not towards the disciples.62 However, it seems inevitable that the disciples' proclamation will be the instrument of such 'exposure' by the Spirit.63 Just as the world will convict Jesus at his trial, so the Paraclete will expose the truth of the situation through the witness of the disciples.64 That is, in the sight of God an innocent person was sentenced to death, but was vindicated by God through the resurrection. The aspect of consistency was to be seen in the dialogue and, indeed, confrontation with the world. Just as Jesus confronted the world and its values, so also will the Paraclete through the disciples. Jesus by his ministry provoked change in people's lives as they experienced the grace of God. This change can also be connected to the idea of innovation. The Spirit is the Spirit of change, working change in people's lives as he mediates the grace of God to them through the witness of the disciples. For them, change brings innovation, as they no longer conform to the pattern of the world but are transformed by the renewal of their minds.65

22

Charismatic Glossolalia

Finally, the words of John 16:12-15 promised to the disciples the presence of the Spirit who will guide them into all truth. He will speak only what he hears and will tell what is yet to come. As a consequence, glory will be given to Jesus and the Father. This again can be understood in terms of consistency and innovation. The Holy Spirit speaks what he himself hears, so the revelation which he imparts is in harmony with the revelation of God already presented in the person and work of Jesus.66 The Spirit will also declare what is to come. Commentators disagree as to the limits of the future sense of this saying.67 Does it merely refer to the future within the lifetime of the apostles, or does it imply continuing revelation beyond the apostolic period? How one wishes to interpret this will affect the sort of innovation, if any, one is willing to allow or encourage. The Pentecostal and Charismatic movements have been willing to allow secondary revelation provided that it does not contradict the authority of Scripture.68 It is here that the model of viewing the Christian life through the lens of consistency and innovation can also be helpful. Whatever the Spirit wishes to reveal about the past, present or future - and such a revelation would of course be open to the sovereignty of God its authenticity would be measured ultimately not in terms of innovation but of consistency. It would need to be consistent with the biblical revelation the story so far told. It is here that the liberty of the Spirit expressed in innovation must be consistent with the story of salvation history and eschatology already expressed in and through the Spirit-inspired and authoritative text of Scripture. This approach, therefore, transforms the paradigm of van der Ven from one which is chained to a materialist theory to one which takes seriously both the Scriptures as authoritative and the Spirit which enables interpretation with innovation and consistency. It is this hermeneutical model which will enable a reading of glossolalia which is both critical, with the use of Scripture's difference, and contemporary, with an understanding gained from empirical research of the faith and practice of people within a particular life-world. In addition, a theologia crucis will be used to critique both the use of Scripture and empirical research in the construction of an empirical-theology of charismatic glossolalia. Epistemology Sociological research methodologies are concerned with general approaches to data and human knowledge, be they positivist, interactionist, ethnomethodologist or post-structuralist.69 The epistemological approach which I have adopted recognizes that I have a set of values and presuppositions which guide my world-view and approach to research in general;70 nevertheless just because one wishes to acknowledge the particularity of one's knowledge, does not mean that it cannot be called

An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology

23

'knowledge'. With this in mind I have adopted the 'critical realist' epistemology as defined by N.T. Wright.71 Although Wright is essentially a New Testament historian and theologian, a critical realist epistemology is not unique to Wright and realism has its advocates in the discipline of sociology too.72 Wright's model is essentially a narrative approach which sees people as storytellers in a story-laden world. Our initial observation of reality, which already exists within a story of that reality, can be challenged by critical reflection upon ourselves as storytellers. In other words, it is recognized that our claims about reality may be mistaken. However, through further investigation we can find new ways of speaking truthfully about the world in which we live with new and modified stories.73 Wright describes this clearly when he says: The critical realism offered here is therefore essentially a relational epistemology, as opposed to a detached one. The stories through which it arrives at its (potentially) true account of reality are, irreducibly, stories about the interrelation of humans and the rest of reality (including, of course, other humans). Furthermore, the crucial stories are, of course, a vital element in the relationship both between those who share a worldview (who tell one another stories to confirm and fine-tune the worldview) and between holders of different worldviews (who tell one another stories designed to subvert one another's position). This model allows fully for the actuality of knowledge beyond that of one's own sense data (that upon which the 'subjectivist' will rightly insist)... This critical realist theory of knowledge and verification, then, acknowledges the essentially 'storied' nature of human knowing, thinking and living, within the larger model of worldviews and their component parts. It acknowledges that all knowledge of realities external to oneself takes place within the framework of a worldview, of which stories form an essential part. And it sets up as hypotheses various stories about the world in general or bits of it in particular and tests them by seeing what sort of 'fit' they have with the stories already in place.74

This hypothesis verification/falsification approach is applied by Wright to the reading of literature, history and theology.75 The model therefore being adopted for the purposes of this inquiry is a modified version of van der Yen's empirical theology which especially discards the hermeneutic-communicative praxis orientation. This approach, whilst using quantitative methods, disclaims any form of positivism because it is conscious of its interpretive framework or perspective through which reality is viewed.76 As such, theoretical constructs are considered through a number of approaches - both qualitative and quantitative - which provide different, but complementary, sets of information,77 both of which are viewed from within the mind-set of the individual knowing subject and located within a community of faith.78 In this sense, my personal understanding and experience of glossolalia from within the evangelical-charismatic section of

24

Charismatic Glossolalia

the Church will both inform and be informed by the transcontextual system of the Bible and the life-world in which the research is carried out. The words of Trevor Hart are apt in this regard: In a sense, then, we invest confidence in a particular framework or perspective because, as we occupy it, we find ourselves laid hold of from without, seized by a reality which manifests itself to us, and charged as a matter of conscience with the task of declaring this reality to our fellows. It is in this relationship of intellectual commitment to a truth which seizes us from beyond ourselves, this declaration of universal intent (the claim that what we know in this way is not merely 'the truth for us', but makes contact with an objective reality'), that we transcend our subjectivity.79 While this study is not simply a work of methodology, it is hoped that these features outlined here will enable readers to appreciate the standpoint of the author.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Van der Ven, Johannes A. (1993), Practical Theology: An Empirical Approach, Pharos: Kok Pharos; idem (1988), 'Practical Theology: from Applied Theology to Empirical Theology', JET, 1(1), pp. 7-27. Van der Ven, Practical Theology (n. 1), pp. 101-12. Habermas, Jiirgen (1987, 1991), The Theory of Communicative Action, 2 vols, Cambridge: Polity Press. See Siebert, RJ. (1985), The Critical Theory of Religion: The Frankfurt School, Berlin: Moutin. Van der Ven, Practical Theology (n. 1), p. 34. Ibid., p. 40. Ibid., p. 48. Ibid., p. 44. Ibid., pp. 60-61. Ibid., p. 62. Ibid., p. 67. Ibid., p. 68. Ibid., p. 69. Ibid., p. 70. Ibid., p. 73. Ibid., pp. 1-32; see also Brown, Colin (1990), Christianity and Western Thought: A History of Philosophers, Ideas and Movements, Leicester: Apollos, chs 13 and 14. Van der Ven, Practical Theology (n. 1), p. 81. Ibid., p. 87. Ibid., p. 101. See Cartledge, Mark J. (1999), 'Empirical Theology: Inter- or IntraDisciplinary?', JBV, 20(1), pp. 98-104.

An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34

35 36

37

25

Van der Yen, Practical Theology (n. 1), p. 103. Ibid., p. 105. Ibid., p. 106. Ibid., p. 109. Ibid., p. 111. Ibid., p. 113. I am aware of the problems of using such a slippery term as 'experience'. I regard this as a heuristic device and do not understand experience as 'raw', but as always mediated and intimately bound up with conceptual frameworks and values. In reality, I wish to give priority in the empirical-theological methodology to the theological praxis (that is, belief and practice) of a specific concrete setting rather than abstract theological conception. However, I do not regard this as straightforwardly authoritative. For any such theological praxis to gain authority it must be tested and refined by an engagement with Scripture. For a methodological comparison of van der Yen's empirical-theological cycle with the pastoral cycle of Paul Ballard and John Pritchard see Cartledge, Mark J. (1998), 'Practical Theology and Empirical Identity', EJT, 7(1), pp. 37-44. Yan der Yen, Practical Theology (n. 1), p. 115. However, from a theological perspective this remains problematic since the Incarnation, for example, could not be considered true in any universal sense. Its uniqueness would be prohibitive. I am grateful to Rob Innes for this insight. Van der Yen, Practical Theology (n. 1), p. 115. Ibid., p. 129. An earlier version of this section was published as Cartledge, Mark J. (1996), 'Empirical Theology: Towards an Evangelical-Charismatic Hermeneutic', JPT, 9, pp. 115-126. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, (n. 3); cf. Rasmussen, D.M. (1990), Reading Habermas, Oxford: Blackwell; White, S.K. (ed.) (1995), The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Subsequently, van der Yen has presented a case for empirical theology which did not include this Habermasian hermeneutical framework. See van der Yen, J.A. (1997), 'Practical Theology in the Making', unpublished paper, British and Irish Association for Practical Theology Conference, Cardiff. Yan der Yen, Practical Theology (n. 1), pp. 85-156. The theory of communicative action and its linguistic basis has been challenged, see Brand, A. (1990), The Force of Reason: An Introduction to Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action, London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 118-126. His notion of 'consensual truth' has also been a target of criticism: Hesse, M. (1980), Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science, Brighton: Harvester Press, pp. 206-31. Habermas is a historical idealist who is fundamentally committed to the emancipatory power of human reason. Therefore the liberating power of God's revelation in the person and work of Jesus Christ becomes unnecessary. Marxist social analysis stands behind the concept of 'praxis' in liberation theology: cf. Conn, H.M. (1988), 'Liberation Theology', NOT, pp. 387-91. In van der Yen this translates to an emphasis upon liberation from suffering via a Habermasian programme of communicative praxis. Van der Yen uses Scripture in the style of liberation theology to provide the symbolism to empower

26

38

39 40 41 42 43

44 45 46 47 48 49

50 51

52

53 54

Charismatic Glossolalia transformation: cf. van der Ven, Practical Theology, (n. 1), pp. 69-76. For the use of symbolism in liberation theology see Cotterell, Peter (1990), Mission and Meaninglessness, London: SPCK, p. 251. See also Milbank, John (1990), Theology and Social Theory Beyond Secular Reason, Oxford: Blackwell, ch. 8, esp. pp. 239^0. Thiselton, Anthony C. (1992), New Horizons in Hermeneutics, London: HarperCollins, chs 15 and 16. The systems/life-world distinction as argued by Habermas has also been criticized: cf. Brand, The Force of Reason (n. 36), pp. 126-40. Therefore the above distinction is used cautiously. Thiselton, New Horizons (n. 38), p. 388. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 608. Ibid., p. 614. That is, the cross opposes contextual or self-centred criteria of relevance and establishes new criteria. Thiselton cites Moltmann, JUrgen (1974), The Crucified God, London: SCM, pp. 15, 17, who argues that the cross 'criticizes and reforms the church from beyond its boundaries'. This, in turn, develops into a critique of society, that is a sociocritical principle. Cartledge, Mark J. (1993), 'A Model of Hermeneutical Method - An Exegetical Missiological Reflection upon Suffering in 2 Corinthians 4:7-15', Evangelical Review of Theology, 17(4), pp. 472-83. Cotterell, Mission and Meaninglessness (n. 37), pp. 26-32. Wright, N.T. (1991), 'How Can the Bible be Authoritative?', Vox Evangelica, 21, pp. 7-32 at pp. 16-17. Ibid., p. 18. Ibid., pp. 18-19. Also described in Wright, N.T. (1992), The New Testament and the People of God, London: SPCK, pp. 139^3. Wright, 'How Can the Bible be Authoritative?' (n. 46), p. 19. This model has been used with some development by Middleton, J. Richard and Walsh, Brian (1995), Truth is stranger than it used to be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age, London: SPCK, pp. 182-7. Autry, Arden C. (1993), 'Dimensions of Hermeneutics in Pentecostal Focus', JPT, 3, pp. 29-50 at p. 50, n. 45, raised the limitations of Thiselton's hermeneutic in relation to the role of the Holy Spirit. Although John Webster does not use the language of critical theory his proposal assumes that Scripture has this function for the reader within the context of the Church: see Webster, John (1998), 'Hermeneutics in Modern Theology: Some Doctrinal Reflections', SJT, 51(3), pp. 307^1 at pp. 332-4. Alternative terms could be those of Moltmann, Jiirgen (1990), The Way of Jesus Christ, London: SCM, who used a similar kind of dialectic: "In history God rules through Spirit and Word, liberty and obedience" (p. 97). This also parallels Autry's distinction between 'correct' and 'creative' readings of the text: see 'Dimensions of Hermeneutics', (n. 50), pp. 47-9. Hanson, Paul D. (1995), 'Scripture, Community and Spirit: Biblical Theology's Contribution to a Contextualized Christian Theology', JPT, 6, pp. 3-12. The term Paraclete comes from the Greek termparakletos. As a verbal adjective it means the same as ho parakeklemenos - that is, 'one called alongside'. See Beasley-Murray, George R. (1987), John, Waco: Word, p. 256; cf. Brown,

An Empirical Approach to Practical Theology

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

70 71 72 73 74 75

76

27

Raymond E. (1966), The Gospel According to John, Vol. 2, London: Chapman, pp. 1135-44. Carson, Don A. (1991), The Gospel According to John, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, p. 498. See Beasley-Murray, John (n. 54), pp. 257-8; also Carson, The Gospel (n. 55), p. 500. Beasley-Murray, John (n. 54) p. 261; also Brown, The Gospel (n. 54), p. 653. Beasley-Murray, John (n. 54) p. 261; also Carson, The Gospel (n. 50), p. 505. Beasley-Murray, John (n. 54), pp.276-7; Brown, The Gospel (n. 54), pp. 698-701; Carson, The Gospel (n. 50), p. 529. Beasley-Murray, John (n. 54), p. 277. Ibid., pp. 280-81. Contra Brown, The Gospel (n. 54), pp. 711-14. Beasley-Murray, John (n. 54), p. 281. Carson, The Gospel (n. 50), p. 538. Rom. 12:2. Beasley-Murray, John (n. 54), p. 283. See ibid., p. 283; Brown, The Gospel (n. 54), pp. 715-16; Carson, The Gospel (n. 50), p. 540. See Cartledge, Mark J. (1994), 'Charismatic Prophecy: A Definiton and Description', JPT, 5, pp. 79-120 at p. 118. Cuff, B.C., Sharrock, W.W. and Francis, D.W. (1990), Perspectives in Sociology, London: Routledge, ch. 7; also Delanty, G. (1997), Social Science Beyond Constructivism and Realism, Buckingham: Open University Press, who argues for a via media between constructivism and realism, namely 'constructivist realism' (p. 133). For an interesting account of the influence of values in the scientific study of religion, see Barker, Eileen (1995), 'The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking!', JSSR, 34(3), pp. 287-310. Wright, The New Testament (n. 48), pp. 32-7, 61-4, 88-92. Cuff et al., Perspectives, (n. 68), pp. 221-4; cf. Silverman, David (1985), Qualitative Methodology and Sociology, Aldershot: Gower, pp. 170-75. Wright, The New Testament (n. 48), pp. 44-5. Ibid., p. 45. Ibid., pp. 47-8, 64, 66, 81, 89, 98-9, 109, 112-13, 117-9, 122-4, 127. See also Middleton and Walsh, Truth is sranger than it used to be, (n. 49), pp. 168-71, whilst appreciating the mediating position of Wright between positivism and constructivism wish to go beyond it. Instead, they propose a covenantal epistemology as a gift. This is, in essence, a realist position but one which stresses a covenantal understanding of the world by emphasizing a respect for the other. It therefore aims to be an approach of non-mastery. I am aware of the criticisms of the hypothetico-deductive approach of Karl Popper which is adopted by van der Ven. See Hughes, John A. (1990), The Philosophy of Social Research, London: Longman; cf. Pannenberg, Wolfhart (1976), Theology and the Philosophy of Science, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, esp. ch. 1. The use of falsification derived from Karl Popper is still used in this approach, whilst its limitations are recognized. As Thiselton, based on the work of Pannenberg, says: '... any over-simple notion of falsification must be

28

77 78

79

Charismatic Glossolalia modified in the light of T.S. Kuhn's work. It is an "illusion" that criteria of falsification can be applied without reference to wider contexts and bodies of knowledge, or at any time. Theories are less "mirrors" of nature than explanatory devices which address issues of evidence. Even in the sciences, however, hypotheses entail elements of conjecture or anticipation. They imply "an anticipatory understanding of truth". It is better to speak of this as critical rationalism than as positivism': New Horizons (n. 38), p. 334; cf. Pannenberg, Theology, p. 57. In addition, the distinction expounded by Popper of two separate realms of values, one scientific and the other extra-scientific, is rejected as being unsustainable. See Holub, Robert C. (1991), Jiirgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere, London: Routledge, pp. 24-5. Hall, David and Hall, Irene (1996), Practical Social Research, London: Macmillan, p. 45; also see Dreyer, J.S. (1998), The Researcher: Engaged Participant or Detached Observer?', JET, 11(2), pp. 5-22. See Thompson, Michael (1996), 'An Illustrated Theology of Churches and "Sects" Within the Churches of New Frontiers International', unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Kent at Canterbury; note also Johns, Jackie and Johns, Cheryl Bridges (1992), 'Yielding to the Spirit: A Pentecostal Approach to Group Bible Study', JPT, 1, pp. 109-34, who argue for yada, the Paraclete and the Scriptures as a basis for a Pentecostal epistemology. The Hebrew word yada meaning 'to know' refers to knowledge which comes through experience by active engagement. As such, it is contrasted with the Greek approach to knowledge characteristic of the word ginoskein, 'which involved a standing back from something in order objectively to "know it'" (p. 112). See Johns, Cheryl Bridges (1993), Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy among the Oppressed, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, JPTS 2, pp. 35-7. Hart, Trevor (1995), Faith Thinking, London: SPCK, p. 67.

Chapter 3

The Voices and Context of the People Introduction To enable an understanding of glossolalia within the New Church movement, it was decided to begin, within the inductive phase of the empirical-theological cycle, by using a case study. The case study presented in this chapter was essential to gaining an understanding of glossolalia from those participants in the New Church movement. As such, it helped to develop questions and conceptual clarification as well as an understanding of glossolalia from within the life-world of charismatics. The approach of this case study was conceived as being 'instrumental'.1 That is, a specific case was chosen in order to investigate a particular phenomenon - namely, glosssolalia - rather than being an instrinsic or complete study of the church in question. Methods Case Study Method The overall case study method was adopted from the model of Robert Yin,2 with modifications in light of the work of Robert Stake. In the majority of social science textbooks this method is seen as simply an exploratory stage in some other type of research strategy. To distinguish his approach from that use, Yin defines a case study as: an empirical enquiry that: • investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when • the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which • multiple sources of evidence are used.3

Case studies can adopt either quantitative or qualitative strategies and aim either to explain causal links in the data, or describe the real-life context in which the phenomenon occurs, or else explore a relatively unclear situation. In this particular study I aim to explore the relatively unclear situation of the nature and function of charismatic glossolalia. For Yin, there are four criteria listed for judging the quality of the case 29

30

Charismatic Glossolalia

study research design. The first is construct validity. In the past, case study designs have been criticized for inadequately developing an operational set of measures and for 'subjectivity' employed in the data collection. In response, Yin proposes the use of multiple sources of evidence, encouraging divergent lines of inquiry; establishing a chain of evidence, that makes 'explicit links between the questions asked, the data collected and the conclusions drawn',4 and a review of the draft report by the key informants. Second, the internal validity of the project is especially important for explanatory types of research. The problem of accuracy of inference is anticipated and dealt with by tactics of pattern-matching, explanation-building and times-series analysis. Third, the external validity is the ability to generalize from the findings. Yin argues that case studies are not sampling units and should not be chosen for this reason. A case study is selected as a laboratory investigator selects an experiment topic. In that sense, multiple case studies should be considered as multiple experiments (or multiple surveys). In these circumstances the method of generalization is 'analytic generalization' - that is, a previously developed theory is used as a template with which to compare the empirical results. If more than one case study supports a particular theory then replication may be claimed.5 Fourth, reliability is the final criterion. The solution proposed by Yin is accurate documentation of the study and the development of a case study database. 'A good guideline for doing case studies is therefore to conduct the research so that an auditor could repeat the procedure and arrive at the same results.'6 When these criteria are applied to this case study the following comments are possible. In terms of construct validity: 1 Multiple sources of evidence were used. 2 A chain of evidence was recorded. 3 All interviewees received a copy of the interview transcript and were given the opportunity to comment on it. The internal validity of the study was measured by pattern-matching the data analysis with a previous case study.7 The external validity of the study was also shown in that the results of the previous case study are easily comparable with this case study. However, since this study is also exploratory a modification of existing theory was deemed possible and desirable. The study is also reliable, in that all field notes and interview transcripts have been developed into a case study database. The case study was chosen for reasons of accessibility and geographical convenience. Inital contact was made with one of the two full-time pastors of the church, called Godfrey (a pseudonym, as are all names in this account). He asked me to submit a proposal of the work that I intended to do and he would show this to his colleagues on the eldership of the church. Permission to carry out the study was granted with no difficulty. I was therefore able to

The Voices and Context of the People

31

attend Sunday worship services, house groups and was given access to some church documentation, as well as tapes from the tape library, and conducted interviews. An overt approach was therefore adopted. Participant Observation Participant observation was carried out over an eight-month period in which I visited Sunday worship on 15 occasions. The first was 3 November 1996 and the last was 8 June 1997. Two visits to house groups were also conducted during this time. I followed the same format as the previous field visits, observing as much as possible in the field and writing notes during the sermon. These notes were typed up fully and stored in the database on returning home. The focus of the observation was the sermon and the use of spiritual gifts, especially glossolalia. Documents The documents which could be gathered included the Sunday newsheet and other material that advertised events or gave information which were distributed during the Sundays I was present. These have been supplemented by a news magazine (June 1997), the Sudley Christian Fellowship Profile and Membership Application Pack and a BSc Geography essay written on the church entitled The Distribution of Independent Evangelical Churches and their Role in the Community of Liverpool'.8 Finally, at my initial meeting with Godfrey, I was given a copy of the Ed Silvoso book, That None Should Perish,9 which he said was influential in terms of the church's understanding of itself and its mission. Tapes The church has an extensive catalogue of tapes, which are records of the sermons preached at various meetings. I collected a selection of these on such topics as gifts of the Spirit, revival, 'faith filled words', a vision for the church and 'claiming your inheritance'. These provided useful information on the theological perspectives within the church as well as material concerning glossolalia. Interviews I aimed to attract interviewees by a notice which I was allowed to put in the Sunday newsheet. This only provided one respondent! However, with the contacts that I was building at the church with my Sunday visits and from some previous contact with the church, I was able to encourage others to be interviewed. Once they had been interviewed, they were then able to

32

Charismatic Glossolalia

encourage others with the recommendation that the experience was not unpleasant. In this way only volunteers were interviewed; they were not coerced by the leadership. This snowball effect produced the target number of 15 interviews with 15 individuals and I was given the possibility of more had I so wished. The interviews followed the semi-structured pattern with the opportunity for spontaneous questions to be asked and lines of inquiry pursued. The interviews were recorded by notes and audiotape. These were subsequently transcribed. Church Context: Sudley Christian Fellowship Brief History The present church is an amalgamation of two previously existing church fellowships. The first began in 1974 after a Christian outreach in the city and met in a home as part of the House Church Movement of the time. In 1976 it numbered six members but, over the following few years, it grew to 30 members. In 1990 it had a vision to reach out to the community in practical ways and set up a care team, working particularly with the unemployed and elderly, and a soup kitchen for homeless people. These practical outreaches were complemented by open air meetings and door-to-door evangelism. The second church fellowship came originally from another House Church in a large UK city, which was classified as R2 by Andrew Walker.10 A couple from that church felt called by God to start a church in Liverpool and brought a team of 12-15 people with them. They initially gathered in a home and then began to grow. The two leaders, Godfrey and Pierre, met at a meeting where Pierre was speaking in 1991. Both discovered that they each shared the same vision for the city and the need for the church to serve the needs of the people there. In March 1992 the two groups officially joined together under the joint leadership of Godfrey and Pierre, but with a wider leadership consisting at the time of two other men. The church membership increased to 40 and they looked for a building in which to meet, using two different buildings before settling in their current building. At the time of writing her dissertation in 1994, Janice Carlyle observed that approximately 150 people worshipped with the church on Sunday mornings and that it had a membership of 96.11 By the time of my visits in 1996-97, this number appeared to have increased slightly to 150-200. Self-description The church aims to be at the forefront of what God is doing in the city. They describe themselves as a young church and they have a large number of

The Voices and Context of the People

33

people in the 18-25 age range. In 1994, 38.5 per cent of members were in this category, while 40.6 per cent of membership were in the 26-45 age range.12 These figures only cover members, and a large proportion of the 18-25 age range were students who were not members. Therefore in terms of Sunday worship the 18-25 age group was even more strongly represented. Church members describe themselves as 'strongly Bible-believing' and evangelical, while also being charismatic and would 'seek to make room for the ministry and gifts of the Holy Spirit in our lives and gatherings'. The church is not affiliated to any denomination but 'enjoys good relationships with many other churches in the city, especially those which are evangelical and/or charismatic'. It is a member of the Evangelical Alliance. The church is strongly evangelistic and mission-oriented. Its house groups and prayer cells are planted in local streets and aim to disseminate the gospel to their neighbours. Members are also encouraged to evangelize in their workplace, neighbourhood, schools and family. The expectation of the church is that it will grow to be a large church numerically, but it states that success should be measured in 'the quality of love we show to one another and those who give nothing in return. Caring for the poor and needy is an end in itself, simply expressing God's heart for the damaged and broken in our city.' The intention is that the church will still feel like home to its members, despite large numbers: As long as individuals can keep a strong affinity to the values and vision of the church, can find their place of function and be bonded in through a circle of close knit relationships, then it will still feel like home. From the security of that 'homebase' we march as an army, recognising that we are in the thick of a spiritual battle against unseen forces of darkness. Acknowledging the authority God has placed in the church, standing together in unity, we can fight those powers. By righteous living, prevailing prayer, prophetic declaration and anointed witness we will see Satan's Kingdom crumble before the army of God angelic and earthly.

Prospective members are told 'Don't climb on board unless you're ready for battle!'. In short, they describe themselves as 'a growing, praying, evangelising, caring, discipling, praising, warring community!'. The home groups of approximately 12-15 people form the basis of the church. They are planted in many different geographical areas in order to reach out to the streets and community around, win others for Christ and 'grow by new birth'. Each home group is subdivided into two or three prayer groups. These groups meet weekly to pray for their area and the contacts within it. Every member of the church is expected to be involved in a home group. There are a number of activities in which people may become involved. These include: an outreach to the homeless through a soup kitchen; daytime

34

Charismatic Glossolalia

visiting of the elderly and housebound; a luncheon club; a children's club, geared for the unchurched 5-11 age range, youth groups of 11-14 and 15-18; work in schools through opportunities to take RE lessons, assemblies and lunchtime clubs; a 'team of energetic kids who are trained in song and dance to perform in the context of church meetings and open air evangelistic events'; a full-time training course aimed 'to give established Christians the opportunity to test the waters of full-time Christian work'; praise and worship bands; an intercessors group; a teaching department; a pastoral department; ministry teams; welcomers; an Alpha course; and social concern projects. At present, the supervising structure has increased to seven members. This includes Pierre and Godfrey as pastors, with the previously mentioned two men, and an additional three people - one man and two women. Vision The ultimate vision of the church is that Liverpool be 'won for the Lord Jesus Christ, and His church become the glorious bride for whom He will return'. To this end, three foundation principles or core values have been formulated. 1 Devotion is the raison d'etre of the church: Everything we do must spring out of a love for Jesus ('that He might have first place in everything')- No 'should', 'must' or 'ought', religious obligation mentality. We love him because he first loved us. We come to Him in heartfelt appreciation of His love and forgiveness. We want to please Him and live for Him.

The practical outworking and priorities of this value are to be found in jubilant praise, intimate worship, prayer cells, intercessory groups, prophetic musicianship, personal growth rooted in a relationship with God - that is, discipleship, simplicity of lifestyle and 'ministry times' where the Holy Spirit is free to move. 2 Mission is the chief aim of the church: We are not here for ourselves but for a lost and hell-bound generation (The church is the only organisation that exists for the sake of its non-members). Jesus' last words to His disciples were 'Go'. We reach out with words and deeds (in expectation that signs and wonders will follow). The scope of our mission is 'neighbours to nations'.

The practical outworkings and priorties of this value are stated as being: home groups, personal witness, public evangelism, short term missions, long term missionaries, church planting, church growth, compassion ministries, ministry training team, children and youth work and the Alpha course.

The Voices and Context of the People

35

3 Faith is the means by which the mission is to be accomplished: Faith that overcomes the world. Faith that moves mountains. The power of God released through faith for signs and wonders. Victorious aggressive faith that seeks to dislodge enemy strongholds and bring in God's Kingdom - from personal to public battlefields. Faith that pleases God. The practical outworking and priorities of this value are to be seen in: living by the promises and word of God, aggressive, fervent, perservering prayer, ministry to sick and demonised, financial freedom and generosity, seeing the unseen spiritual realm, living beyond natural resources, waging war on the works of the devil and confrontation of strongholds.

Sunday Worship When I first started attending Sunday worship, services were being held in an upstairs room which was used for children's work during the week. It was colorfully decorated with a variety of posters and exhibits of children's artwork. It was also cramped, since it was clearly not large enough to accommodate the numbers attending. At one side of the room there was a banked terrace which provided seating for most of the people. Adjacent to this there were a few rows of chairs which provided more comfortable seating for those who needed or preferred it. The vast majority of the people attending the worship sat on the terrace and the floor in front of it. Opposite the terrace was the band and the overhead projector (OHP) screen. The service was led from the microphone and lectern in front of the band. Musicians in the band varied considerably from week to week. Later on during my visits, the service moved downstairs to the main warehouse room. This was far too big for the 200 or so attending and a section of the floor space was cordoned off to provide the worship space. At the front of this space was a stage for the band and the leading of the worship. Next to this was the OHP screen. In front of the stage there was a carpet on which the younger people sat or stood during the service and on which the ministry times occurred. Boundaries were formed by old church pews and seating opposite the stage, thereby constructing a square section. Behind the chairs was the sound mixing desk. The worship usually followed a basic pattern of opening music, while people were still arriving. Although the service started at 10.30 a.m. a number of people would arrive late. This was usually followed by the notices and, occasionally, a drama or presentation. The first song of the worship was always used as a offertory song and buckets were passed around for the purpose of collecting money. This was followed by a period (20 minutes) of praise and worship. During this time people might be led into loud extemporary prayer altogether, which could include speaking in tongues, singing in tongues and prophecy. After this section, the children would go to their Sunday school classes and praise and worship would continue for

36

Charismatic Glossolalia

another 15-20 minutes. After this, there might be interviews or testimonies followed by the sermon which usually lasted about 30 minutes but could continue for up to an hour. The sermon was usually followed by further songs, opportunities for prophecy, prayer (including glossolalia) and a time of ministry when people were prayed for by others. The service usually finished while the time of ministry was still continuing. The aim was to complete the service by 12.30 p.m. but it often continued up to 1.00 p.m. and sometimes later, depending on what was happening during the ministry time. Speaking in tongues was definitely a feature of public worship. It occurred during times of praise when people were encouraged to praise God aloud as a group. It also occurred when people prayed together in groups and interceded together. In this context it would also be spoken in a audible manner but as a group speaking altogether. Occasionally the musicians would lead the congregation into singing in tongues. However, there was no audible message in tongues given to the congregation which was subsequently interpreted. Pierre told me that this does happen but more so in the home group situation. The policy of the church leadership is to encourage prophecy to be given in English rather than through a tongue and interpretation, which explains why this feature was missing. Theological Influences There are at least six discernible theological influences at work in the church. 1 A number of people were previously part of the House Church movement of the 1960s and 1970s. The influences of that period of history are still evident, with visiting speakers coming from this network of churches now called the New Church Movement. 2 There is a strong evangelical identity evident in the fact that the 'Evangelical Alliance Statement of Faith After 1974 Revision' is included in the main church information document. 3 The influence of the Third Wave movement is also apparent with the visits of Steve Phillips (a former colleague of John Wimber) and his teaching and workshops on power evangelism and healing. 4 The influence of Ed Silvoso and his strategy for reaching cities is of ultimate importance in understanding the particular approach of the church. 5 Godfrey, with other charismatic church leaders, visited Argentina in November of 1996, heard Silvoso speak and reported on revival in Argentina. The revivalist theme is also prevalent in the church. A prophecy

The Voices and Context of the People

37

had been given in Argentina indicating that there will be a revival in England. It was prophesied that there would be flickers by Christmas 1996 and beacons by May 1997. Revival would come 18 months later (that is, at the end of 1998 - it remains unfulfilled at the time of writing!). 6 Finally, there is a clear influence of the Faith movement within the church.13 This is more evident through sermons and personal conversation but is also demonstrated within the core values of the church, in that its third value is 'Faith'. These influences, as they impinge on the subject of glossolalia, are identified and discussed below. Ecumenism The church works with other evangelical and charismatic churches in the area and the pastors are part of a network of church leaders in the region. It has a special relationship with a local Church of England church and they occasionally hold joint services. However, it is not formally part of an ecumenical structure such as the Merseyside and Region Christian Ecumenical Assembly. Interviewees 1

Glenda. She falls within the 4CM-9 range and is a divorcee. She has a daughter aged 28 and grandchildren aged 9 and 3.5 months. She works as a supply teacher at a secondary school nearby. She has a Roman Catholic background but drifted away from church and felt rejected when she was divorced. She was born again ten years ago and joined the Jesus Army for two and half years. Although she attends SCF, she is not a member and has never felt settled in any church. She is interested in Messianic Christianity.

2

Valerie. She is aged between 20-29 and is single. She currently works part-time as a student worker at the university and teaches Spanish parttime also. She is a graduate in Latin American studies. She comes from a Roman Catholic background and was a practising Catholic up to the age of 19, being involved in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. She has visited other evangelical churches but has currently settled at SCF.

3

Barry. He is aged between 30-39 and is single. He works as a travel property officer in a support service role. He became a Christian at the age of 16 and visited a House Church at that time. However, he left Christianity and only came back two years ago when he started to attend SCF.

38

Charismatic Glossolalia

4

John. He is aged between 20-29 and is single. He is a graduate in music and currently works as a freelance musician. He has a Roman Catholic background and was involved in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. He previously attended another local New Church but joined SCF in 1991.

5

Edward. He is aged between 20-29 and is single. He is a postgraduate student completing doctoral studies in tropical medicine. He has a Church of England background but has attended Elim Pentecostal and Assemblies of God churches in the past. He started attending SCF when he settled in Liverpool for his studies.

6

Deborah. She is aged between 20-29, and is married to Cyril with two children. She originates from Singapore and is currently a full-time student. She has a Roman Catholic background and was converted in a Presbyterian church in Singapore. On her arrival to Britain she has attended New Churches both in Liverpool and elsewhere.

7

Cyril. He is married to Deborah (as above). He is aged between 30-39 and describes his occupation as being a missionary. He originates from Finland and was converted as a drug addict while attending a Benny Hinn conference. He has attended various New Churches, but has been particularly influenced by the time he spent with his wife, Deborah, at the 'Word of Life Bible College' in Finland.

8

William. He is aged between 60-69 and is married with three chidren. He is now retired but worked as a janitor at a Liverpool factory. He comes from a Brethren church background but has attended Baptist and Methodist churches before joining the House Church Movement in the early 1970s. He is an early member of SCF and, although not on the leadership team, sometimes attends leadership meetings.

9

Lesley. She is aged between 20-29 and is single. She is a qualified nurse but is still completing her degree. She has a Church of England background but has attended Pentecostal churches in Brazil where her parents worked as missionaries. She has been attending SCF for nearly four years.

10 Pierre. He is one of the pastors, is aged between 40-49 and is married with four children. He is a qualified medical doctor and continues to work half a day a week for the Department of Social Services. He has a Church of England background, but has attended Baptist and Brethren churches also. He has been involved in the House Church movement from the mid1970s.

The Voices and Context of the People

39

11 Donald. He is aged between 40-49 and is married with four children. He is classified as an invalid and is therefore unemployed. He was previously employed as a factory worker doing maintenance and quality control. He has a Roman Catholic church background and practised until the aged of 28. At this time he had a conversion experience and joined a House Church. He subsequently attended a Church of England church before joining the one of the two churches to amalgamate into SCF. 12 Derek. He is aged between 20-29 and is single. He is a Combined Arts student at the University of Liverpool. He has a Church of England background and still attends his evangelical and charismatic Anglican church when at home. 13 Fred. He is aged between 30-39 and is married with three children. He states his occupation as being an evangelist, but has previously worked as a community care worker and 'self-employed robber and drug dealer'. He attended an Independent Evangelical church when he was converted in 1987 and joined SCF in 1989. 14 Graham. He is aged between 20-29 and is married. He is a graduate of the University of Liverpool and attended SCF as a student. He works as a manager of a leisure company. His church background is Free Church, including a New Church and a Charismatic Evangelical church. 15 Peter. He is aged between 30-39 and is married with six children. He is a graduate who currently works as a radio presenter. His past employment includes teaching English and Drama, working for a Christian campaign group and being a company director. He has mainly attended House Churches and New Churches but spent a brief time in a Church of England church. Data Analysis Data analysis was completed with the assistance of the Nota Bene Orbis programme, which is a free-form text retrieval system that enables content analysis.14 Figure 3.1 (p. 54) shows the categorization of the data through content analysis. Interview transcripts were marked and categorized and new categories defined and checked empirically using the computer program. Links between the categories were also suggested. Data is presented to support the argument for an interrelational dynamic which begins to explain the nature and function of contemporary glossolalia in this church context.

40

Charismatic Glossolalia

Results Understanding the Phrase 'Speaking in Tongues' Speaking in tongues was variously described by informants as not being their mother tongue (Derek) but a prayer language (Deborah, Derek), another language (William), a holy (Lesley) and spiritual language (Lesley, Peter) and a language of the Spirit (Pierre), but also one which may seem like gobbledegook to a total stranger (Graham). It is a means of communicating with God (Valerie, Barry, Peter). It is a language which is usually not understood by the speaker (Valerie, Edward, William, Graham, Peter), and yet it is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit (Glenda, Derek). Indeed it is a gift of the Holy Spirit (Barry, Lesley, Deborah, Donald) or God (Edward, Cyril, Deborah, Peter). It is used in prayer and worship (Valerie, John, Edward, William, Pierre, Donald, Derek, Graham, Fred) as God speaks, or groans (Deborah), through the tongues speaker (Barry, Fred) by means of the human spirit (Pierre, Fred, Peter). As such, the language is neither of human origin (Pierre) nor is it learnt (Edward, Peter). It is used when the speaker runs out of words (Barry, Deborah, Lesley, Pierre, Donald, Graham, Fred) and it liberates the speaker from structured language (John), normal language (Donald), and limited vocabulary (Graham); it is also unfettered by words as 'deep calls to deep' (Peter). It enables someone to speak mysteries to God with their mind being 'unfruitful' (Cyril). It also allows heartfelt feelings to be communicated to God (John) as the sense behind the words may be understood (Edward). It is this which is picked up by the interpreter when it functions as prophecy (Valerie, Barry, Pierre, Derek), although as a known human language it may function evangelistically as a person hears the gospel proclaimed to them (Pierre). In all these dimensions, speaking in tongues is something which is done by faith (Cyril). The Time between First Hearing and Speaking in Tongues All the interviewees had heard someone speak in tongues prior to speaking themselves. The timelag varied considerably from the same day (Graham), to weeks (John), a year (Deborah, Pierre, Valerie), 18 months (Glenda), two years (William), or more years (Peter, Cyril, Derek, Lesley, Edward, Barry). Donald could not remember these details but knew that it was within six months of his water baptism. Fred was unable to give a clear chronology. He had heard tongues before his conversion and was baptized in the Spirit and spoke in tongues shortly after his wife's Spirit baptism. Length of Experience The experience of glossolalia varied from person to person. Table 3.1 gives the length of experience as expressed in years.

The Voices and Context of the People

41

Table 3.1 Experience of glossolalia Name

Years of Experience

Barry Derek Edward Glenda Lesley Valerie Deborah Graham Fred Cyril John Donald Peter Pierre William

2-3 4-5 6-7 7 8 8 9 9-10 10 11 12 15-20 17 22 24-25

Initial Experience Most of the interviewees had been prayed for to receive either baptism in the Spirit or the gift of tongues before they actually spoke in tongues. Such prayer was usually offered in a worship context. Two interviewees received the gift of tongues while being prayed for in a Roman Catholic charismatic prayer group as practising Catholics at the time. Valerie had attended such a meeting and asked for prayer. She was asked to repent over the reading of star signs and then remembered having a very physical experience as she was prayed for and spoke in tongues. She says that she did not know very much about the experience at the time except that she remembers it being overwhelming, exciting and joyful. John was also asked whether he wished to receive the gift of tongues in such a context and was then prayed for. He was told to open his mouth and make up some simple syllables as they prayed for him. This he did initially at speed, which caused great hilarity. He was advised to continue making up the sounds at a slower pace. Cyril had attended a Benny Hinn meeting in Birmingham when he was a drug addict and alcoholic. He responded to a word of knowledge about his condition given by Benny Hinn and was prayed for while standing on the platform. He was 'slain in the Spirit' and delivered of his addictions. He also started to speak in tongues at the same time and regards the experience as both his conversion and his baptism in the Spirit.

42

Charismatic Glossolalia

Others had less dramatic experiences which were not linked to their conversions. For example, Deborah had been prayed for in order to receive baptism in the Spirit at a Independent Charismatic church and was instructed to open her mouth and make sounds. She was able to make a few sounds, and the range developed afterwards. Lesley, a daughter of missionaries working in Brazil, received the gift of tongues while being prayed for to receive the Holy Spirit. This led to what she described as feelings of drunkenness. Fred, likewise, was prayed for in a church meeting and received his baptism in the Spirit and spoke in tongues. He recalls that he felt a surge of power and spoke in a Chinese or oriental dialect for two days. Graham received the gift at a youth camp while being prayed for by his friend who had just himself received the gift. At first, he felt that the language resembled a baby language and initially felt quite shocked. Three informants described how they had been prayed for, but initially had not received the gift of tongues. Glenda was a member of the Jesus Army and had been prayed for at one of the meetings but nothing had happened. As she slept that night, she had a dream in which she saw foreign-looking syllables on a banner with the indication of more to come. She started to use these syllables as the basis of her language. She finally broke out in tongues one day while praying for someone. Pierre had been prayed for twice but had not received the gift. He was attending a Youth with a Mission (YWAM) prayer retreat when he felt that God was saying that he should ask for the gift of tongues. At this time someone else said to him that he felt that Pierre should ask God for the gift of tongues. He therefore believed that this was a 'Godmoment' and made a coldblooded decision to make sounds and trust God that it was tongues. Afterwards he spent a couple of hours walking in the gardens practising and extending the vocabulary of his language. Derek had also been prayed for twice to receive the baptism in the Spirit but nothing had happened. However, one day he was praying with a friend who was a tongues speaker when suddenly, and quite unconsciously, he started to speak in tongues. In addition, there were three people who received the gift in private. Barry recalls that a friend advised him to practise in the bath. He developed the gift in his private devotions and made sounds for short periods until it gradually emerged. He spoke out in faith and allowed the Holy Spirit to develop it. Edward had not heard tongues in church but likewise gradually developed it in private. He could not locate a starting point but began praying regularly in tongues as he was walking to university. William also prayed for the gift privately and did not recognize the manifestation when it first occurred. Finally, there were two people who could not remember how they received the gift. Donald had no recollection of how the practice was acquired but assumed that it was probably at home in private. Likewise, Peter could not remember any single event when he first started to speak in tongues. He thought that it was probably gradual and that it increased in parallel to his growing confidence in communicating with God in worship.

The Voices and Context of the People

43

Key Person The majority of informants were able to identify a person who was involved at some point in the acquisition of glossolalia. In most cases, that person prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit or the gift of tongues (Valerie, John, Deborah, Lesley, Derek, Fred, Graham). They may or may not have known them personally but were influenced by them at the time of prayer. Alternatively, others were influenced in different ways, some of which were gentle and others less so. For example, Glenda noted that, in the Jesus Army, there was a lot of pressure to speak in tongues but she felt that she was able to resist this. Barry was advised to practise speaking in tongues in the bath by a work colleague and friend, whom he had heard speak in tongues at meetings. Edward had heard his mother speak in tongues but was challenged about speaking in tongues at a Scripture Union camp he had attended. He also read a Jackie Pullinger book which was influential as was a university friend who spoke in tongues. Pierre thought that the person who had given him a word of knowledge the same day that he spoke in tongues was a key person, while another church person was also deemed to be an important figure. Donald also could point to an influential church leader and work colleague. However, Peter was unable to identify anyone in this regard and William also said that there was no key person. Nevertheless, William did seem to be influenced by a work colleague who was an advocate of speaking in tongues. Finally, Cyril declared that there was no key person except God. Frequency Every interviewee, with the exception of two people, said that they used glossolalia daily. Some of these were able to specify that usage was intermittent throughout the day (Glenda, John, Pierre, Donald, Fred), while Barry specified that it was usually used twice a day during his morning and evening prayer times. Of the two who could not confirm a daily routine, Lesley said that, if it was not daily, then it would be every other day, which is the pattern described by Derek. Therefore the overall pattern could be described as very frequent indeed. Development of Language and Practice All the informants indicated that, in some aspects, their experience of glossolalia had changed when they compared their initial experience or early recollections with their current experience. Some only started with three syllables or words which have subsequently been expanded into fluency (Valerie, Derek). A similar idea was expressed by someone who compared her initial speech to baby language (Lesley). Most suggested that their range of sounds or syllables expanded and became more fluid. This is

44

Charismatic Glossolalia

accompanied by a greater confidence (Valerie, Barry, Deborah, Pierre) and considerably more time spent using the gift (Fred). A number of people commented on the acquisition of a new tongue when praying for a particular situation or set of circumstances (Glenda, Barry, Cyril, Deborah, Pierre, Fred). There can be as many as four of five new tongues (Lesley). Some have been able to identify some of their tongues speech as being Latin and Portuguese (Pierre), German and Chinese (Fred). William and Derek believed that their tongues speech is different each time they speak. Some interviewees were able to observe that tongues could be developed in line with changes in mood. For example, in spiritual warfare the tone could be aggressive (Deborah, Peter), while in prayer it can almost be conversational (Edward, Graham). Certainly as the tongues speaker initially receives the gift he or she is very aware of what they are doing and is perhaps doubtful and hesitant of the experience (Barry, John, Deborah), but as the person becomes more competent then he or she becomes less aware of the mechanics of the speech and becomes more fluid in its use (Peter). Linguistic Nature A variety of ideas were expressed regarding the linguistic nature of tongues and the categories used to define them. Glenda thought that her glossolalia was a prayer language; although the possibilities of other people's tongues speech as being authentically human was not ruled out (John). They stressed the idea that their language was a means through which God communicated (Glenda) and through which one can identify mood (Valerie); in that sense it can be analogous to music (John). It is observed as communicating feelings, being, status and desires (Derek). Others thought that it was a definite heavenly language that was unknown to the speaker but known in the heavenly spiritual realm (Barry, Cyril, Deborah, William, Lesley, Peter). Some would also use the label 'tongues of angels', although this was less popular (Peter, Derek, Edward), and one person did not wish to label her tongue as being of angels (Lesley). A number were not sure whether their language was a real human language (xenolalia) (Valerie, Edward, Lesley, Graham) while others were able to recall anecdotes of xenolalia (Edward, Peter). Pierre said that his 'normal' tongue had been translated as Portuguese in one meeting and one of his other tongues was translated as Latin. He confessed that he had studied Latin at school but said that he had forgotten most of it and his tongue sounded nothing like the Latin he remembered from his schooldays. Fred likewise recalled how he has given evangelistic messages in both German and Chinese to separate individuals. William summarized his position by saying that he regarded xenolalia as a tongue which is used evangelistically to bring people into the Kingdom of God, while glossolalia, or a heavenly tongue is used by those within the

The Voices and Context of the People

45

Kingdom of God. Donald, however, felt unable to categorize his language and regarded it as gobbledegook. Control All but one of the informants said that they could control their glossolalia and give a sample of speech at will. William said that he could not do this because he progressed into tongues in the context of praise and worship; although he admitted to using tongues spontaneously when frightened. He also mentioned using tongues occasionally in his sleep, as did Lesley. Graham added that he would not use tongues glibly because it was a special language. Direction of Speech All the interviewees said that they would direct their speech primarily to God in prayer and worship, but some said that its direction could be to others via an interpretation (Glenda, Donald). If the persons of the Trinity were mentioned, then most stated that all members would form the subject addressed, although some said that they primarily addressed the Father (Barry, Edward, Lesley, Pierre), or Jesus (John), or the Father and Jesus (Deborah, Cyril, Donald). Indeed, Cyril and Donald expressed an interesting Trintarian dynamic. Cyril regarded tongues an a mode through which the Holy Spirit spoke to God through him. The prayer first goes through Jesus as the mediator and then to the Father. Donald echoed this by saying that he would not pray to the Spirit because the Spirit enables him to pray to the Father and Jesus. Deborah and Peter both mentioned the fact that tongues speech may be addressed to the speaker - that is, to oneself - as a means of stirring oneself up in the Spirit. It was also mentioned as being directed to the spiritual realm when one declared what God is saying in the Bible to those who inhabit this realm, including Satan (Valerie) and angels and demons (Peter); although Peter was reluctant to address his tongue speech personally to Satan. Intended Aim The intended aim of speaking in tongues varied, but most mentioned worship, praise and prayer (Glenda, Barry, John, William, Donald, Derek, Fred, Peter), intercession (Glenda, Barry, John, Edward, Cyril, Deborah, Pierre, Derek), singing in the Spirit (tongues) (Derek, Pierre), or prophecy (Barry, Deborah, Pierre, Peter). It can function to edify the speaker, build up their faith (Edward, Cyril, Deborah, Lesley, Pierre, Donald, Fred, Graham) and help the person find the empowering of the Holy Spirit (Glenda) and catharsis (Derek). This can be done by focusing on God and his truth (Valerie). It is also used in spiritual warfare (Glenda, Barry, William) as

46

Charismatic Glossolalia

Satan is confused by tongues he does not understand (Barry). It helps the speaker when they run out of English words to use and do not know what to pray (Cyril, William, Lesley, Derek, Graham). It is a good way of tuning into God and getting on his wavelength (Peter). Location All the people who were interviewed stated that there was no restriction on the location of speaking tongues. Most cited the occasions of personal prayer times, house group meetings and main church meetings as the most usual places where they would exercise the gift. Other places which were mentioned as locations included: the garden (Valerie); while walking between shops (Glenda, Lesley); just walking from one place to another (John, Lesley, Pierre, Fred); on the bus (John); driving the car (Pierre); doing housework (Deborah); and when cooking (Lesley). Some, out of respect for those who do not speak in tongues, would not use the gift with people who were not comfortable with it (John, Lesley, Donald), while others, like Fred, are happy to use it in prayer for others who are unbelievers. For example, Fred has used the gift to pray for people during a soup kitchen which the church delivers to the homeless three times a week. He recalled that as a result of his prayer in tongues 'they have gone out in the Spirit', by which he means that they have fallen over. Recipients The respondents gave slightly different answers to the question concerning who might be able to receive the gift of glossolalia. Some said that anyone could speak in tongues without any further qualification (Valerie, Cyril, Lesley), whereas Derek suggested that it was available to all, although normally Christians received it. Others specified that the person should be a Christian to receive the gift (Donald, Fred, Graham), while Pierre stated that the person should be a born again believer, and Barry added that they should also be baptized in the Spirit. Deborah said that the person could receive it if they were a Christian and wanted to receive the gift, while Edward and John added the extra qualification of being open to the Spirit. William observed that in addition to the desire to speak in tongues, there must be a willingness to 'count the cost' of it, as others may despise the speaker. Two people mentioned demonic tongues. Donald could not understand any non-Christian wanting to speak in in tongues unless it was for demonic reasons. Glenda said that anyone could receive tongues given the right supernatural conditions, and that was the same for born-again believers and Satanists who received demonic tongues. A slightly different approach to this question was taken by Derek who recalled anecdotal evidence to support the idea that unbelievers who had encountered the power of God had started to pray in tongues. Peter

The Voices and Context of the People

47

described it as a gift which needed to be received and which required knowledge of Jesus to do so. In some Christians it may lie dormant, and to appropriate the gift already within them they should step out in faith and receive it. Interpretation of Tongues All those interviewed had spoken aloud in tongues in a church meeting, whether a prayer cell, house group or main church meeting but this was usually together as a group in worship or prayer. Some had spoken audibly in tongues which someone else had interpreted (Glenda, John, Edward, William, Lesley, Pierre, Donald, Peter), while some had also interpreted their own tongue (Cyril, Deborah, William, Fred). Others had given the interpretation to someone else's audible tongue (Edward, Lesley, Graham). The main understanding of the process of interpreting tongues is that a person gets a sense of the message to be spoken, usually through words, pictures or a burden of its meaning (Glenda, Pierre, Derek, Peter). Alternatively, the person may get the message as they begin to speak it out (Valerie) and are prompted by the Spirit to share it (Edward). William explained that when a person hears a tongue, he or she should first ask God to give the interpretation, then the person should desire to interpret and finally be obedient in order to share it with the group. Donald similarly suggested that they should be on the same wavelength as the speaker and God. A number of interviewees noted that there is often more than one interpretation of a single glossolalic utterance but that these usually harmonize together (Valerie, Barry, Edward, William, Lesley, Graham, Peter). Thus the interpretation is regarded as the equivalent to prophecy (Glenda, Barry, Cyril, Deborah, Lesley, Pierre, Peter) and, indeed, God's voice for today (Fred). The contents of such messages were thus regarded as similar to prophecy in that they contained praise (Cyril), words of encouragement (Barry, Cyril, Deborah), words of knowledge (Deborah), words of blessing (Donald) and sometimes hard words (Donald). Emotions The question of what emotions are observed by those who speak in tongues is an interesting question and one which elicited a variety of responses. There were some who said that they had no particular emotional experience that differed from other devotional experience (Barry, John). A number said it depended on the context and the circumstances in which glossolalia was being used (Valerie, Deborah, William, Derek, Graham, Peter). A few stated that tongues themselves did not create particular emotions; rather, the gift gave expression to emotions which were already being experienced in the context of prayer and worship at the time (Glenda, Derek, Graham, Peter). Having made the above qualifications, the feelings or sensations experienced

48

Charismatic Glossolalia

included: urgency (Glenda); love (Glenda); coldness (Glenda); being in touch with the Holy Spirit (Valerie); being tuned into God (John); relaxation (Barry); release (Edward); relief (Donald); delight (Donald); uplift (Edward); going beyond oneself deeper in worship (Edward); an adrenalin rush (Edward, Pierre); stirring up (Cyril, Graham); excitement (Cyril); zeal (Cyril); passion (Cyril); anger or aggression in spiritual warfare (Deborah, Peter); drunkenness (William); intimacy (private, Pierre) (Graham); anxiety (public, Pierre); fear (public, Pierre); anticipation (public, Pierre); pleasantness (Donald); groaning or giving birth (Fred); freedom from distraction (Graham); elation (Peter); satisfaction at the communication achieved (Valerie); and being high (William). It was interesting to note that Pierre distinguished between feelings associated with intimacy in the private context and different feelings for a public audible tongue that he may have given. These public emotions are largely dictated by his expectation of an interpretation to follow and what he would do as a pastor if none was to be forthcoming. In addition, some people said that they had expressed their emotions physically through tears (Glenda, Cyril, Deborah, William, Lesley, Fred) and laughter (William, Lesley, Fred). Finally, the gift of tongues, while being expressed through the emotions, is perceived to operate at a level deeper than the emotions (Peter). Thoughts The recurrent thoughts at the time of speaking in tongues were explored with the following results. A good number of people said that they did not have any common or consistent thoughts at the time of speaking since it depended entirely on the context and content of the prayer (Glenda, Valerie, Edward, Deborah, Lesley, Peter), although two interviewees gave a negative answer to the question (Barry and, in private, Pierre). Some said that their thoughts were focused on the subject of their prayer or worship (Edward, Cyril, Deborah, William, Graham). John suggested an interesting idea in this respect. He observed that speaking in tongues for him seems to bypass the speech centre of the brain. When he speaks in tongues he can be thinking about something else. This is helpful with intercession because he can have a mental picture of what he is praying for and yet his mind can rove around the particular issue. This he could not do while praying in English. Others also suggested that they were able to receive the gist of the tongue while using it (Lesley) or mental pictures (Fred). There were only three people who were able to identify specific thoughts which occurred. The first was Pierre who, when he spoke in tongues in public, asked to himself 'Is anyone going to interpret?'. The second was Donald who said that he thinks about the idea that God delights in us, and that this has usually to do with a mood to dislodge feelings of depression and anger. Third, Derek admitted that, while normally speaking in tongues proceeds automatically once intiated, he sometimes found himself listening to

The Voices and Context of the People

49

his speech pattern. In this regard he wondered whether his speech was affected by his thoughts. Physical Accompaniments The relationship of physical accompaniments to glossolalia was explored with the respondents and produced the following comments. A number clearly said that there were no physical accompaniments to speaking in tongues (Glenda, John, Lesley, Pierre). John, on the other hand, felt that his glossolalic speech was more fluid than his English. Edward noted that he sometimes felt pressure on his temples and feelings of weightlessness when he felt 'anointed', but this was only 10 per cent of the time and it depended on the context. When he felt burdened he sometimes felt out of breath and would find himself bent over in physical pain as he interceded. A similar physical experience was given by Deborah who folds her arms over her stomach and has the picture of groaning and giving birth in the Spirit. Cyril said that he sometimes jumps when he gets excited and also lifts his arms (Deborah, Donald, Peter). Deborah and Graham said that they also sometimes clench their fists, and Graham also punches the air. They both also said that they stood while they spoke in tongues, Graham also admitting to stomping and Deborah saying that she also walked. Peter said that he sometimes knelt. William admitted to once falling off a couch as he spoke in tongues and Fred claimed to have been 'blown' off his feet. William also said that he has danced as he spoke in tongues. Lesley said that she experienced a range of experiences and noted that she sometimes experienced feelings of heat and coldness. Derek closed his eyes when he prayed and Barry claimed that, as well as feeling the Spirit stirring within him, he was totally aware of his surroundings. Finally, Valerie made a clear distinction between her initial experience of tongues - the experience of which she described as being very physical (see p. 41 above) - and her ongoing experience. She sometimes experienced a sense of burning inside but without any sensation of heat. Effects on the Speaker The effects of speaking in tongues depends on what is being prayed for (Glenda) but it can effect the release of a burden (Glenda), give joy (Barry) or bring down strongholds within people's lives (Fred). It can strengthen in times of illness (Glenda), effect healing (William), or help the speaker focus in prayer (Valerie) and communicate when words feel limited (Valerie, Derek). It enables the speaker to build a relationship with God (Donald), it increases faith (Barry, Cyril, Edward, Graham), gives assurance (Edward) and takes the speaker above his or her circumstances (Cyril). It can also reassure the speaker that he or she has done business with God (Edward) and can therefore trust God with what has been prayed for (Graham). It can function to sensitize

50

Charismatic Glossolalia

the human spirit to God's Spirit and make the person more alert spiritually (Deborah) as well as edify (Edward, Deborah, Lesley, Peter), exhort oneself (Deborah), and provide protection (Lesley) and peace (Lesley, Graham). The public use of tongues can bring a sense of achievement, excitement and pleasure as others are edified as well (Pierre). It can also be useful in relieving anxiety (Derek). However, John maintained that the effects of tongues speech were, for him, only secondary; its primary purpose was to communicate with God. The benefits he derived from the experience were good but not as significant as the communication itself. Effects on the Hearers The effects of the glossolalia depended, of course, on those who heard the speech and the context in which it was done. The reaction, or suspected reaction, was said to differ depending on whether the hearer was a tonguesspeaking Christian, a non-tongues-speaking Christian, and a non-Christian. To tongues-speakers, hearing another person speak in tongues may have no effect (John) or they may take it as a matter of course (Peter), or they may feel the presence of God (Glenda), or have a sense of beauty if they are hearing others sing in tongues (Edward). Alternatively, listening to tongues can inspire (Edward), challenge (Edward), stir up (Edward, Graham), encourage others to join in (William, Donald), or connect with God (Pierre). It may therefore have a snowball effect (Graham), which in turn can be powerful (Edward). Indeed the interpretation of a publicly uttered tongue can have a dynamic effect and lead the congregation into a sense of expectancy at what God is about to do (Pierre). Non-tongues speaking Christians may be 'put off and therefore become uncertain about it (John), or it could become a stumbling block to them (Derek). Some said that they would be reserved about glossolalia in front of those who did not speak in tongues themselves (Derek, Donald, John). The anticipated reaction of non-Christians to glossolalia was varied. They might be curious (Glenda), antagonistic (Pierre), annoyed (Glenda), interested (Glenda), willing to listen (Glenda), scared (Valerie), sceptical (Valerie), bewildered (Valerie), amazed (Valerie), intrigued (Valerie, Donald), perplexed (Barry), doubtful (Barry), amused (Deborah), shocked (Lesley), bemused (Donald), or embarrassed (Donald). Alternatively, they might find it strange (Lesley), or think the speakers are crazy (Cyril), 'nutters' or 'stupid showoffs' (William). They might think that it is a foreign language (Deborah), or gobbledegook (Peter). It may have no benefit whatsoever (Cyril). On the positive side, it may bring the non-Christian into the spiritual realm (William), or they may be edified when the tongue is interpreted as a word of knowledge for them (Fred), or they may experience a miracle (Barry). A couple of people said that they have never had any negative responses when praying in tongues with non-Christians (Glenda, Fred).

The Voices and Context of the People

51

Signification The questions regarding the signification or sign-value of glossolalia produced the following comments. A good number said that it was a sign of the presence or infilling of the Holy Spirit (Glenda, Barry, Deborah, Lesley, Derek), otherwise known as baptism in the Spirit. Most said that it was 'a' sign of baptism in the Spirit (Barry, Pierre, Donald, Derek, Peter) rather than 'the' only sign (Fred), although there were some mediating positions. For example, it was called the major sign (Cyril), the vital sign (Deborah), the basic sign (Lesley), or the sign that goes hand-in-hand with the Holy Spirit (Graham), even if it not the only sign. Valerie said that it was a sign of a higher spirituality or of the spiritual realm and it reminded her of angelic speech. John thought that it was sign of mystery and that we should not 'tie it down'. The significant point for John was that God is breaking free and operating outside our normal rationalistic structures. For Edward it was a sign of someone being open to God and it was unconnected to baptism in the Spirit. For William, the signification of tongues was entirely a matter of personal revelation. Fred thought that it was a sign of freedom and release, and Graham thought that it signified Christian maturity, if not spirituality. On this matter, Pierre did not regard it as a sign of maturity, spirituality or salvation, and for Peter it was the lowest common denominator of the all the gifts of the Spirit. Biblical References The books of the Bible referred to in connection with speaking in tongues were: Acts (Glenda, Barry, Cyril, William, Lesley, Donald, Derek, John, Peter), 1 Corinthians (Valerie, Barry, John, Edward, Cyril, Deborah, William, Pierre, Derek, Graham, Peter), Romans 8 (Valerie, Edward, Cyril, Deborah, William, Pierre, Derek, Graham), Jude v. 20 (Cyril, Deborah, Pierre) and Mark 16 (Donald). William also thought that speaking in tongues was referred to in the Old Testament. Specifically, Pierre alluded to Psalms 42, 103 and 104, and others alluded to Ephesians 6:18 (Derek, Fred). Christian Material The books that interviewees could remember having read were by the following authors: Dennis and Rita Bennett (Glenda, John, William, Pierre, Fred),15 Benny Hinn (Lesley, Derek, Graham, Fred), Jackie Pullinger (Edward), Francis MacNutt (Pierre),16 John Wimber (Pierre, Fred),17 Morton Kelsey (Pierre),18 Larry Lee (Barry),19 Claudio Freidzon (Lesley),20 Colin Urquhart (John), Stephen Winwood (William), Bill Subrizky (Glenda), Smith Wigglesworth (Glenda, Fred), Kenneth Hagin (Deborah, Fred) and Ralph Martin (John). Other teaching material included audiotapes by: Jimmie Swaggart on the subject of Galatians (William), Derek Prince (Cyril, Fred)

52

Charismatic Glossolalia

and Kenneth Copeland on the subject of spiritual gifts (Derek). Fred had also attended a conference conducted by Rodney Howard Browne as well as having watched videotapes of him. Others said that they had found the SCF teaching seminars, 'Spiritual Gifts' (Edward) and the Pastoral Ministry Training Course (Lesley), particularly useful. Lesley mentioned that the teaching she received at a local Pentecostal church in Brazil had also helped her understand glossolalia. Glossolalic Samples This study, as mentioned previously, is unable to provide a fresh linguistic analysis of the glossolalic samples taken, as such linguistic analysis falls outside its scope. However, it can be stated that all but one of the interviewees were able to give a sample of their tongues speech for the purposes of the interview. William refused to do this on the grounds that glossolalia is spontaneous and must, for him, naturally progress from worship and praise. He could not therefore produce a sample on demand. He was the only person who expressed this view, as the remainder produced speech even if they felt the need to enter into prayer in order to do so. John, being a musician, gave an interesting reflection on tongues speech in the light of his knowledge of music. This was accompanied by various different samples expressing different ideas. Within the samples taken, there does seem to be a resemblance between the tongues speech of Deborah, Cyril, Fred and Graham. This similarity may partly be explained by the fact that they attend the same house group and Deborah and Cyril are married to each other. Categorization of Data The data from the case study was content-analysed after it had been transcribed, checked and entered into a free-form text retrieval system. Categories from the initial research questions were used for this task. The main categories used were language, behaviour, purpose and significance. Since purpose points to the heart of the theological construction, I shall focus on this particular category.21 Purpose in this sense refers to the intention and goal of the language and associated behaviour. Content analysis showed that it could be defined primarily in terms of 'communication': it is a means of communicating. This central category can be divided into the two main categories of 'battle' and 'edification'. 'Battle' can be specifically defined in terms of 'rebuke', meaning a rebuke offered to the categories of 'demons' and 'Satan'. It is also defined in terms of 'declaration'. This is directed to the spiritual realm in general and includes the heavenly hosts. The ideas presented here means that glossolalia, when used in spiritual battle, refers to the notions of rebuking the enemy and of

The Voices and Context of the People

53

mobilizing heavenly assistance for battle in the heavenly places through declaring biblical truth. The category of 'edification' can be defined in terms of the benefits for those who 'worship', use 'prayer' and 'prophecy' by means of glossolalia. The direct object of worship and prayer is 'God', while prophecy can be directed to 'self or to 'others'. These others are defined in terms of 'believers' and 'unbelievers'. All these categories, it was discovered, filtered into a unifying category of 'fruit' - that is, the product or purpose of speaking in tongues. The category was further defined in terms of a sense of 'faith' being built up, 'intimacy', 'power', 'awe' and 'beauty'. These sets of categories which make up the nature of the fruit are highly significant for the study. In turn, 'faith' points to 'expectancy', 'intimacy' to 'security' and 'love', while 'power' is further defined in terms of 'witness', 'healing', 'miracles', 'holiness', 'change', and 'strength'. The category definition is set out in Figure 3.1. Discussion The nature of glossolalia does not lie primarily in its linguistic capacity to signify meaning. Although it can convey meaning in terms of mood, the evidence of xenolalia is anecdotal and beyond direct verification. Rather, the essence or nature of glossolalia, as described in this study so far, is to be seen in terms of glossolalia as a symbol. That is, speaking in tongues is a sacred symbol which is used in charismatic Christianity to represent a divine-human encounter within the spirituality of the individual and community to which the person is connected. This is most clearly demonstrated in relation to the fruit of communication - namely, a sense of beauty, awe, power, intimacy and faith (being built up). Beauty and awe represent the transcendent side of the symbol, referring to the otherness of God who is encountered in the symbol: a God who is ultimately beyond us and our experience of him. Power, intimacy and faith represent the immanent side of the symbol - as God who is encountered is also a God of grace who reveals something of himself in relationship. The symbolic quality of glossolalia is thus twofold: it points beyond itself to the God who is beyond sight and yet the one who is so near - near enough to sense his power made manifest and who responds in love and builds up the faith of the faithful to expect even more from the one who is worshipped and adored. Indeed, the category 'faith' essentially denotes 'faith-building' - that is, the increase of 'faith' as a consequence of glossolalic praxis, otherwise known as edification. The function of this symbol is connected to the spirituality process described within the categories of purpose, and to the key link categories of others, self and God which are further embedded in a Trinitarian prayer dynamic.

54

Charismatic Glossolalia Communication

Edification

Battle

Denions

Rebuke

Declaration

Sa tan

Spiritual Re;ilm

Worship

Prayer

G 3d

Prophecy

oC;lf

Otllers

Belie^vers

Unbel ievers

0,

Fruit

Faith

Expectancy

Witness

Intimacy

Security

Healing

Power

Awe

Beauty

Love

Miracles Holiness

Change

Strength

Figure 3.1 The purpose of glossolalia: categories and subcategories

The process can best be described by use of interview material. In the interview with Glenda, the spirituality process can be observed from the following data: 70. G: Yea, I mean I know, now I know why why God did this why he gave us the Holy Spirit in this way to pray an' an' the tongues for speaking because I've seen so much fruit from it. Where before I didn't understood why but I never really did. Maybe I did and didn't put two and two together. But I didn't actually see fruit that I could say, you know, that that has been borne through the power of the Spirit and praying in tongues. But now, yea I mean I've, I've had immediate emotional healing for example, erm, from really severe traumas, erm, through praying in tongues ...

The Voices and Context of the People

55

71. MC: For other people? 72. G: ...for for other people and for myself. But particularly in the last two years for myself. Erm, but I always do pray in tongues for other people, erm, as a leading really to get a leading, erm. But I find also that it's when I've done that that God seems, I'm more receptive to hearing God's voice and erm more empowered and I find break through in spiritual warfare, erm, yea, I mean, now it's it's just so real and so vital that I actually I'm so grateful God never left me to find out late in the day in my Christian life, you know, yea. Speaking in tongues appears to produce 'fruit', such as emotional healing and empowerment for spiritual warfare. Seen in these terms the process is cyclical. Speaking in tongues within the context of prayer or worship bears fruit. The power which is part of that fruit is then applied not for edification primarily through prayer and worship but for spiritual battle. That in turn produces more fruit and so the process continues. At the centre of the process is the symbol of glossolalia. At the heart of this process lie the link categories of others, self and God. Once again, this can best be described by reference to interview material. In the interview with Edward the features of this dynamic are observed: 86. E: When / first, this is something /, that asked quite a lot when /, when / first started speaking in tongues. And, erm yea, it say that it, erm, it edifies, that it's edification of yourself. And I've certainly felt that at times, erm, an' / felt when I've been very oppressed and an' quite down and feeling quite trapped in something that quite often praying in tongues has been, has really lifted my spirits. An' / remember that, that that was one of the earliest memories of it of just just walking out of my house in Salford an' just walking up and down the street praying in tongues an' feeling so uplifted that that sort of, you know, praying in English which was just a faltering sort of kind of desperate thing but it's time to pray in tongues was something that really really lifted me. And there was another key time when, erm, when the verse about, you know, when we don't have words to pray the Spirit intercedes with, erm, in groans. Erm, came very clearly to me was was one time when / was, / was praying for the CU exec committee just in my room and, erm, when / came to praying for the President, I was suddenly very very burdened and an' praying quite well very very fervently in tongues. It was, it was something different, it was, wasn't, it was something I definitely remembered. It was very very powerful. And I found myself expressing something that / didn't really, didn't really, understand. / didn't know why. But /, / met him three or four days later an' just thought I'd ask him about it. And, er, / said: 'Has anything particularly happened this week?' And he said 'Yea, it's been one of the hardest weeks of my life, erm'. And all sorts of things had really come to a head that week. Erm, so ... / told him that I'd suddenly been very very burdened, / didn't know any of that, but I'd, without realizing, without realizing what was going on, 7 W been very burdened to pray for him and that was praying in tongues without knowing anything of the situation. And that was that was a great encouragement to me that it was something that God could use, erm. And that, 7 guess, that's been the main the main thing

56

Charismatic Glossolalia that's ... been achieved in praying. It's when, it's when English doesn't quite do it and, erm, I've found myself praying very much more powerfully quite often in tongues. ... Praying for a breakthrough on something.

The above account of a prayer incident displays, as highlighted, the way in which these categories permeate the understanding of glossolalia and tie the data together. The personal pronouns mostly refer to Edward himself praying, while the other in this case is the CU (Christian Union) president. The categories of Spirit and God confirm that the other link category in this dynamic is God. This is further demonstrated by Derek in his interview where these categories are once again in evidence. 101. D: / feel that when my words, /just feel - oh dear, run out of words - that that it's to communicate, it's a it's a cry to God at times. / kind of, I've sort of feel it sums up, / don't know it's like, it's somehow it's a very, it's a cathartic catharsis of an experience almost in that it's a very kind of emotional thing, it kind of communicates something to God. It said, for me, oh / dunno, it's hard. Also but at other times, you know, as I've said it can be, it can be lots of things, it can be intercession for somebody else, or for something else, praying in the Spirit, praying alongside the Spirit, praying what the Spirit wants you to pray, that your prayers might affect, actually affect the lives, you know the physical lives, of other Christians, other, no, other people, non-Christians even. But or, or it can be a cry to God for something, or it could be worship, you know, if it's singing, if you're singing in tongues, you know. Trinitarian categories were not always sufficiently distinguished but this led to further reflections on the Trinitarian character of the divine-human encounter. The following extracts from interviews with Barry, John, Fred, Cyril and Pierre give an indication of the ideas which were expressed. 54. B: I believe really that the, I mean, the Trinity is is is one God. So I mean it doesn't, I mean I interchange even when I'm not speaking in tongues between Jesus and God and even the Holy Spirit so it's it's ... I don't ever consciously set out to speak to one and not the others. I believe you speak to either, any either God, you speak to Jesus, you speak to the Holy Spirit so on that basis ... 108. J: Well I think that's an interesting one an' I, it seems that different people have a a perhaps a particular deep relationship with one particular member of the Trinity. For some people it's the Father, for some people the Holy Spirit. I think for me, I ... it tends to be Jesus, I think more so. Er he's he's probably the person, er, I communicate directly to, certainly more than the Father an' an' Holy Spirit. But I mean that's not a problem because, er, Jesus is the way to the Father, erm. And it's the Holy Spirit who gives us the gift so it's all one anyway, er. I think it's just the human face that I particularly, er, relate to, you know, the human person of Jesus. 83. MC: Any person of the Godhead that you would think about when you pray in tongues more so than any of the others?

The Voices and Context of the People

57

84. F: (pause) Cor, you're asking a question now, aren't you, erm, I mean ... 85. MC: Father or the Son ...? 86. F: ...Well... 87. MC: ...or the Spirit? 88. F: ...I believe the three are one so therefore I'm praying, when I'm praying to God, I'm actually praying to Jesus, erm, and the Spirit. When, when the Spirit moves he brings glory to Jesus and he brings glory to God. So therefore, you know, I'm praying to all three. So therefore I mean if I've gotta put a head on the Godhead I'd always say I'd be praying, you know, dear Father God, you know and then... 121. C: Well, that's a, that's an interesting question actually because, you know, it is the the Holy Spirit within me is actually speaking to God. I don't know that who, whose ear it goes. 'Cos you know I believe personally that, you know, that I have a mediator between me and God and it's the man Jesus Christ. So I would believe that it goes first through Jesus, it always goes through Jesus because he's the saviour. 122. MC: And then it would go to...? 123. C: It goes to the Father through Jesus. The Spirit speaks through me through Jesus to the Father. 124. MC: That's an interesting ... 125. C: ... cycle but I'm not God, I don't belong to the Godhead. 126. MC: You don't no ... 127. C: I'm the earthen vessel, ha, in between, hahaha. 62. MC: Okay. Any member of the Godhead that you would want to identify more than the others in terms of the focus? 63. P: Erm, I would probably generally say to the Father, but that's sort of probably more from a theological conviction that prayer is directed to the Father. But I wouldn't say that's exclusive an', yea, and certainly at times I would communicate with both Jesus and the Holy Spirit directly both praying in tongues and in English. But I would say primarily the Father. The above quotations give different perspectives on the question of how the speaker relates to the Godhead in prayer. The words from Romans 8:26, '... the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express', is significant in this regard. The Spirit is understood to be actively praying from within the believer, by means of the human spirit, through the gift of tongues which in turn lifts the speaker up into the Trinitarian life of God. Such a notion was almost described by Cyril, but he appeared to draw back at the implication of such a conclusion. This whole perspective is considered to be of sufficient importance to be discussed in more detail later. Concluding Remarks This study is able to show that glossolalia remains a central feature of charismatic spirituality, not in terms of baptism in the Spirit, but in terms of

58

Charismatic Glossolalia

worship, intercession and spiritual warfare. The emphasis on spiritual warfare in this church context gives glossolalia its primary role and function. It becomes a key weapon in the armoury since Satan is perceived not to understand it and therefore has difficulty in responding to it. This particular interpretation of glossolalia is resourced by certain tenets of the Pentecostal and Charismatic tradition; however, aspects which might offer a critique of this theological praxis would appear to be marginalized within this church context.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19

Stake, Robert E. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, London: Sage, p. 3. Yin, Robert K. (1989), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, London: Sage; Yin, Robert K. (1993), Applications of Case Study Research, London: Sage. Ibid., p. 23. Ibid., p. 84. Ibid., p. 38. Ibid., p. 45. Cartledge, Mark J. (1999), Tongues of the Spirit: An Empirical-Theological Study of Charismatic Glossolalia', unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Wales, Trinity College, Carmarthen, ch. 3. Carlyle, Janice (1994), 'The Distribution of Independent Evangelical Churches and their Role in the Community of Liverpool', BSc Geography Part III dissertation, University of Liverpool. Silvoso, Ed (1994), That None Should Perish, Ventura, CA: Regal Books. Walker, Andrew (1988), Restoring the Kingdom, London: Hodder & Stoughton, pp. 32-3. Carlyle, 'Distribution of Independent Evangelical Churches' (n. 7), p. 16. Ibid., p. 29. The Faith movement is especially associated with Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland. It stresses the power of faith in receiving the promises of God. The catchphrases include: 'name it and claim it', and 'believe it and receive it'. For a good description, see Smail, Thomas, Walker, Andrew and Wright, Nigel (1994), '"Revelation Knowledge" and Knowledge of Revelation: The Faith Movement and the Question of Heresy', JPT, 5, pp. 57-77. Nota Bene Orbis (1993), Baltimore: The Technology Group, Inc.; and Dey, Ian (1993), Qualitative Data Analysis, London: Routledge. Bennett, Dennis and Bennett, Rita (1970), Nine o'Clock in the Morning, Plainfield, NJ: Logos. MacNutt, Francis (1974), Healing, Notres Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press. Wimber, John (1985), Power Evangelism, London: Hodder & Stoughton. Kelsey, Morton (1964, 1981), Tongue Speaking: The History and Meaning of Charismatic Experience, New York: Crossroad. Lee, Larry (1990), The Hearing Ear: Learning to Listen to God, Eastbourne: Kingsway.

The Voices and Context of the People 20 21

59

Freidzon, Claudio (1996), Holy Spirit, I'm Hungry for You, Eastbourne: Kingsway. For information concerning data analysis of the whole data set, see Cartledge, 'Tongues of the Spirit' (n. 7), chs 3 and 4.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 4

A Survey of the Literature Introduction Since the explosion of speaking in tongues in the 1960s there has been a constant flow of literature published from a variety of perspectives. Usually any new contribution does so from within the domain of its own specialism. Hence there are specialist New Testament studies which make no reference to the contemporary Church and, likewise, sociological and psychological studies which make no reference either to Christian tradition or to the New Testament. This survey aims to gather the main threads of discussion from three perspectives. First, there is a survey of the New Testament which provides the foundation for discussion of speaking in tongues within Christian discourse. This inevitably considers some of the more academic approaches to the subject from within theology. Second, there is a survey of Pentecostal and Charismatic theology which emerges from within those traditions. The nature of this material is mostly of a popular kind, but it also includes academic approaches. Third and finally, there is a survey of behavioural science studies. This survey covers the areas of anthropology, linguistics, sociology, psychology, medical and health studies, as well as various combinations of these approaches. New Testament Studies1 Roy A. Harrisville, in an article on the lexicography of glossolalia, noted that there are 35 references to what is commonly called 'speaking in tongues' in the New Testament.2 There are 28 references in 1 Corinthians, of which 23 appear in Chapter 14. The remainder (seven) appear in the Gospel of Mark and the Acts of the Apostles.3 Usually the phenomenon is referred to by the noun glossa (tongue) and the verb lalein (to speak). The most common variant of the phrase is that used by Paul - namely, glossais lalein (to speak in tongues); although he also uses the singular form, lalein (en) glosse(i) (to speak in a tongue). In Acts, Luke uses the phrase lalein heterais glossais (to speak in other tongues), lalounton glossais (speaking in tongues) and elaloun te glossais (they spoke in tongues).4 Whether the Lukan version is more original than Paul's, because it is a longer version, or whether both are equally original and simply alternatives is uncertain. Christopher Forbes, for one,

61

62

Charismatic Glossolalia

thinks that Luke's phrase is probably the original, while Paul's came later.5 However, the Markan version (glossais lalesousin kainais - they will speak in new tongues6) belongs to the 'longer ending' to the Gospel which many scholars regard as being a later and unoriginal ending.7 In Mark's Gospel, the reference to speaking in tongues comes in the context of a resurrection appearance and the commission by Jesus to preach the good news to all creation.8 Signs are to accompany those who respond to the preaching of the good news, which include: driving out demons; speaking in new tongues; picking up snakes with their hands; drinking deadly poison without ill effect; and healings.9 The longer ending of Mark concludes by summarizing the event of the ascension and the ongoing preaching of the disciples, accompanied by these signs. In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus descends on the disciples with what appear to be 'tongues of fire'.10 All the disciples are filled with the Spirit and begin to 'speak in other tongues'.11 The crowd come to watch this event and each is able to hear his own language being uttered.12 Many different people hear the disciples 'declaring the wonders of God' in their own languages.13 This causes some to be amazed while others mock and make fun of them, deducing that they are drunk. Peter addresses the crowd and asserts that the disciples are not drunk since it is 'only nine in the morning'.14 In Acts 10:44 the episode of the visit of Peter to the Gentile household of Cornelius is marked by an outpouring of the Hoy Spirit while Peter is still speaking. The Jewish believers were astonished that the Holy Spirit had come upon these Gentiles for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.15 Therefore the Gentiles are all susequently baptized since they had received the gift of the Spirit in a similar fashion to the Jewish believers.16 Finally, in Acts 19:2 we have the episode of the Ephesian disciples of John who had not heard anything regarding the Holy Spirit. On hearing news of Jesus, they are baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.17 Subsequently Paul lays his hands upon them and they speak in tongues and prophesy.18 Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, provides the most information we have in the New Testament. In Corinthians 12:10 he mentions 'speaking in different kinds of tongues' and the 'interpretation of tongues' as gifts given by the Spirit for the common good. As part of the body of Christ, believers have different gifts. Some 'speak in different kinds of tongues',19 but not all 'speak in tongues' or 'interpret' those tongues.20 Paul prefers that believers demonstrate love in their lives rather than 'speak in the tongues of men or of angels'.21 In chapter 14 Paul deals extensively with the question of tongues and prophecy. He says that tongues speech is directed to God, is incomprehensible to hearers and constitutes 'mysteries' in the spirit.22 The person speaking in tongues edifies him or herself.23 Tongues are only beneficial to the congregation if they contain some revelation,24 therefore the tongues speaker should pray for an interpretation of what s/he says in the congregation.25 Praying in tongues is praying with the spirit while the mind is

A Survey of the Literature

63

unfruitful.26 Yet, in the congregation, intelligible words are more important.27 Tongues are a sign for unbelievers,28 although unbelivers hearing everyone speak in tongues in the assembly will think that the company is mad.29 If anyone speaks in tongues in the congregation, two or three should speak one at a time and someone must interpret.30 The others should weigh up what is said.31 Speaking in tongues should not be forbidden, but everything should be done in order.32 The Linguistic Nature of Glossolalia One of the central questions with which commentators have concerned themselves is the linguistic nature of New Testament glossolalia.33 There appear to be a number of options. These are: 1

that Paul and Luke thought that glossolalia was miraculous ability to speak unlearned human languages;34 2 that Paul thought glossolalia was the miraculous ability to speak heavenly languages;35 3 that Paul thought glossolalia was some form of combination of (1) and (2);36 4 that Paul thought that glossolalia was a kind of sub- or prelinguistic form of speech, possibly a coded utterance, similar to but not identical with speech, but nevertheless capable of conveying meaning;37 5 that Paul thought glossolalia was idiosyncratic language, a dialect for prayer, in which archaic and foreign terms dominated;38 6 that, whatever Paul and Luke thought, the glossolalia was in fact unintelligible speech, perhaps with a small number of authentic foreign words occurring;39 7 that the Apostles spoke fragments of Hebrew texts;40 8 various Greek dialects;41 9 that Corinthian tongues were enigmatic 'dark sayings';42 10 that Christian tongues were 'cadences of vocalization which do not constitute discourse';43 11 that Corinthian tongues were unintelligible due to their manner of delivery (involving spontaneity, excitement and incoherence);44 12 that the real miracle in Acts 2 was not one of speaking but of hearing, as the hearers were given the ability to understand a language or unintelligible speech that they would have not otherwise have been able to.45 Vern S. Poythress asks three distinct questions. First, what did the Corinthians perceive to be the linguistic nature of glossolalia? Second, what classification would a modern scientific approach use?46 And, third, how did Paul classify the phenomenon linguistically? In terms of the first question he

64

Charismatic Glossolalia

argues that most, if not all, of the phenomenon would have been understood in terms of 'a connected sequence of sounds that sounded to them like a human language that they did not know', although the possibility that they might have known the language (for example, in terms of Greek, Latin or a minority language) is left open.47 With regard to the second question, he argues that the principal alternatives concerning Corinthian glossolalia include options (1) - although unknown to the assembly it is known somewhere in the world - (4), (6) and (10) above, as well as a further option (13): that is, 'a piece without fragments from known human language, having linguistic deviations from patterns common to human languages, yet being indistinguishable by a naive listener from a foreign language'.48 He argues that much of modern glossolalia can be classified by option (13), with a few cases of (6). While option (1) is regarded as a possibility, nevertheless, 'with the available evidence, there seems to be no hope of deciding between alternatives [(4), (6) and (13)], or showing that several of them occurred at Corinth'.49 Concerning the third question, Poythress suggests that Paul's use of lalein glosse(i) meant that he regarded glossolalia as language-like, probably similar to options (1), (4), (6) and (13). Paul regarded these phenomena as at least intelligible to God.50 However, neither Paul nor the Corinthians would have been able to distingush between these types by any natural means available to them. Furthermore, Poythress argues that Paul was not interested in the precise linguistic nature of glossolalia. Rather, he was more interested in affirming glossolalia as a gift of the Spirit51 and to focus on its proper and improper use.52 These options may be simplified, as suggested by Forbes, into two main ones: 1 Both Luke and Paul considered tongues speech to be unlearned human language (with perhaps angelic speech as well).53 2 They both considered the phenomenon to be inarticulate speech.54 He argues that the weight of evidence suggests that (1) is the preferred interpretation. Luke certainly appears to portray glossolalia on the day of Pentecost as xenolalia (2.6,8,II).55 While inarticulate speech can explain Paul's reference to speakers of different languages as being foreign in terms of metaphor, the reference to 'tongues of men'56 cannot be so explained. This sort of interpretation has been challenged by Anthony C. Thiselton, who suggests that hermeneud could mean 'to articulate' or 'to put into words' something which was previously inarticulate rather than 'to translate'.57 However, some argue that while Thiselton has shown that hermeneud (and diermeneuo) might be understood in this way, he has not demonstrated that Paul understood the verb in that sense.58

A Survey of the Literature

65

The Religious and Contextual Background to Corinthian Glossolalia The question of the background to Corinthian tongues speech is also related to the problem at Corinth which prompted the correspondence in the first place. There have been a variety of proposals concerning this question: 1

that tongues were prized since they were known to be associated with the apostles at Pentecost;59 2 that tongues were a result of Jewish-Christian pressure to manifest 'Palestinian piety';60 3 that tongues themselves were the problem;61 4 that tongues were highly prized, rather than the .problem being a matter of practice;62 5 that tongues were preferred over prophecy,63 or that there was a power struggle between glossolalics and prophets;64 6 that tongues were a manifestation of misdirected individualism;65 7 that the problem itself is over-estimated;66 8 that it is part of the larger dispute between Paul and the Corinthians over Gnosticism;67 9 that it is part of the problem of over-realized eschatology at Corinth;68 10 that it is due to the influence of Hellenistic-Jewish speculation about sophia',69 11 that the Corinthians overevaluated tongues speech because of their experience of glossolalia and similar phenomena in Hellenistic religion.70 While the majority of New Testament scholars have tended to see the Corinthian glossolalia as emerging out of ecstatic unintelligible speech of Hellenistic antiquity,71 Harrisville contends that Jewish apocalypticism, which did not distinguish between unintelligible ecstatic speech and glossolalia,72 was the appropriate background. However, with the lack of evidence from this source, most have turned to Hellenism or a general background of ecstaticism.73 Hellenism has therefore been felt to provide the clearest parallel to 1 Corinthians' uninterpreted glossolalia. The parallel which is most used is the ecstatic and unintelligible utterances of the Delphic priestess, which is subsequently interpreted by a prophet.74 Forbes, has considered such parallels in great detail. He argues that, at the cult centres cited, inspiration does not lead to linguistic unintelligibility. The frenzied speech usually associated with the Mystery Religions (Cybele and Dionysus) provide no suitable parallel to the Corinthians tongues.75 This is supported by no effective parallel in other types of popular Hellenistic religion.76 This means that speaking in tongues within the early Church was a religious novum.11 Therefore the argument that Corinthian glossolalia and prophecy originate in the pre-Christian religious experience of the Corinthians is based on weak evidence, 'since it is difficult to parallel many features of early Christian enthusiasm at all within Hellenistic religion and culture' ,78

66

Charismatic Glossolalia

On the specific question of whether Corinthian glossolalia was ecstatic, the question depends largely on what one means by 'ecstatic'.79 Such labelling assumes that the Corinthian phenomenon did belong to the range of ecstatic unintelligble utterances of Hellenistic religion. Gundry is one scholar who has differentiated Christian tongues speech from the ecstatic unintelligible speech of Hellenistic religion.80 Indeed the modern understanding of the term 'ecstatic' is not necessarily identical with the meaning of the Greek word ekstatikos. Some modern scholars tend to use it in the modern sense of frenzy or trance.81 Others interpret the term more generally as a synonym for being 'inspired'.82 Wayne Grudem argues for four tests of whether a speech is ecstatic, which would include incomprehensible speech and therefore glossolalia.83 David E. Aune has suggested a typology based on the anthropological concept of 'altered states of consciousness', which include the categories of: 'possession trance' and 'vision trance'. The first is caused by external spiritual beings while the second is caused by visions and 'out of the body experiences'. These are further divided into controlled and uncontrolled states.84 However, to use such anthropological categories is also to interpret ancient phenomenon with a modern sense. When scholars assert that tongues speech was ecstatic and thereby coerced speech, they do not take the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:28 seriously.85 Glossolalia was no more ecstatic than prophecy.86 I conclude this section with a summary drawn from Forbes as to the problem of glossolalia at Corinth.87 He argues that the problem concerned the exaltation of glossolalia above other works of the Spirit which benefited the church community.88 Those who practised glossolalia were exalted and secured their status within the community as pneumatics.89 This meant that divisions within the church were either caused or exacerbated by glossolalia.90 Paul argues that tongues are not a special sign of anything among believers, including pneumatic elitist status; rather, tongues are at best a negative sign to unbelievers. This behaviour therefore alienates and excludes unbelievers. This way of practising prophecy leads to disorder and the exclusion of some, to the loss of the church community. These charges by Paul would have been defended with the claim of prophetic/pneumatic status by those involved, to which Paul answered that the Spirit regulates and acts communally, not individually. Drawing on R.A. Horsley and J.A. Davies, Forbes goes on to suggest that the Corinthians probably learned their glossolalia from Paul himself, which strengthened the esteem in which they held the gift.91 It was therefore associated with great Christian leaders and if they had tradition about the day of Pentecost, they would have been confirmed in this view.92 Paul may or may not have taught about restraint at his time at Corinth. Nevertheless, in his absence, elitist tendences became obvious and glossolalia and prophecy became marks of the spiritual elite and evidence of the Spirit in a mature Christian. The wordpneumatikos was a Corinthian slogan which encapsulated

A Survey of the Literature

67

experiences of pneuma within an elitist theology. The argument of 1 Corinthians 12-14 is directed against this pneumatikoi/teleioi (spiritual/mature) view.93 Forbes summarizes his position by saying: For Paul glossolalia was simply one manifestation of the work of the Spirit among other manifestations. It was not the highest of these; nor, necessarily, was it the lowest. It was simply one among many. As such its function ought to have been the building up of the assembly as a whole: such upbuilding ought to include numerical increase, by way of the attraction, retention and conversion of interested nonbelievers, and also the edification of those who already believed. Some Corinthians, however, had made glossolalia a criterion by which (a) believers might be identified from among non-believers, the boundaries of the community being thus defined, and (b) the truly mature, the pneumatikoi or teleioi, might be identified from among their lesser brethren. Thus the boundary within the community between the elite and non-elite members was defined. In other words they had used it as a form of behaviour that differentiated between 'insiders' and 'outsiders', both with regard to the community in relation to the wider world, and with regard to relationships within the community itself. Such a view explains Paul's double objection to glossolalia used without interpretation: it excludes and alienates 'unbelievers and those who do not understand', and it does not 'build up' believers.94

The Purpose of Glossolalia The purpose or function of tongues has been considered by the two most recent commentators on the subject, so I shall therefore use their work as a basis for this discussion. In terms of its purpose, Turner suggests that speaking in tongues functions first as a sign, second for building up the church, and, third as an aid to private devotion. Since these areas are also covered by Forbes it is useful to consider his work alongside that of Turner. Forbes observes that it is commonly held that tongues speech is primarily a sign that is, a miracle to draw attention to something else.95 This view is either based on Acts 2:11: 'wonders in heaven above, and signs on the earth below', which is interpreted by Luke as a sign of the fulfilment of prophecy;96 or it is based on 1 Cor. 14:20-25.97 Here it has been understood as: a sign of God's judgement on unbelieving Jews;98 a sign of God's judgement on unbelievers generally;99 a sign of covenantal rejection of national Israel;100 a sign of divine attitude or spiritual activity, its nature being unspecified by the terminology;101 5 being impossible to define how Paul interpreted the sign value of tongues speech since Paul's use of this terminology is to echo and respond to his opponents.102

1 2 3 4

68

Charismatic Glossolalia

Turner argues for the fourth view - that is, in 1 Corinthians 14:22 Paul states that tongues are a sign not to believers but to unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not to unbelievers but believers. Turner argues, in agreement with Wayne Grudem, that the word semeion has a double meaning in the Septuagint.103 That is, it can refer to a 'sign' of either God's blessing on his covenant people and/or of his judgement on unbelievers. Paul's citation of Isaiah 28:11 is interpreted to mean that, since Israel did not listen to God when he spoke clearly, he will now speak through the foreign language of an invading army. Paul uses this to convey to the Corinthians the idea that speaking in tongues without interpretation would similarly function as a sign of judgement since God refuses to speak in a comprehensible language. Prophecy, however, is 'God's self-revealing and communicating presence',104 and as such is a sign of blessing. In Grudem's view tongues on their own do not constitute a positive sign to unbelievers (although if interpreted this would be the case). Rather, Grudem believes that, if tongues are taken mistakenly to function as a sign to unbelievers, then they do so negatively.105 Paul does not regard this as their proper purpose, he prescribes that they be used only with interpretation. This approximates to the positive sign value of prophecy. However, this is a concession by Paul, and their real purpose must be looked for elsewhere.106 Second, Turner interprets Paul as saying that tongues on their own do not edify the church,107 although he allows that tongues with interpretation can function similarly to prophecy and build it up.108 Indeed, this is commended with moderation.109 But Turner does not believe that this is what Paul regards as being the main purpose of tongues. Forbes wishes to give a slightly more prominent role to this feature because he understands that glossolalia is seen by both Luke and Paul as being revelatory, especially, although not exclusively, when interpreted. This view is often held alongside other views mentioned above. Some argue that glossolalia had one set of functions when interpreted, and another set when uninterpreted.110 The view that Luke saw glossolalia as revelatory is evident from the way in which he assumes that glossolalia and other forms of inspired speech have a close relationship. He argues that Paul clearly believed that glossolalia was revelatory. This can be deduced from the observation that, when tongues are interpreted, they edify the congregation, similarly to prophecy, and that therefore both glossolalia and prophecy have parallel functions when glossolalia is interpreted.111 That is why Paul stresses the interpretation of tongues.112 Also, tongues speech is connected in Corinthians 14:2 with 'mysteries'. The word mysterion is usually a term of revelation in Paul.113 The inspired prayer and praise are related to revelations of God's secret purposes, now being revealed - that is, mysteries. In this function its preferred use is private.114 Third, the idea that tongues is a private aid to devotion is advocated by Turner as the main purpose of tongues by Paul.115 While the gift may edify the

A Survey of the Literature

69

congregation if interpreted, it edifies the individual in private more directly: 'As doxological speech, or prayer, one would anticipate the gift would be better described as "God-centred" than "self-centred".'116 Paul, while banning the uninterpreted phenomenon from the assembly, recognizes that it is a genuine form of speaking to God.117 However, unless tongues are interpreted, they remain 'only to God' and cannot edify the congregation. This means, therefore, that Paul considers private use to be appropriate use. This is further encouraged when Paul 'commands that if glossal are not interpreted the speaker should then be silent in church; he should speak rather "to himself and to God". As it is improbable that Paul is counselling private use of tongues in church when another is ministering, this seems to be a positive injunction to private use'.118 Similarly, Forbes argues that tongues speech is also inspired prayer and praise - that is, praying/singing 'in the Spirit' and 'blessing in the Spirit':119 a form of devotional practice, directed to God,120 which is sometimes practised corporately,121 and which Paul wishes to restrict to private use.122 However, some have suggested that even this restriction is a concession and that Paul's real view is that all glossolalia is self-indulgent.123 As a result, Turner concludes that Paul understood tongues to fulfil a doxological and revelatory role to the congregation when accompanied by interpretation but that the major role was a private one in which the individual used it as an aid in private devotion.124 However, Forbes observes that while some prioritize Luke (Acts 2, often with 1 Cor. 14:20-25), others prioritize Paul.125 But, he argues, Paul refers to different kinds of tongues (gene glosson, 1 Cor. 12:10, 28), and the question as to their social function in the New Testament depends on the context. Edification is of one's spirit126 and therefore of a non-cognitive kind. This may be considered inferior to cognitive edification but it is nevertheless real.127 Whereas Turner focuses on the private devotional use as the main purpose of tongues in Paul, Forbes wishes to maintain a number of functions which can be used in different contexts. The reading of the other material is largely the same by both scholars, but the emphasis in terms of priority is different. This is where they part company since Forbes wishes to maintain all three elements as distinct functions, while Turner prioritizes private usage.128 Summary In summarizing the results of this New Testament survey, I have to admit that we do not really know what the linguistic nature of glossolalia was in the first century - only what Luke and Paul thought that it was.129 However, in terms of what they considered the linguistic nature of glossolalia to be, the matter is relatively clear. Luke considered glossolalia to be real unlearned human languages (xenolalia), while Paul understood glossolalia to be either real unlearned human languages (xenolalia) or a mysterious kind of heavenly

70

Charismatic Glossolalia

language which he called the 'language of angels' (this latter type may have been based on the rhetoric of the Corinthians themselves and which Paul endorses). The idea that Paul could have lumped together xenolalia and the modern unintelligible phenomenon of glossolalia is, of course, possible, but it remains beyond any kind of empirical investigation and is therefore speculative. In both cases, Paul believed that glossolalia was communicative. However, this vehicle of communication was only understood by either the speaker or the hearers when some form of 'interpretation' was given. In terms of xenolalia this would have been a translation, but for angelic language it is impossible to specify exactly what the nature of the 'interpretation' was. In either case the 'tongue' benefited the speaker since his or her spirit was edified. But the hearers were only edified when an interpretation mediated some cognitive meaning. In terms of the function of glossolalia, there are quite distinct traits within the New Testament. For Luke, it was one of the signs of the end-time 'Spirit of Prophecy', which symbolized the restoration of Israel.130 This was extended to the Gentiles within the narrative of Acts, so that it symbolized the universal giving of the Spirit to all people, while for the spiritual elite of Corinth, it symbolized status and spiritual power. There is good reason to suggest that this might have also been linked to issues of gender. However, for Paul, it was a sign of God's blessing which, in the wrong circumstances, could also symbolize God's curse (as in the case of unbelievers overhearing tongues and being scandalized by God's grace). It can also function in a revelatory sense when accompanied by the gift of interpretation. In such circumstances it approximates to prophecy, although the language Paul uses suggests that the content of such speech was praise and prayer and thus directed to God. Glossolalia also functions as a personal and private gift edifying the spirit of the person using it in private devotion. However, the prioritizing of this function is open to doubt, since Paul clearly envisioned a number of functions of glossolalia at Corinth. In order to balance the extremes of the spiritual elite, Paul advocates either a more communal use of the gift (with interpretation) or a more private use. I would suggest that had it been used and controlled in the public context, Paul might not have emphasized the private context quite so much. Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology Historical Background In 1900 Charles Fox Parham started the 'Bethel Bible School' in Topeka. By December 1900 Parham and his students has studied the major tenets of the Holiness movement. They had also decided that the scriptural evidence for baptism in the Holy Spirit was 'speaking with other tongues'. At a watchnight service on 31 December 1900, which continued into the New Year, Agnes N.

A Survey of the Literature

71

Ozman asked Parham to lay hands on her head and pray for her to be baptized in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. It was after midnight when Agnes Ozman was reported to have begun to 'speak in the Chinese language'. Sometime afterwards the remainder of the students, and then Parham himself, spoke in tongues. Subsequently, Parham preached about the experience at all his services.131 This is widely regarded as the beginning of the Pentecostal movement in the United States of America. Parham also began to teach that missionaries need not learn to speak foreign languages; all that was sufficient was the baptism in the Holy Spirit, evidenced by tongues. After meeting in Missouri in 1901, Parham closed the Bible school in Topeka and travelled around for four years spreading the Pentecostal doctrine through Kansas City, Lawrence, Galena, Melrose, Kwelville and Baxter Springs, Missouri. By the autumn of 1905 he had moved to Houston, Texas.132 In 1901 Dr Torrey's revival in Australia brought prayer support from the Keswick convention.133 The Welsh revival of 1904 also manifested glossolalia.134 Tongues then spread via missionaries to the Khassia Hills of India.135 On 17 November 1905 a missionary at Mukti described glossolalia.136 Parham, during the period of the Welsh revival, was also responsible for introducing glossolalia.137 It was Parham who first singled out 'glossolalia' (speaking in tongues) as the only evidence of having received the baptism in the Holy Ghost, and he taught that it should be a part of 'normal' Christian worship rather than a curious by-product of religious enthusiasm. Parham's teaching laid the doctrinal and experiential foundations of the modern Pentecostal movement. It was Parham's ideas preached by his followers that produced the Azusa Street revival of 1906 and with it the worldwide Pentecostal movement.138

On 9 April 1906 the fire of Pentecost hit a small group of black people gathered at 214 North Bonnie Brae Avenue, Los Angeles, California. The group was led by William Seymour who, although he had attended Parham's Bible school in Kansas, was largely a self-educated itinerant preacher. When the crowds became too large they moved to 312 Azusa Street, Los Angeles on 14 April 1906. The Azusa Street Revival lasted three and a half years. The Pentecostal experience also spead across the USA and into Europe.139 In 1896 glossolalia had occurred in the Camp Creek revival in North Carolina: This event preconditioned the members of the Church of God in nearby Cleveland, Tennessee, to accept the doctrine of tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit when the news of Azusa Street swept the South.140

It was Parham's insistence that glossolalia was the only evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit that caused the division within the Holiness movement. As such, this gave Pentecostalism its distinctive theological marker as a movement.

72

Charismatic Glossolalia

Thomas Ball Barratt visited the USA in 1905, received encouragement to pray for baptism in the Spirit, which he did, and then returned to Norway. He was visited by Alexander A. Boddy (an Anglican priest in Sunderland) in Oslo in 1907. There, during revival-type meetings, he received the blessing of the Holy Spirit and, nine months later, received the gift of tongues. Boddy organized the Sunderland Conventions between 1908 and 1914, through which he promoted baptism in the Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues, annually at Whitsuntide and published the magazine Confidence which contained sermons and discussions from the conferences. William Hutchinson received baptism in the Spirit in 1908 and spoke in tongues, subsequently building the first Pentecostal Church in Britain in 1908. In 1909 D.R Williams spoke in tongues for the first time and he was subsequently ordained by Hutchinson as the overseer of the Penygroes Assembly in Wales. George Jeffreys was probably baptized in the Spirit and spoke in tongues in 1911. He later founded the Elim Evangelistic Band, which in 1918 formed the Elim Pentecostal Alliance, together with the Elim Missions. Nelson Parr attended the Sunderland Conferences in 1910 and spoke in tongues on Christmas Day 1910. He was influenced by the debates in the USA regarding tongues and was instrumental in establishing the Assemblies of God denomination in 1924.141 In 1959-60 Dennis Bennett, Episcopal priest in Van Nuys, California, received the baptism in the Spirit and spoke in tongues. He was forced to resign. In 1962 people in the UK entered into the charismatic experience, influenced by the publication Trinity magazine, edited by Jean Stone of Van Nuys. One of these people was Michael Harper, Curate of the Anglican Church of All Souls, Langham Place, London. In 1964 the Fountain Trust was founded to promote charismatic renewal, publishing Renewal magazine and Theological Renewal. In February 1967 about 20 staff and students of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh experienced the baptism in the Spirit, and it then occurred at the nearby Roman Catholic University of Notre Dame and a Catholic student parish of Michigan State University. There were similar independent occurrences in Boston, Florida, Seattle, and Los Angeles. In 1971 the Charismatic movement in Britain was understood to have come of age with the Guildford International Conference in July of that year. In 1974 the Group for Evangelism and Renewal (GEAR) was founded in the United Reformed Church. With the cessation of the Fountain Trust in 1980, the magazine Anglicans for Renewal was launched. This was followed in 1981 with the formation of Anglican Renewal Ministries. In all the different strands of the Charismatic movement, the gift of glossolalia was a significant marker. A Sign of Baptism in the Holy Spirit Most Pentecostals understand glossolalia as a sign of a person being overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit.142 It is often regarded as human languages or the languages of angels, which the speaker has not learnt,143 and in the

A Survey of the Literature

73

Pentecost literature there are many examples of languages which have been identified.144 The teaching and practice of Pentecostalism distinguishes between two functions: first glossolalia as the initial sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and, second, as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.145 In the second case, the distinction is made between the public use of glossolalia in the assembly which, in accordance with 1 Cor. 14:27, must be interpreted, and the personal use of glossolalia which can be described as 'non-intellectual prayer and praise too deep for words'.146 The 'Statement of Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God in the U.S.A.', Article 5 paragraphs 7 and 8 read as follows: #7: The Baptism in the Holy Ghost All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Ghost and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of ministry (Luke 24.49; Acts 1.4,8; 1 Cor. 12.1-31). This experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth (Acts 8.12-17; 10.44-46; 15.7-9). With the baptism in the Holy Ghost come such experiences as an overflowing fullness of the Spirit (John 7.37-39; Acts 4.8), a deepened reverence for God (Acts 2.43; Heb. 12.28), an intensified consecration to God and dedication to His work (Acts 2.42), and a more active love for Christ, for His Word, and for the lost (Mark 16.20). #8: The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost The baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost it witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance (Acts 2.4). The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues (1 Cor. 12.4-10,28), but different in purpose and use.147

Harold Morton's (Assemblies of God) work represents a good understanding of glossolalia from within the classical Pentecostal tradition in Britain. He has argued that speaking in tongues is the evidence of baptism in the Spirit. This argument is constructed from Acts 2:4, 10:46 and 19:6, although it is also assumed that 8:17,19 implicitly support the conjecture that tongues were included in the supernatural manifestations.148 In this regard, Horton believes speaking in tongues to be the essential sign that baptism in the Spirit has occurred.149 Every believer speaks at least once in tongues at his or her baptism in the Spirit, but not all retain the power to do so afterwards, although this power lies dormant: The only Scriptural distinction between the sign of tongues and the gift of tongues is that when tongues are first employed by an individual, the utterance is the sign of the Baptism in the Spirit; every subsequent use of the supernatural tongue by the same individual is the gift of tongues in operation.150

It is the will of the Lord that all believers should speak in tongues.151

74

Charismatic Glossolalia

Vinson Synan (Assemblies of God), in an article on the role of tongues as initial evidence,152 notes how Dennis Bennett, the famous Episcopal charismatic priest from Van Nuys, California, regarded tongues as an integral sign for baptism in the Spirit.153 This was the same as the classical Pentecostal position since Charles Fox Parham in 1901 (tongues being regarded as the necessary 'evidence'). However, before his death in 1991, Bennet had been opposing proponents of the Third Wave movement (Charismatic Independent Churches in the USA) concerning the important of baptism in the Spirit and the evidence of tongues. Synan records that, for most Pentecostals, the New Testament is clear. In each case of a person receiving the Spirit, it is stated or strongly implied that they spoke in tongues.154 As early as 1908 the Pentecostal Holiness Church and the Fire-Baptised Holiness Church included the phrase 'initial evidence' in their doctrinal formulations. By 1916 the new Assemblies of God denomination used the term 'initial physical sign'.155 The greatest impetus to the tongues movement came in 1906-1909 in the Azusa Street Mission. There William J. Seymour taught that tongues were the 'Bible evidence' of the baptism in the Spirit. The pilgrims to the Azusa Street Revival returned to their denominations and the 'initial evidence' was widely accepted. By 1916 the Assemblies of God fellowship was forced to adopt the doctrine of 'initial physical evidence'.156 However, not all denominations adopted this doctrine and some, like the Church of God in Christ, felt that other manifestations such as dancing and shouting should also be allowed as evidences. In Britain, Elim Pentecostal Church founded by George Jeffries, accepted tongues and prophecy as evidences of baptism in the Spirit.157 This position was modified later to simply 'signs following'. Indeed, in 1963 the proposed merger of Elim and the Assemblies of God floundered on the word 'initial' in the context of baptism in the Spirit.158 However, Synan states that: 'To Pentecostals tongues were only the initial evidence, by no means the only one. All other charisms, the fruit of the Spirit for that matter, were also evidences of the abiding Spirit'.159 Some classical Pentecostals are also now reconsidering their position in light of the work of Gordon D. Fee (who now better deserves the classification of Third Wave).160 His position regarding tongues as being 'normal but not normative' in the New Testament has found favour in some quarters.161 Jack Hayford believes that tongues should not be seen as 'proof of baptism in the Spirit but rather as a 'provision' and 'privilege' open to all Christians.162 In the most recent Pentecostal scholarship, however, there has been an attempt to reinvigorate the doctrine.163 The question as to whether tongues is the necessary evidence of baptism in the Spirit is an important one.164 Most Neo-Pentecostals moved away from the classical Pentecostal position. For example, early material in Renewal repudiated the doctrine of initial evidence and indeed, many charismatics tell of the release of the Spirit in their lives without the gift of tongues. In 1964 Michael Harper was very near to the classical Pentecostal position. He called

A Survey of the Literature

75

it a 'normal accompaniment of the receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, and in this sense [it] can correctly be called the sign of this blessing'.165 However, by 1974 he appears less sure of this position: he is not so certain that it always happened in the New Testament.166 Either charismatics have de-emphasized tongues speech so that it has become rare in their gatherings, or maintained a distinction between tongues as evidence of baptism in the Spirit and tongues as its consequence. They reject classical Pentecostal belief concerning initial evidence while retaining the belief that it is available to all who want it. When the Charismatic movement was embraced by Roman Catholics in 1967 a new approach emerged. They insisted that tongues was one gift among many and was not the evidence of baptism in the Spirit.167 Kevin Ranaghan (Roman Catholic) saw baptism in the Spirit as part of the rites of initiation and tongues as a gift of the Spirit which was 'actualized' in the Pentecostal experience, as did Kilian McDonnell (Roman Catholic).168 Most Protestant writers tended to follow this view. The greatest distance between initial evidence theory and charismatics came from the Third Wavers (John Wimber and Peter Wagner). In this strand of charismatic teaching both the doctrine of subsequence and initial evidence are denied, departing from the earlier NeoPentecostal position. 'While rejecting the hardline Pentecostal position, most theologians were willing to admit that tongues were the "usual", "normal", or most common "consequence" of receiving the "baptism".'169 However, in the 1990s, a semi-initial evidence position has been adopted by the leading charismatic theologian, J. Rodman Williams (Reformed), who spoke of tongues as 'the primary evidence of the people's receiving the Holy Spirit'.170 Williams has also regarded tongues as an 'eschatological sign' of the 'consummation of history' and a 'harbinger of the coming of the kingdom'.171 A Language of Prayer and Praise Raymond Cox reviewed the nature of what he calls supernatural supplication.172 He notes the four references to praying in the Spirit which Pentecostals often cite as referring to tongues.173 The use of the gift intensifies the believer's recognition of the presence of God and reduces the selfish content of petition.174 Owen Carr , likewise, has compared tongues with a broader concept of praying in the Spirit.175 He suggests that '[p]rayer is a way of life, a moment-by-moment communion and fellowship with God. Prayer is knowing the will of God and appropriating God's promises to meet and fulfil the divine will'.176 Paul speaks of the 'tongues of men and of angels'. He argues that there are at least 3000 languages spoken and, through the Spirit, these are all available to the tongues speaker. We do not know how many angelic languages are also available through the Spirit. 1 Cor. 14:14-18 and Rom. 8:26, 27 tell us that the Spirit is involved in our intercessions and spiritual groanings. The groaning motif is also described in both the Old Testament (Ex. 2:23-25; Jud. 2:18; Pss. 6:6; 28:9-11; 102:17-20) and the New Testament:177

76

Charismatic Glossolalia As Jesus was heard, so we can be heard. When we know He hears us, we know we have the petitions we desired of Him. And we know He hears us when we pray in the Spirit, because the Spirit knows the mind of God and makes intercession according to the will of God, sometimes with tongues as in 1 Corinthians 14.14,15. At others times this "praying in the Spirit" may take the form of supplications, being in an agony, being exceeding sorrowful unto death, strong crying and tears, or groaning in the spirit - groaning which cannot be articulated.178

From a different perspective, Rene Laurentin (Roman Catholic) elucidates a number of functions for glossolalia, which it is useful to identify.179 He understands glossolalia as a form of spontaneous prayer which reflects the spontaneity of the liturgical movement and is used to try to overcome the formalism of the past. It has an aesthetic and musical function as an inspiration for sacred music, to be compared to Gregorian chant and primitive forms of music in the Eastern Orthodox church. As such, it liberates people from inhibitions in regard to others and God, resulting in the release of interior resources, both mystical and apostolic. It strengthens the action of grace and intercessory prayer. It is emancipatory from ordinary language with its earthy quality and corruption: From the religious point of view, tongues speaking is an act analogous to putting on liturgical robes and performing rituals to everyday life. A person thereby rises above the profane. In this respect, glossolalia is comparable to the language of initiates, a language therefore reserved to the priestly class and not understood by the people. In Roman Catholicism, Latin has been this kind of sacred language, set over against ordinary language.... It is not accidental that tongue speaking developed in Catholicism once Latin had disappeared.180

Laurentin also suggests that it is a private 'language', which creates a personal bond of intimacy with God, while the gift of interpretation guards against individualism. It is a preconceptual type of utterance; it meets the need for ineffable language that attempts to reach God through the discourse of the apophatic (negative, or beyond language), by imitating the tongues of angels: 'From this point of view, glossolalia may rightly be said to be a nonlanguage'.181 As a preconceptual language it is comparable to interior speech in the Old Testament and the gift of tears.182 Paul recognized this nonrational character, describing it as a language of the pneuma rather than of the nous. 'With glossolalia here belongs what the Eastern monks call the prayer of sighs or spontaneous, half-voiced groans....'183 It is an attempt to express the inexpressible.184 It is a language of the future: In symbolic language, future and past fuse. We see the same golden age as existing at the beginning and at the end of time, as earthly paradise and as heavenly paradise. Tongues speaking thus reawakens a feeling for both the origins of things and eschatology.185

A Survey of the Literature

77

It is thus meant to edify the speaker,186 which is how most people use the gift. In addition to these points raised by Laurentin, charismatics regard tongues as having a specific function (within prayer) in spiritual warfare. Many people think of tongues as a weapon against Satanic attack, in which the Holy Spirit provides the words to pray against the evil forces.187 Others see it as a spiritual resource in fighting an evil situation - for example, Jackie Pullinger's 15 minutes of speaking in tongues was deemed to have a positive effect in her work with the drug addicts of Hong Kong.188 Horton makes a distinction between praying with the Spirit, which is speaking in tongues, and praying in the Spirit with the understanding.189 But this latter form of prayer does not reach the realm of the mystery and miraculous provided by tongues.190 Raymond Brock also explains the mysterious dimension of tongues.191 He suggests that, as the person is filled with the Spirit, the mind of God is superimposed on the speaker's mental facilities. It is proposed that the cerebral cortex is bypassed as the corpus callosum is involved in actively sending messages to the motor portions of the brain.192 Therefore it is suggested that this is consistent with the tongues speech being understood as a gift which is given to enable a person's spirit bypass their mind. He concludes by citing Donald Gelpi: The gift of tongues is not ordinarily a gift of speaking a foreign language; it is a gift of prayer that expresses a vague, felt response to an impulse of the Breath of Jesus. When seen as an experience, glossolalia is, therefore, a conscious dative presentation of the presence of the Breath to the glossolalist and through shared glossolalic prayer to the believing community.193

Raymond Cox has considered the explanations that some seek to give to tongues.194 He argues that tongues on the day of Pentecost was not intended for preaching, but for praise of God. The tongues miracle on that day was not one of hearing but of speaking. There are examples, he suggests, of people speaking real foreign languages recognized by those listening to them (Spanish and Japanese). Anne R. Mather, drawing on material from Renewal, also states that it is a means of praising God for his mighty deeds in Christ which is often accompanied by a release of loving thanksgiving to God. It often releases the person into an experience of praise. The value is to be found in private edification, to enable the speaker to express what is inexpressible.195 According to Pentecostals, when speaking in tongues the person speaks to him or herself in the Spirit, which is edifying.196 'Being filled with the Spirit and yielding to the sweet exercise of speaking or singing with other tongues is building up ourselves, as well as magnifying the Lord and making melody to Him in our hearts (1 Cor. 14.15)'.197 Indeed, such edification can contribute to spiritual development:198

78

Charismatic Glossolalia In the spiritual maturation of the Christian, the gift of tongues assumes a role of great importance. Since it is supernatural utterance, it surpasses any purely human mode of communion with God. He who prays in tongues need not question if his prayer is heard, for his petition is offered to God by the Spirit himself (Romans 8. 26, 21).m

The Interpretation of Glossolalia Pentecostals believe that, with the gift of the interpretation of tongues, the church congregation might be edified.200 Speaking in tongues edifies the speaker, but in public the person must keep quiet unless someone is able to interpret the tongue. According to Horton: Interpretation of tongues is the supernatural showing forth by the Spirit of the meaning of an utterance in other tongues. This interpretation is not an operation of the mind of the interpreter but the mind of the Spirit of God. The interpreter never understands the tongues speech he or she is interpreting, and it is no part of his task to provide equivalent terms in his own tongue for the supernatural words spoken. They are unknown words: so much so that they are quite indistinguishable in the phrases of which they form part. The interpretation is just as much a miracle as the orginal utterance in tongues. Both are utterances equally direct from the mind of the Spirit of God.201 Horton does not believe that the gift of interpretation is a translation.202 Rather, it is 'a declaration of the meaning ..., and may be very differently stated from the precise form of the original. It may be pictorial, parabolic, descriptive or literal, according to the urge of the Spirit or the character of the one interpreting.'203 The content of such a 'message' is praise and worship, although, directed primarily to God, can also be for the benefit of the human hearers.204 John Lancaster, reflecting on the nature of interpretations and prophecies,205 comments that the person prophesying must understand the supernatural nature of the gift and must exercise the gift in dependence on the Spirit. The function of the gift is for edification, exhortation and comfort as well as the impartation of knowledge or instruction.206 The person must accept scriptural regulation and must have sincere faith, accept scriptural order, exercise self-discipline, not use inappropriate speech, not monopolize speech and not use unseemly speech.207 Benny Aker has also reconsidered the gift of tongues in 1 Cor. 14:l-5.208 He notes how Pentecostals are split on the question of whom tongues speech addresses. One group believes that it is praise and prayer to God,209 the other group primarily argue that, while it may be directed to God, it can also be a message to the church.210 Aker presents the case for the second view. He argues that the key verse of 14:2 refers to understanding rather than direction. The clause 'but speaks mysteries by the Spirit' reinforces this:

A Survey of the Literature

79

So 'to speak' means 'to speak an understandable/intelligible language', and only God understands all forms of communication. The emphasis of 'speaking' falls on the one who is able to comprehend the message or contents. One really does not speak, then, unless it is understood by others, which is the social dynamic in a Mediterranean society.211

Commenting on this aspect, Mather defines the interpretation of tongues as: the process inspired by the Holy Spirit by means of which words in the vernacular occur to a person to express what has just been spoken in a tongue. The initial words of interpretation may come to mind and then be followed by additional words as the spoken interpretation proceeds. Alternatively, the interpreter may receive a general idea of what the interpretation is, and put this into words. This gift is therefore not so much the offering of a strict translation of the tongue into English, but rather takes the form of a paraphrase.212

Although the interpretation should be tested by those present, the content and direction of such interpretations remains a moot point. When accompanied by the gift of interpretation it may be of direct use to the gathered church. Mather finds it confusing to consider why, if tongues is a means of speaking to God, it also carries a message to the people when interpreted.213 Cecil Cousen is one of those who defends the position that the direction of tongues is Godward.214 A Sign to Unbelievers 1 Corinthians 14:23-24 suggests that glossolalia is a sign to unbelievers. The context for this statement, according to Horton, is the believers' meeting of worship and the breaking of bread.215 Speaking in tongues without interpretation leaves the congregation unedified. Just as 'other tongues' were repudiated in the time of Isaiah, so unbelievers repudiated them in Paul's day. This is Paul's purpose in quoting from Isaiah 28:11. Although the unbelievers may hear the same 'sign' of other tongues, they do not hear God in them but, instead, mock and deduce that the speakers are mad. Tongues speech, being for the edification of the believer, if heard by unbelievers is a sign of judgement rather than prophecy. It is an indication that unbelievers are unconvicted, unconverted and even confirmed in their unbelief.216 The question as to the sign value of tongues to unbelievers is also considered by Timothy Pain (New Church). He argues that, contrary to some understandings (notably Harold Horton), tongues should be used in public Christian meetings where unbelivers might be present. His experience is that most unbelievers are intrigued by tongues and sense something of the supernatural breaking in from God. This leads them to ask questions about the gospel.217 Joseph R. Flower (AOG) has considered the difficult text of 1 Cor. 14:22-25.218 He concluded that the apparent conflict in the text was imaginary rather than real.

80

Charismatic Glossolalia Speaking with tongues can be a sign to those who are spiritually responsive: (1) when the languages spoken are understood; (2) when the languages spoken are made understandable through the companion gift of interpretation of tongues; (3) sometimes even when the two foregoing conditions do not exist. In such cases it would serve as a sign confirming or leading to faith. Speaking with tongues can be a stumbling block: (1) when disorders prevail in the manifestation through failure to observe the regulations laid down by Paul; (2) just because the natural mind is incapable of receiving the things of the Spirit, under which circumstances it becomes a sign of condemnation; and (3) when prejudices or preconceptions limit one in his ability to accept revealed truth.219

Holiness and Morality Joseph R. Flower has also argued that the issues of holiness, Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues are connected.220 He states that all true believers are sanctified, are candidates for the infilling of the Holy Spirit, and that this infilling is primarily an experience of the Holy Spirit for inhabitation and empowerment, rather than an experience of sanctification subsequent to regeneration. The basis on which God gives his gifts is his grace and not our holiness. The Holy Spirit produces holiness and perfects the image of Christ within us. This means that any lack of holiness is inconsistent with an experience of the infilling of the Spirit. Similarly, David Drake has considered the fire motif on the day of Pentecost.221 In his view, it symbolizes the Holy Spirit entering the life of the church and the individual and his work in the world as it concerns the preparation of the bride of Christ, the church. Tongues have 'a fiery, burning appearance, though without real heat'.222 In this context, the work of fire is seen as cleansing, energizing, spreading, softening and warming. Such features should characterize Christ and his church. Murray W. Dempster (AOG), in particular, has reconsidered the moral implications of glossolalia in Acts.223 The Pentecostal community has, on the whole, not focused on the social and moral implications of baptism in the Spirit evidenced by tongues. This is partly because of the individualistic framework out of which most Pentecostals work. He intended: to demonstrate that the Book of Acts provides an interpretive framework which connects Spirit baptism with the church's mission in society in at least two ways. First, Spirit baptism is linked with the believing community's spiritual mission to proclaim and to initiate participation in a new order of life in Jesus Christ. Second, Spirit baptism is linked with the believing community's moral mission to incorporate this new redemptive order of life within the structure of its own koinonia as a witness to the society of the reality of the gospel to change lives, transform values, and restructure relationships. Moreover, in Luke's portrayal of the coming of the Spirit in Acts, both these ecclesial dimensions of Spirit baptism are connected with the experience of glossolalia.224

A Survey of the Literature

81

Symbol and Sacrament Michael Harper (previously Anglican and now Antiochene Orthodox) has compared the gift of glossolalia to a sacrament, in the sense that it is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.225 Francis MacNutt (Roman Catholic) has found tongues helpful when he is not sure of what to pray when praying for healing.226 Michael Scanlon (Roman Catholic) finds it helpful when hearing confession in order to ask for what is needed beyond his limited knowledge. Church of England commentators have called it a 'recognition-symbol' for the Charismatic movement.227 Both Peter Hocken (Roman Catholic) and Simon Tugwell (Roman Catholic) find meaning in the analogy of sacrament to glossolalia.228 In particular, Tugwell says: I think it would not be too far wrong to suggest that for them speaking in tongues is a sacrament in the fullest catholic sense of that word, in that it is a human act given to men to do, in which however, according to their belief, we may unequivocally and without reserve identify an act of God himself.229

Hocken also suggests that every Christian sign has both Christological and eschatological reference.230 He observes that the doctrine of 'initial evidence' has normally not had any eschatological dimension.231 John Gunstone (Anglican) also interprets tongues in sacramental terms.232 He suggests that tongues and sacramental liturgies are both physical acts which transcend rational language and thought: The things of creation and the gestures of the human body are the outward and visible signs of God in Christ active among his people.'233 Frank D. Macchia (AOG) has argued, on the basis that the rational does not exhaust one's response to God, that glossolalia is similar to poetry, song, dance and silence.234 He regards glossolalia as unintelligible speech which is symbolic of an eschatological theophany, as part of the Pentecostal event which represents both transcendent experience and is symbolic of the outreach of the church. It is language, coram Deo, symbolizing divine action which is free and mysterious, but which is experienced sanatorium communio.235 It is also a language which, by its theophanic quality, reminds us of the cross of Christ as well as the new creation. This approach is further developed in a subsequent article in which Macchia draws on Catholic theology to understand glossolalia in sacramental terms.236 For Macchia, tongues are a kind of primary sacrament or kairos event that signifies the empowerment of the Spirit in the Christian life. It draws attention to the freedom and transcendence of the divine-human encounter that is 'only implied in formal liturgies'.237 Macchia also uses the tongues of Pentecost in a metaphorical sense to challenge the complacent sectarianism of classical Pentecostalism and the complacent Catholicism of Roman Catholicism.

82

Charismatic Glossolalia Spirit-inspired tongues also imply a divine mystery at the core of all confessions of faith that both embraces and relativizes the necessarily diverse confessions surrounding the one gospel of Jesus Christ. Tongues also direct our attention to the final eschatological realization of unity and catholicity and on a current agenda that includes the pressing issues of the world, particularly as they involve hearing and responding to the voices of oppression and suffering.238

Heidi G. Baker's (AOG) doctoral dissertation provides another interesting symbolic understanding of glossolalic prayer.239 She argues that glossolalic prayer is a kind of apophatic prayer, which is mysterious and enables us to acknowledge the mystery of God. She draws on the resources of the Eastern Orthodox Church to understand glossolalia as a liberating, democratizing, and unifying experience within the church. It is a transrational language of the heart. As such, it is a scriptural response to the spiritual emptiness of this age, a language of praise and worship, and has sacramental significance. It is an effectual symbol of God's grace, if not the sign of 'initial evidence', and a means of communication and communion with God. This sacramental understanding is enriched by an interpretation which sees glossolalia as Trinitarian in significance, in the sense of symbolizing participation in the Trinitarian life of God. It is also symbolic of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis in which the whole person communes and is united with the transfigured Christ. Amos Yong (AOG) has considered the question of truth as it pertains to glossolalia with the assistance of the symbolic theory of R.C. Neville.240 Truth is defined not in terms of correspondence or coherence theory but in terms of 'carry-over of value' from the object of study into the interpreter's experience via signs and symbols. It is intended to be a pragmatic yet non-relativistic approach to truth. In Neville's approach, it is only through symbols that religious objects can be referred to, and that can be achieved via the human capacity of imagination. For Neville, it is the finite-infinite contrast that makes the symbols a mechanism for engaging the divine and result in the transformation of the interpreter. The symbols are true if they embody the religious object and transform devotional practice - that is, if the religious symbols carry over the values of the religious object so that the understanding of the interpreter is conformed to them. From this, Yong argues that the sign of glossolalia is devotionally true insofar as the Pentecostal soul is transformed to be more like the Spirit, practically true insofar as Pentecostal practices embody the Spirit, and theologically true insofar as the understanding of the mind is attuned to the Spirit. Linguistic Nature Many Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians still understand speaking in tongues in terms of xenolalia. However, a considerable number are coming to terms with the view that glossolalia is not a human language, as evidenced by the

A Survey of the Literature

83

decrease in claims of xenolalia. Francis Sullivan (Roman Catholic) argues that tongues speech is xenolalia only in exceptional circumstances and that ordinarily it is not to be defined in such a way. He follows the scientific researchers who claim that, while it resembles language, it is not language: it cannot be identified. However, Sullivan does believe that it can be communicative if one takes language in a broad sense, similar to music, art or dance: 'In an analogous sense, tongues is a language of prayer and praise because it can be expressive of and communicative of the speaker's internal attitude and prayer. Speaking in tongues is thus a form of non-linguistic, but communicative behaviour.'241 Williams calls it transcendent speech or pneumatic speech which is neither xenolalia nor ecstatic unintelligible babble.242 Simon Baynes has suggested a parallel between tongues and poetry, since both express praise beyond the range of ordinary speech, in both meaning may be secondary, there may be a search for communication beyond thought, a tendency towards form, sound and immediacy, and that both tend to be deeply personal activities.243 Kilian McDonnell (Roman Catholic) argues that the question of whether or not speaking in tongues is xenolalia, while interesting, is not a theological question, since he regards it as a prayer gift in essence. A theological evaluation is based on its prayer value, not on its linguistic nature. Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan (Roman Catholic) support the idea that glossolalia is a language of prayer which compares to poetry, music and art in that, through it, one seeks to express the inexpressible.244 For JeanJacques Suurmond (Reformed): ... glossolalia is the democratic counterpart of a talent for poetry. Glossolalia does not use an existing vocabulary, but it is not gobbledegook either. It is a playful way of communicating, comparable with abstract art or music. Glossolalia is a purposeless, unformed expression of the self in Word and Spirit, unhindered by rules of language and codes of behaviour; it is an expression of a bond with God and other people which transcends barriers (of language).245

A Reversal of Babel Pentecostal, Twila Brown Edwards, among others, has addressed the question of Babel and glossolalia.246 From Edwards' perspective, Pentecost is understood to be a reversal of Babel. Laurentin also argues that tongues reverses Babel. He suggests that the dream of an anti-Babel lies behind the Jewish traditions on the Sinai revelation and Pentecost and conceives of a 'primal language': Deep within us there is a nostalgia for a primal language that belongs to a lost paradise and to golden age of childhood, whether the indivdual's or mankind's. We dream, too, of a universal language that would unite all peoples, and an angelic language that could express the ineffable God.247

84

Charismatic Glossolalia

Laurentin compares tongues to all forms of irrational and inspired language. It has an aesthetic function which lifts the person beyond the earthly language, and he believes that glossolalia becomes less prominent with maturity. The Acquisition and Sources of Tongues It is possible to find step-by-step instructions to help the Christian to begin speaking in tongues.248 The most common advice is to tell the person to speak out and make sounds that are not English in the hope that the Holy Spirit will form these sounds into a 'tongue'. Once people have spoken in tongues, the majority are able to speak at will, although some do specify that they need the anointing of the Spirit before they can speak. Most charismatics believe that three forces account for glossolalia: the Holy Spirit, the demonic, or human psychological factors.249 Tom Smail (Anglican) makes an important distinction between the psychological means by which glossolalia is initiated and the possibility of it having an exclusively psychological source, which he would dispute' .25° However, Donal Dorr (Roman Catholic) has suggested that tongues may be a powerful symbol of 'letting go' associated with baptism in the Spirit. McDonnell asserts that: ... [s]peaking in tongues does not occur apart from one's own psychological structure and history. This phenomenon has a human side, a complex of psychological mechanisms and personal history which constitute its psychological structure. In addition, speaking in tongues has a religious meaning. These two aspects, psychological structure and religious meaning in a specifically Christian sense, are distinguishable but not in such a way that one adds the Christian dimension to the human.251

Some Charismatics understand tongues as a human faculty which yields to the Holy Spirit in a fusion of the natural and the supernatural. Others argue that the gift of tongues is a new ability completely different to natural endowment; they tend to see it as miraculous. However, the former viewpoint is perhaps the most prevalent. ... Catholic Charismatics find a theological context for this view in their church's distinction between that which is miraculous quod substantum, that is, miraculous in a radical and essential way, and something which is miraculous quod modum, that is, miraculous only in the manner in which something operates.252

Tongues are both natural and a gift of the Spirit, and therefore can be learned behaviour in that everyone is capable of speaking in tongues. Williams stresses the notion of glossolalia as a transposition of human language into a language of the Spirit, whereby the Holy Spirit speaks through the human spirit.253

A Survey of the Literature

85

Glossolalia in the New Testament and Today Max Turner (Baptist), among others, raises the question as to whether one might identify contemporary tongues speech with New Testament glossolalia. Turner argues that Pentecost is the exception rather than the norm for glossolalia (that is, xenolalia) and that, as such, it is paralleled today by some exceptional cases of xenolalia. If one interprets tongues speech in private worship terms then there is sufficient evidence that the New Testament matches the contemporary phenomenon and practice. Turner cautions that Paul's language more naturally suggests xenolalia and modern linguistic analysis does not seem to correlate to this. However, he also thinks that Paul naturally lumps together phenomenologically what 'we' today distinguish, namely xenolalia from unintelligible speech. He suggests that the (different) 'kinds of tongues' mentioned by Paul254 could have included both xenolalia and angelic speech. Nevertheless, he asserts that there is no room for dogmatism! He posits that even if modern tongues speech was different to the New Testament phenomenon, it does not mean that today's manifestation is any less of a spiritual gift. A transpositional interpretation would mean that any glossolalia that functioned as doxological, christocentric, faith-supporting and upbuilding could be classified as a spiritual gift.255 Behavioural Science Studies Glossolalia in the contemporary church has been studied since the late 1960s by means of the social and behavioural sciences. These include anthropology, sociology, psychology, physiology and linguistics. In addition to combinations of these disciplines, there have also been combinations with theology. For the purpose of this literature review, these various combinations are reviewed in this section. As the definitive overview of the literature in this field has already been undertaken by H. Newton Malony and A. Adams Lovekin,256 this review aims to summarize their findings, use their framework as a basis and supplement it with literature which they omitted, as well as updating the review with material which has appeared in the 13 years since the publication of their book. Malony and Lovekin suggest, following Richard A. Hutch,257 that there have been three main approaches to glossolalia, namely: 1 glossolalia as anomalous - that is, distinct or different behaviour; 2 glossolalia as aberrant - that is, abnormal behaviour; and 3 glossolalia as extraordinary - that is, atypical or unusual behaviour. They therefore use this paradigm as a way of categorizing and assessing the different approaches to the subject.258

86

Charismatic Glossolalia

Anomalous Behaviour The early studies of glossolalia categorized it a spiritistic language.259 L. Carlyle May identified glossolalia within non-Christian religions and developed a sixfold typology of glossolalia which included: 1 2 3 4 5 6

language of spirits; sacerdotal language; language of animals; phonations frustes (rough sounds); xenolalia; and interpretation of tongues.260

However, Malony and Lovekin found his classification to be confused. It is not used by researchers because it is too inclusive a typology.261 Others have regarded glossolalia as religious language.262 This arises from the New Testament where foreign and heavenly languages are mentioned, and the possibility of interpretation mentioned.263 There have been a variety of typologies of religious glossolalia, including those by E. Lombard, E. Mosiman,264 George J. Jennings, L.Carlyle May and W.A. Wolfram.265 The question of the linguistic nature of glossolalia in this approach tends to argue that, while glossolalia may resemble language, no validation of xenolalia is found;266 although Malony and Lovekin recount the example of a Jewish housewife who spoke Swedish under hypnosis, which was classified by the researcher as 'responsive' xenolalia.267 Most tongues speakers claim that their glossolalia is a language in some sense - if not xenolalia then heavenly languages. R.H. Wolcott compared glossolalia to schizophrenese and concluded that, although there are differences, there is a resemblence to schizophrenic language in which neologisms are used.268 This raises the question of whether tongues illustrate the expression function of language, and also whether tongues communicate emotion in a way that others listening can understand. This is particularly true in a public context where there are shared expectations and emotions. Malony and Lovekin note that 'Seldom, if ever, does the literature of glossolalia report the interpreted message to be a prediction. Thus, it could be said that glossolalia is an expressive language that includes inter subjectivity and shared communication.'269 Glossolalia is completely neologistic and unique to the individual speaker. He or she trusts that God understands it. There appears to be no relation of the interpretation to the tongues speech.270 William J. Samarin argues that, in terms of grammar and syntax, glossolalia is meaningless, if not gibberish.271 This is because glossolalia is composed of different phonological units (macrosegments, like sentences), microsegments (like words) and phonemes (sound units) which enable the speech to sound like a real language. But there is no semanticity behind the speech.272 The most common opinion is that

A Survey of the Literature

87

glossolalia lacks the essentials of a language as understood by linguistics.273 However, Samarin has argued that listeners to glossolalia can identify certain topics of thought through mood and that something meaningful can be transmitted.274 Therefore Malony and Lovekin conclude that '[t]he weight of evidence... suggests that although there is pattern and form, speaking in tongues is most likely not a known tongue nor a human language as that term is presently understood' ,275 Michael T. Motley's work represents a challenge to the accepted orthodoxy of most of linguistic analysis. He concludes that the combination of language-like and non-English characteristics makes glossolalia appear to be unique. 'Within glossolalia examined here...we have seen several examples of rather sophisticated structure within discourse which is presumed to be without semantic information and which at best only resembles language.'276 Either glossolalia must contain semantic information and is therefore effectively a language (but dismissed by many scholars) or 'we can accept the relatively unheard of notion that linguistic structures may be the result of some factor(s) other than semantic information'.277 Indeed, existing linguistic theory cannot account for 'language-like nonlanguage behaviours which exhibit either the suppression of the native language rules or the origination of and adherence to new rules, much less both'.278 He therefore argues that glossolalia is 'a kind of speech behaviour which displays language-like characteristics and structure without apparent semantic information, and which displays language-like structures which replace the rules of the speaker's natural language'.279 Werner Enninger and Joachim Raith consider the design features of glossolalia in a later article.280 They tested the linguisticality of a woman's tongues speech, which she regarded as a rendition of the 23rd psalm in a Kenyan language. They concluded that they could not confirm that there was evidence of semanticity, but that there was a degree of meaningful sign material transferred into sound material in use.281 However, drawing on the wider set of design features, including semiotics, they observed that the idiosyncratic signal occurred systematically and therefore had the status of a signalling system. Tongues can therefore be used as an interactive tool, which shifts the emphasis away from the code to the 'interaction-organizing function'. Even silence and stillness can be signs in so far as they derive meaning from their co-text and context.282 Glossolalia can be an indicator of emotion and can carry meaning socially in terms of group solidarity and identity. Aberrant Behaviour The question as to whether glossolalia is therapeutic or harmful is one which has concerned most psychological studies.2** Early and classical examples of how to understand glossolalia include T. Flournoy (hypnotic suggestion and infantile regression),284 George B. Cutten, drawing on Lombard (catalepsy

88

Charismatic Glossolalia

influenced by leaders, child-like speech),285 Mosiman (ecstatic and hypnotic state with abnormal domination of the unconscious mind and suggestibility)286 and C.W. Shumway (loss of rational control, hysteria, absence of thought and will, automatic functioning of speech, absence of memory of the event, and occasional spasmodic physical manifestation with glossolalia).287 Psychoanalytic investigators such as Oskar Pfister have suggested infantile regression directed towards auto-erotic satisfaction, implying that the glossolalia had personal meaning, could be used in therapy and could be abandoned once healing had been achieved.288 While Pfister saw it as representing a conflict to be worked through, Harald K. Schjelderup saw glossolalia as representing a self-preoccupation of a pleasurable kind. Thus glossolalia is seen as either representing deprivation/conflict or fixation/indulgence.289 J. Laffal understood glossolalia as a way of expressing something which the person wishes to but dare not. As such it functions in an expressive and cathartic manner. In Freudian conception, it is an 'energy discharge procedure', which enables impulses to be related in an acceptable way to reality.290 Paul W. Pruyser regarded glossolalia as a form of self-indulgence.291 Linda A. Mumford's doctoral dissertation aimed to reconsider ealier psychological hypotheses by means of an ethnological study of a female charismatic group using qualitative methods.292 She claimed that glossolalia for the participants in the groups was integral to positive transformative change, establishes a meaningful dialogical and sensate connection with the divine, is experienced as functioning to: sooth, protect and facilitate coping; lead to a sense of derived agency, authority and self-worth; deepen connections with others; potentially responds addictively to painful reality; and explain the course of events when other alternative interpretations are ignored.293 She subsequently interpreted these findings in the light of Donald W. Winnicott's theory of transitional experiencing. Glossolalia is therefore interpreted as a corporate transitional object functioning in the sphere of a closely-knit group of likeminded women who use it to enhance their sense of connectedness with one another and God.294 Malony and Lovekin observe that there is a historical connection between Karl Jung and Flournoy which probably influenced Jung's understanding of glossolalia. He conducted a case study on a 15-year-old girl and concluded that the trance state was indicative of 'heightened consciousness' emerging out of the unconscious and being expressed verbally.295 Morton T. Kelsey, who was to draw upon Jung, has noted that he had not yet developed his notion of the 'collective unconscious'.296 Alphonse Maeder's analysis of a schizophrenic man's private language suggested to him that glossolalia was infantile regression. However, Malony and Lovekin raise the question as to whether glossolalia should really be compared to such language and that a number of scholars have differentiated between them (for example, Jean Bobon and Samarin).297 The later Jungian concept of 'collective unconscious'

A Survey of the Literature

89

which includes the memories of the race or humankind has been interpreted to include unknown tongues which facilitate personal integration as the person taps into the wisdom of the race which is resident in the 'collective unconcious'. Those using Jung's ideas include L.M. van Eetveldt Vivier (as a means of uniting the person with their original religious experiences and therefore integrative),298 Lovekin (normal and constructive), Kelsey (rite d'entree to the deepest levels of the psyche),299 David Christie-Murray (expression of linguistic patterns from the collective unconscious),300 and Daniel A. Tappeiner (the opening up of the psychic structures towards personality integration).301 A number of scholars have considered glossolalia in terms of ego psychology - that is, in terms of ego autonomy and ego regression.302 H. Hartmann has suggested that not all ego functions need be the result of unconscious conflicts and wishes. Rather, the ego adapts to reality for its own sake and there are spheres of the ego which are 'conflict free'. This means that glossolalia may not necessarily be pathological or conflict-laden. Ego regression happens when the ego is overwhelmed with or by reality, leading to ego loss and powerlessness. However, this is not always the case and ego weakness can occur in times of productivity. In these cases glossolalia might not be regressive but could appear in creative and constructive deviations from normal reality.303 E. Kris has argued that the ego can voluntarily withdraw from reality and be involved in creative activities for a time. Later, the ego could return to reality having profited by the experience. This is a 'regression in the service of the ego'.304 James N. Lapsley and John N. Simpson interpreted glossolalia as psychomotor automatism - that is, dissociation in persons with truncated personality development.305 In this interpretation the ego is defending itself from onslaught and the main function of glossolalia here is conflict reduction which can be helpful in personality integration in the short term. Lapsley and Simpson hypothesized glossolalia as an unconscious attachment to parental figures characterised by strong feelings of love and hate. Glossolalia is an expression of primitive love and glossolalics are emotionally disturbed people.306 However, E. Mansel Pattison argued that sociocultural variables are more significant than psychological ones. He asserts that there was little evidence of regression in middle-class people although he did not deny its existence elsewhere. He suggested that 'glossolalia may be a focal thought-speech regression that is highly restricted to specific ego function'.307 It may be borderline speech between oneself and outer external speech, allowing feelings to be expressed without revealing their content and thus enabling the ego to manage intrapsychic conflict. Patterson also distinguishes between 'playful' and 'serious' glossolalia. In both types of glossolalia there is tension reduction and emotional discharge but in the playful type it is through diversion and distraction, while in serious glossolalia it is defensive. John P. Kildahl also

90

Charismatic Glossolalia

used an ego psychological approach and hypothesized that glossolalia is 'regression in the service of the ego'. This means that tongues speakers ought to report gains in their mental health, even though they are more suggestible, submissive and dependent on authority figures.308 Malony and Lovekin note that there is no difference between glossolalics and nonglossolalics and suggest that Kildahl's work is negatively biased.309 Work by Joel O. Brende and Donald B. Kinsley also suggested that glossolalics have borderline personalities and that glossolalia represents weakness in the ego and is therefore an attempt to establish control.310 Following from ego psychology, John D. Castelein has argued that glossolalia can be interpreted in terms of psychology of the self and narcissism. From this perspective, Castelein argues, glossolalia: ... can be seen to function as a transitional phenomenon by which a modern person works through the frustrating absence of the supernatural, which from earliest childhood development he has been reliant on. By entering a liminal space and time, within the supportive environment of an idealized leader and the strong group-self of fellow believers, he can ritually reenact in serious play the intimate closeness he felt as a small child with the supernatural; and he can learn to accept, by the alternating natural and 'supernatural' elements in the worship experience, that the supernatural can exist even when not present in one's emotions or experiences in everyday life. Viewing glossolalia as a kind of narcissistic therapy aids in understanding the kind of people who are attracted to the practice and also why beneficial effects can result, as the supernatural self is recognized, nurtured, and released from narcissistic rage and shame into creative maturity and wholeness.311 Lee A. Kirkpatrick and Phillip R. Shaver, tested, among other things, the relationship of glossolalics to attachment theory. They defined attachment patterns in terms of: • secure lovers - those who are comfortable with intimacy and able to depend on people • avoidance lovers - those who are uncomfortable with intimacy and find it difficult to depend on others • anxious/ambivalent lovers - those who seek such a high level of intimacy that they sometimes 'scare people away' and worry that they will be abandoned and that their love will not be reciprocated.312 They argued that glossolalics anxious/ambivalent type and that:

were

to

be

identified

with

the

[i]f glossolalia can be viewed as an extreme behavioural attempt to 'get close to God', then these results show that anxious/ambivalent lovers do represent both extremes of religiousness from an attachment perspective. Thus the religiousness of

A Survey of the Literature

91

this group appears to match its 'ambivalent' (sometimes clingy, at other times angry) label.313

In summary, Steven A. Gritzmacher, Brian Bolton and Richard H. Dana, reviewed the psychological literature and suggested that the nonpsychometric studies indicate that Pentecostals are not mentally disordered. Emotional frustrations are typically suppressed until they emerge in glossolalic behaviour. In the histories of those who convert to Pentecostalism, social and personal alienation may often be found, concomitant with feelings of guilt which can be unburdened during the catharsis of glossolalia. Other therapeutic outcomes include improvement of self-esteem and reduction of anxiety, with group factors playing a role in the healing process along with the individual acts of glossolalia.314

Some researchers have been interested in the question of individual differences and glossolalia. Malony and Lovekin suggested that there are personality traits which, in part, determine who does and does not become a glossolalic.315 In terms of the mental state of the glossolalic, Cutten argued for the personal background of the speaker in terms of excitability, inferior intellect, illiteracy, suggestion and expectancy. The first three items are inherent in the person. Glossolalics, according to Cutten, are underdeveloped in terms of cranial capacity and therefore have difficulty in handling excitement, which leads to glossolalia (confused speech).316 Few studies, however, have evaluated these connections. Daniel S. Smith and J. Rowland Fleck compared conventional and unconventional glossolalic and non-glossolalic groups using the Shipley Institute of Living Scale. They found that nonglossolalics were more intelligent and higher educated than glossolalics.317 Bradley's study of Neo-Pentecostals suggested that glossolalics were more highly educated than the general population. Malony and Lovekin concluded that, while hyperexcitability sounds reasonable, it has yet to be validated through direct measures.318 The factor of life situation has also been deemed to be important. Cecil David Bradfield, in his study of Neo-Pentecostals, suggested that there were at least three types of deprivation indicated in the study: psychic (lack of purposeful system); ethical (conflict between one's values and the world at large); and organismic (perception of mental or physical disadvantage).319 Therefore it is common to find people talking of a new sense of purpose and meaning since speaking in tongues. The rapid social change of the late twentieth century and the liberalism of mainline churches has left NeoPentecostals without a framework of meaning for their lives. Susan L. Bergquist in her study of Catholic charismatics regarded the revival of glossolalic practices within the Church as partly a reaction against the 'God is Dead' movement of the 1960s.320 Douglas Davies argues that charismatic converts have originated within elaborate code groups of impersonal

92

Charismatic Glossolalia

language, in which the personal concerns of the individual were ignored (the stiff upper-lip of British society). Charismatics have found, in tongues, a means of using language in a way which is emotional and free (restricted code), and this functions as a means of integrating individuals into a caring community.321 He interprets this in terms of Max Weber's Protestant ethic as: [a] charismatic ethic [which] is rooted in a personal fulfilment in supporting relationships in this life within a potentially alienating and atomising world of partial personal relations within the service industries. An interest in personal salvation remains but its realisation has been brought forward from the hereafter to the here and now. Personal authenticity replaces certainty of an elected status in the eternal decrees of God. Tongues and fruitful group relationships replace economic success as a sign of the divine approval.322

Margaret Poloma's research on the Assemblies of God, however, suggests that demographic factors have little or no effect on glossolalia.323 In the family background variables, Pentecostals and Neo-Pentecostals differ and contribute to the expectancy or lack of expectancy concerning glossolalia in different ways. N. Zwaanstra and H.N. Malony's research indicated that 65 per cent of the Assemblies of God sample of youth use glossolalia by the age of 16.324 Glossolalia here is related to church participation, conversion experience and attendance by parents.325 With NeoPentecostals the opposite is probably the case. Expectancy in the social context is probably less, which would suggest a greater role for individual determinants. This was tested by R.L. Pavelsky, A. Hart and H.N. Malony. They argued that people from non-glossolalic backgrounds were more likely to show psychophysiological changes than those whose families already spoke in tongues. Therefore the environmental background predisposes many to glossolalia.326 J.W. Ramsey and H.N. Malony suggested that the incidence is highly connected to membership of the church while the frequency of glossolalia is associated more with personal religiosity - specifically, the meeting of individual, rather than status, needs.327 Guy E. Swanson proposed that first-born children from large families were more likely to report experiences of receptive trance - that is, the inclination to become deeply involved in novels, music, plays and stories. Children from these families also scored high on hypnotic suggestibility. Therefore he makes a possible connection between family-rearing practices and the likelihood of glossolalia.328 Malony and Lovekin suggest that there is some evidence that many of these environmental factors play a role in predetermining who will and will not speak in tongues.329 It has been argued that there are two distinct stages along a continuum of ability to speak in tongues. The first is the initial stage in which the person haltingly speaks words given them in an imitative fashion. The second is the habitual stage where the speech has a stereotyped and unique quality.

A Survey of the Literature

93

Another factor in the ability to speak in tongues is the age of the person. It is suggested that glossolalia is typically adolescent in classical Pentecostalism and adult in Neo-Pentecostalism. Further, it is commented that, within classical Pentecostalism older members are less frequently glossolalic than younger members. Indeed, many classical Pentecostals discover a shift in social status after having become glossolalic.330 E. Mansell Pattison proposed that, in classical Pentecostals, there are two groups: those that had and those that had not become middle class. As noted above, Pattison also distinguishes between playful and serious glossolalia, suggesting that those who had not attained middle-class status used glossolalia more seriously compared to those who had.331 On the question of personality traits?*2 Vivier noted that the difference between those who opposed and those who spoke in tongues was possibly due to personality differences. Glossolalics scored higher on neuroticism, selfeffacement and impulsiveness and lower on suggestibility than nonglossolalics.333 He also suggested that glossolalics developed more mystical thought patterns.334 Using standard psychological tests and psychiatric interviews to test 20 pairs of both glossolalics and non-glossolalics, Kildahl found no difference in the overall mental health and no predominant glossolalic personality type. However, those who were glossolalic were deemed to be more dependent, submissive and suggestible.335 Glossolalics were less depressed and experienced a greater sense of well-being. Malony and Lovekin judged that Kildahl's instruments were probably more trustworthy than those used by Vivier.336 Jesse E. Coulson and Ray W. Johnson's work, as mentioned above, compared classical Pentecostals to Methodists and discovered that non-glossolalics were more external in the locus of control than glossolalics.337 This result runs counter to the submissiveness and suggestibility hypothesis. Malony et al. discovered that those who spoke in tongues more frequently were most likely to be intrinsic in their orientation to religion as measured by Allport's scale.338 E.J. Gilbert's study of Lee College, Tennessee, also discovered that their students were more orthodox in religious belief, more altruistic, practical, feminine and anxious but less scholarly and impulsive (contra Vivier).339 By contrast, Heliodora Emma Gonsalvez's study of Catholic charismatics compared glossolalics with non-glossolalics using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) hysteria scale and discovered that glossolalics have a greater tendency towards the hysteria-type of personality which is marked by hyperexcitability, low frustration tolerance, emotional instability, suggestibility and dependence.340 William W. Wood's research using the Rorschach ink blot test concluded that glossolalia attracts people whom he described as deprived and disorganized.341 Wood also contended that the emotional religion of Pentecostalism is intimately connected with personality orientation.342 Williams discovered that glossolalics contained various types of personality.343 A. Adams Lovekin argued that glossolalics are extroverts

94

Charismatic Glossolalia

with dominant feeling and sensing auxiliary features (Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory), which confirms Kelsey's hypothesis that extroverts are more likely to speak in tongues.344 Robert B. Simmonds, James T. Richardson and Mary W. Harder proposed that personality traits within the Jesus Movement suggested maladaptivity similar, yet distinct, to NeoPentecostals.345 Richardson subsequently denied that there was any unique personality pattern among glossolalics.346 In addition, there have been a number of studies comparing various glossolalic groups. Malony et al argued that, in the Assemblies of God denomination youth, a higher frequency of glossolalia was associated with a more intrinsic orientation towards religion and was not related to extroversion or an external locus of control.347 Robert Lee Pavelsky concluded that there were two types of glossolalics: act glossolalics, similar to role-players and characterized by insignificant alpha wave change in brain activity, and process glossolalics who experienced deeper personal dynamics, characterized by significant positive or negative alpha wave changes. Process glossolalics showed a higher score relating to exhibitionism.348 Susan K. Gilmore compared personalities between high and low dogmatism believers using the Californian Personality Inventory and concluded that it was possible to predict those individuals who hold their beliefs in an open or dogmatic manner, and that non-dogmatic Pentecostals score significantly higher on measures of personal adjustment and interpersonal skill than dogmatic Pentecostals.349 Other studies include the work of Daniel Stephen Smith.350 'In general, it can be said that few specific traits have been identified, although a number of studies have been undertaken. However, it does seem that a tendency toward extroversion, intrinsic religious orientation, and suggestibility can be affirmed'.351 Leslie J. Francis and William K. Kay's recent study using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) concluded that Pentecostal ministry candidates were less neurotic than suggested by previous studies and they had very stable personalities.352 The males in the sample also scored low for psychoticism, which is often observed with committed Christian groups. The females, however, did not differ on this score compared to the general population.353 Francis, in research with other colleagues, has shown that charismatic Christians prefer 'thinking' to 'feeling' in Myers-Briggs (MBTI) terms,354 and that charismatic experience tends to be associated with stable extroversion in EPQ terms.355 Steven A. Gritzmacher, Brian Bolton and Richard H. Dana summarize their findings regarding psychometric studies by suggesting that glossolalics are normal (that is, in line with the general population) in terms of adjustment, experience less depression and show less hostility than the general population, are submissive and show deprecative self-presentation, experience as much anxiety as the general population but that Pentecostal rituals may reduce the harmful effects of anxiety. They suffer repression (of psychological conflicts) and regression (intrusion of subconscious into conscious awareness), which

A Survey of the Literature

95

are emotionally released in glossolalia leading to therapeutic effects (thus suggesting three-tiers of repression, regression, release). In addition, Gritzmacher et al. suggest that self-control, conformity, dependency and suggestibility are are common descriptive features within the literature.356 Many commentators on glossolalia have considered it to be psychopathological.351 William James believed that such 'fanaticism' occurred when there was an imbalance in the psychic facilities, such as deficient intellect and will, together with an impoverishment in the environment.358 Vivier also reviewed whether glossolalia was a sign of psychopathology and concluded that it was not to be categorized in this way.359 However, Gates considered glossolalia to be, among other things, a form of exibitionism from someone suffering from a psychotic reaction.360 Jesse E. Coulson and Ray W. Johnson tested a group of glossolalics and a Methodist non-glossolalia group using Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control Scale361 and found the non-glossolalics to be significantly more external than glossolalics. They interpreted this as suggesting that glossolalia, displayed within the context of Pentecostal religion, does not represent psychopathology.362 Williams has also noted that most recent researchers regard glossolalia as integrating and therapeutic.363 Mosiman considered glossolalia to be indicative of suggestibility and an active unconscious mind. It was thus evidence that conscious thought had been 'derailed', although he did not necessarily consider glossolalia to be pathological.364 The hypothesis of hypnosis has also been advocated, more recently by Kildahl, who suggested that hypnosis is the process whereby a person gives control of one's thoughts over to another person's direction. Kildahl compares glossolalia and hypnotic procedure in Neo-Pentecostals and argues that they are correlated.365 Indeed, he argues that hypnotizability is the sine qua non of the glossolalic experience.366 Alland also affirms that trust in the leader is essential to glossolalia. Mosiman distinguished between initial and continuing glossolalia and suggested that the latter illustrated self- or autohypnosis by recalling the leader and the first experience. However, Cutten considered that hypnosis is more related to the group than an individual and (contra Kildahl) also suggests that glossolalia more resembles sleep than hypnosis.367 Gates also argues for the hypnotic impact of a mass or group.368 Glossolalia was commonly interpreted by early writers as hysteria. Le Baron is reported by William James to have referred to glossolalia as 'the loose jargon of the maniac'.369 However, Lapsley and Simpson, using psychodynamic formulations, argued that glossolalics are not mentally ill in a clinical sense, but 'uncommonly disturbed' and that tongues speech is a neurotic symptom used to reduce anxiety brought on by traumatic experiences with parental figures.370 Ari Kiev compared West Indian schizophrenics with West Indian Pentecostals and concluded that schizophrenic patients could not maintain sufficient control of autistic and regressive behaviour to fit into the prescribed ritual patterns.371 A longitudinal study, undertaken by Lovekin and

96

Charismatic Glossolalia

Malony using the Zuckerman and Lubin Adjective Check List, Baron's Ego Strength Scale and the Mooney Problem Check List, suggested that glossolalics are normal both before and after acquiring glossolalia.372 Virginia H. Hine concluded that pathological explanations must be discarded.373 James T. Richardson argued that all research has been post hoc and that it is not known whether the subjects were ill before or after speaking in tongues.374 Lapsley and Simpson, while accepting that glossolalics are not hysterical from a clinical viewpoint, suggest that their psychodynamics may be similar to a person with hysterical symptoms.375 Pattison contended that glossolalia is best understood in sociocultural terms.376 If it is part of the expected ritual then one should not expect psychopathology, but the reverse may be true when it occurs unexpectedly.377 P. Morentz likewise concluded that glossolalia is more pathological when it occurs in unexpected situations.378 R.L. Pavelsky, A. Hart and H.N. Malony assessed psychophysiological changes during the speaking of tongues with people from varying socioeconomic classes, settings, and glossolalic frequency. They predicted that those from the lower social classes who spoke in tongues frequently and in settings where it was not expected would show more abnormality than those from the higher social classes who spoke infrequently in settings where it was expected. However, their prediction was unsubstantiated. This gave further support to the idea that psychopathology and glossolalia cannot be correlated.379 However, WJ. Rarick continued to note the socioeconomic discrepancy between Pentecostals and Neo-Pentecostals.380 Hutch also regards glossolalia as a ritual process which contains the most basic of expressive utterance- that is, crying and laughing. 381 Debra-L Sequiera views glossolalia as part of the cultural peformance of charismatic renewal.382 In this sense, the cultural peformance of glossolalia is understood to unite participants, affirm their place in the religious community and give meaning and purpose to their social life. Glossolalia in this study specifically represents the dimensions of 'intimacy' and 'community' in terms of intrapersonal response to God and interpersonal public performance.383 Russell Proctor II also considers how charismatics themselves understand glossolalia. He argues that charismatics understand glossolalia as a rhetorical tool which is used to persuade self, others and God.384 Extraordinary Behaviour The extraordinary approach is concerned with the mental state of the person at the time of speaking in tongues. The relationship of an altered state of consiousness (ASC) to glossolalia is often discussed by the use of terms such as 'trance' and 'possession'.385 The definition of trance as a 'sleeplike state marked by reduced sensitivity to stimuli, loss or alteration of knowledge of what is happening, substitution of automatic for voluntary activity' was

A Survey of the Literature

97

adopted by E. Bourguignon from H.B. English and A.C. English.386 Possession is defined in personal and cultural terms - that is, in many cultures it is believed that, when spirits or gods enter humans and take control of them, they are then possessed. Malony and Lovekin argue that glossolalia always presumes possession but may or may not include trance.387 The question as to whether trance is always present has been the subject of Felicitas D. Goodman's work.388 She believes that glossolalia is always accompanied by a trance state and that it is the cause of glossolalia389 - that is, glossolalia is an artifact of trance.390 This has, however, been questioned quite rigorously.391 Others have attempted to test this theory physiologically,392 with inconclusive results. William J. Samarin has been the most severe critic of Goodman both in terms of linguistics and the neurophysiology which supports her interpretation.393 Samarin's position, by contrast, is that glossolalia is a learned behaviour, thus positing a natural rather than an extraordinary mental state for the phenomenon.394 Malony and Lovekin, rather surprisingly, tend to agree with the Goodman position because they argue that, first, glossolalics claim that they are not under their own control when they speak in tongues; and, second, ASCs exist along a continuum rather than 'in a strict dichotomy with a "normal" state. Thus... states of trance are very common in the general population and are, in fact, the rule rather than the exception'.395 They therefore conclude that glossolalia may involve an ASC that is neither pathological nor exceptional.396 It has been commonly thought that glossolalia is a term of compensation for deprivation.391 Because of their black Azusa Street origins and the theory that Pentecostalism is a religion of the 'disinherited', classical Pentecostals have traditionally been described as a lower class movement. Various ideas concerning the reason for this include the increase of formalism and rationalism since the Enlightenment as well as the social upheavals of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This led to greater urbanization in which Holiness gatherings provided an oasis, that subsequently led to revivalism. Such types of faith are understood to serve as a stable reference within a highly volatile social context.398 C.Y. Glock has suggested a developmental theory which posits five kinds of deprivation: economic, social, organismic, ethical and psychic. He suggests that only economic deprivation results in sect formation, but this is questioned by Malony and Lovekin.399 However, Hine suggests that there is evidence of status deprivation associated with glossolalia which she also interprets in terms of power deprivation.400 Some also propose that boredom is a form of deprivation, in which case the church as a form of entertainment is an outlet for the poor.401 Cecil David Bradfield's research suggests that Clock's typology can be used of the Charismatic movement and that some form of deprivation exists.402 Malony and Lovekin conclude that boredom may be the most influential type of deprivation expressed in glossolalia.403 In terms of set issues, most people who speak in tongues desire to deepen

98

Charismatic Glossolalia

their spiritual life.404 In this it has a holiness and pietistic dimension.405 This may be called 'transcendency deprivation' - that is, a hunger for personal-experiential based relation to the divine.406 Paul W. Pruyser suggests that charismatic revival is a sign of the inappropriate self-interest of narcissism.407 It has been observed that charismatic Catholics have felt more culturally isolated than non-charismatics.408 This has been termed 'order deprivation', in which the social world is threatened thereby producing anxiety. However, Malony and Lovekin observe that such dissatisfaction has not led to efforts to change the world, and that such a restive state of mind may be a function of participation in the movement itself rather than its cause.409 Nils G. Holm has advocated that glossolalia is a structured role enactment, based on Sunden's role theory. In this theory the individual adopts a role from holy tradition (here Pentecost) and projects him or herself into that role on the assumption that God will reciprocate in the manner previously. In the group, they are reminded of the tradition and they are invited to re-enact the experience being assured that God will do his part.410 Hine argues that, for American Pentecostals, glossolalia is best understood in terms of a bridgeburning act of commitment.411 Lapsley and Simpson regard it as the rite of initiation into the charismatic group.412 The setting dimensions also provide insight into the context in which glossolalia is acquired. The most consistent determinant for someone beginning to speak in tongues is becoming aquainted with someone in the movement. Recruitment is usually through pre-existing social relationships. Other factors include conversation, attending worship, small groups, reading literature, the example of parents, seeing someone changed by it and the mass media.413 However, contact with another individual is the most important factor. The settings at the time of reception are variable.414 They vary from the classical Pentecostal context to the Roman Catholic 'Life in the Spirit Seminar' courses. Spontaneous glossolalia is probably rare. Most are instructed in some way in order to get started.415 This supports Samarin's contention that glossolalia is a learned phenomenon through socialization.416 It is the glossolalic's membership of the Pentecostal subculture that enables engagement in such public and private speech events.417 L.P. Gerlach and V.H. Hine suggest that the factors influencing the growth of Pentecostalism include: reticulate organization, convincing recruitment, a commitment act, change motivation and action-motivating ideology, and perception of real or imagined oppostion.418 The Effects of Glossolalia The effects of glossolalia have been understood in a number of ways. In terms of physical changes, it has been concluded that mainline charismatics are more pathological than classical Pentecostals.419 Pattison asserted that cultural dissonance leads to cognitive dissonance.420 Malony

A Survey of the Literature

99

discovered no significant physiological changes when process (serious) and act (playful) glossolalia were tested in terms of brain wave activity and heart rate.421 Michael A. Persinger compared the EEG profile from single episodes of glossolalia and transcendental meditation, hypothesizing that 'religious experiences are natural correlates of temporal lobe transients that can be detected by routine EEG measures'.422 Other scholars have considered changes in physical health, but Malony and Lovekin report that there has been no thorough treatment of physical healing through glossolalia.423 However, K.A.B. Phipps' recent doctoral dissertation does suggest a positive health outcome for glossolalics. As she says: it was determined that in the cases presented glossolalia is a peak experience derived from life's experiences and belief in the doctrines of the Pentecostal church thus finding culmination within the church service. Evidence is strong enough to conclude that the immune system function of glossolalics is enhanced by virtue of the folk performance of speaking in tongues.424

Historically, there have been healing reports from Pentecostals such as Charles Parham. Healing is mentioned in the Charismatic movement but there is no pattern in relation to glossolalia, although research has suggested that glossolalics who spoke in tongues at least weekly had a greater sense of wellbeing than those who spoke in tongues less frequently.425 Robert C. Ness and Ronald M. Wintrob, while not finding evidence of physical healing as a result of glossolalia, nevertheless discovered positive emotional health, especially for men.426 David R. Copestake and H. Newton Malony considered the adverse effects of charismatic experience with reference to several case studies. They proposed a neuropsychological approach and noted, while acknowledging the good mental health of charismatics in general, the similar effects of charismatic experiences to the use of psychedelic drugs.427 On the question of personality changes, A. Adams Lovekin, in his doctoral dissertation, hypothesized that, if subjects spoke in tongues for the first time in the 'Life in the Spirit' seminars and maintained the practice for three months, then their scores on dependent measures of personality states would show psychological integration over time. This hypothesis was, however, not confirmed since only one dependent measure - namely, anxiety - changed significantly when tested at the beginning of the seminar (pre), one week after the seminar (post), and again three months later (follow up).428 Malony and Lovekin observed that there is a question concerning the quality of experiment bias in the use of psychometric tests. The most frequently used tests are the Minnesota Multiphrasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the objective true-false questionnaire and the Rorschach projective test. There are a number of illustrations of researcher bias influencing results. In terms of personality changes over time there are three possible outcomes: change for the worse; no change; and change for the better.429 Malony and Lovekin state that:

100

Charismatic Glossolalia

... [w]hat emerges ... is the conclusion that depression among most glossolalics is reduced and remains low over time. Further, glossolalics become more open to feeling and to the affective dimension of their experience. They become more spontaneous and better able to cope with anxiety. There is a need for investigations to determine whether this affectivity is a precondition for becoming glossolalic or whether it results from the experience.430

With respect to cognitive and attitude changes, there is no general consensus regarding the personality structure changes (in perception, thinking and feeling regarding the world) for those who speak in tongues. However, with regard to attitude, there is real consensus that significant changes occur.431 Furthermore, Lalei Elizabeth G. Gutierrez and Fred H. Wallbrown suggested that the glossolalic training they administered to a sample of 25 graduate students increased their nonverbal sensitivity as measured by the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity instrument (PONS).432 For behavioural changes there is popular evidence for addictive behaviour changes, for example, as well as academic research.433 It has been suggested that glossolalia satisfies the needs that a peer group might satisfy through drugs. However, glossolalia in itself has not been shown to be signficant in breaking drug addiction.434 E. Mansell and M.L. Pattison also noted 30 claims to conversion from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality. On the basis of the Kinsey Scale, 11 people showed a dramatic shift in sexual orientation, although the age range of the sample was optimal for change in sexual orientation.435 However, the renewal movement is concerned with personal spiritual reform rather than social reform, although there is some social concern.436 Malony observed that a significant number of youths who participated in social action were more glossolalic than those who did not.437 Margaret M. Poloma has argued that religious experience, as measured by glossolalia, continues to be an important predictor of evangelism.438 Value changes have also been considered. R.M. Williams defines values as 'those conceptions of desirable states of affairs that are utilized in selective conduct as criteria for preference or choice or as justifications for proposed or actual behaviour'.439 Do Pentecostals and Charismatics accept or reject the values of the society in which they find themselves? Traditionally, Pentecostals have been viewed as being countercultural. However, some scholars have suggested that the values of Holiness groups converge with American social values.440 Marion Dearman proposed that there are several socialization mechanisms, including: frequent church attendance, use of leisure time for religious activity; a high number of friends in the sect; and a lack of friends from the employment setting.441 The countercultural orientation of the early Pentecostals has been replaced by an accommodating orientatation.442 Less research has been completed on Neo-Pentecostals and Charismatics. Bradfield has shown that Neo-Pentecostals are accommodating rather than countercultural,443 although it has been suggested that Neo-

A Survey of the Literature

101

Pentecostals in mainline Protestant churches are more likely to be more sectarian than members of Classical Pentecostal denominations, despite income differences.444 However, the study by Max Heirich indicated that Catholic charismatics are not countercultural; rather they are oriented towards renewal in the Roman Catholic Church, but nevertheless hold to a sectarian core.445 Richard J. Bord and Joseph E. Faulkner argued that Catholic charismatics are more influenced by sociopersonal background and attitudinal-motivational states than religious factors, becoming less sectarian over time.446 McGuire's study argued that charismatic Catholics reflect the liberal central tendency of most Catholics but with a minority indicating transcendency deprivation of an affective kind.447 Malony and Lovekin observe that: 'it could be said that these investigations conclude that the charismatic experience becomes a matter of profound personal importance but has relatively little impact on attitudes toward issues of social justice'.448 Integrated Interpretations Malony and Lovekin build on the interpretation of C.S. Lewis who viewed the life of the emotions as 'higher' than the life of the sensations, being richer and more subtle. There is no simple one-to-one correspondence between them, but the richer system is represented in the poorer one by giving each element in the poorer system more than one meaning. This is similar to a language with a large vocabulary being translated into a language with a smaller vocabulary so that some of the words in the smaller language carry more than one meaning. Thus what is happening in the lower medium can only be understood if we know the higher medium: 'Glossolalics speak of deeper and richer meaning to the sounds they make, yet those who have not experienced such reality interpret them in terms of a lower model.'449 This enriched perspective is what Lewis calls 'transposition', and this occurs '"whenever the higher reproduces itself in the lower'".450 This means that a natural event embodies meaning beyond itself and incorporates a reality which is not apparent. A natural form of existence has been taken over by a spiritual and higher mode which is now expressed and embodied in the lower form.451 Malony and Lovekin advocate that glossolalia is best understood in terms of transcendence deprivation.452 This basic need is founded in a human propensity that breaks through social structures. It is an expression of Troeltsch's third religious type, 'mysticism',453 which is based on an inward, immediate experience of the transcendent which functions to legitimize participation in religious institutions. Glossolalia fits into this category, and this interpretation satisfies both the concerns of Lewis and the behavioural sciences. In this way, reductionist and functionalist explanations are avoided and 'phenomenological numenalism' is affirmed 'whereby human needs, transcendent reality, and religious experience are all assumed to be substantively real and worthy of serious study' ,454

102

Charismatic Glossolalia

John Joseph Gowins' doctoral dissertation also aimed to integrate a psychological and theological approach to glossolalia from a Pentecostal perspective. The two theses of his research are: first, that glossolalia, theologically, is understood as 'one way of subjectively relating persons to a sense of transcendency and fulfilling important spiritual needs for selfacceptance and community'; and, second, from a psychological perspective, glossolalia can be understood as fulfilling important psychological needs, or drives, involving affiliation, power and meaning'.455 Gowins builds on selective concepts from the theology of Paul Tillich and Henry Murray's psychological theory in order to develop pastoral-psychological criteria to interpret glossolalia. He states: Glossolalia meets important spiritual and psychological needs to the degree that the experience: 1) Creates, or contributes to, a sense of community. 2) Creates, or contributes to, a sense of faith. 3) Creates, or contributes to, the capacity to love. 4) Creates, or contributes to, a sense of communal purpose. 5) Creates, or contributes to, a sense of outreach and inclusiveness. 6) Creates, or contributes to, the capacity for persons to claim their own personal gifts. 7) Creates, or contributes to, the capacity for positive sense of self-acceptance. 8) Creates, or contributes to, the capacity for accountable meaningfulness.456 Gowins' work brings the original survey of Malony and Lovekin up-to-date. Their survey of behavioural science studies is the most comprehensive and significant ever undertaken, which is why it has formed the basis for this section of this chapter. Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

An earlier version of this section has been published as Cartledge, Mark J. (2000), The Nature and Function of New Testament Glossolalia', EvQ, 72(2), pp. 135-50. Harrisville, Roy A. (1976), 'Speaking in Tongues: A Lexicographical Study', CBQ, 38(1), pp. 35-48. Mark 16:17 (longer ending); Acts 2:4,6,8,11; 10:46; 19:6. Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6. Forbes, Christopher (1997), Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment, Peabody MA: Hendrickson, pp. 13-4. Mark 16:17. Lane, William L. (1974), The Gospel of Mark, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp. 601-605; Cranfield, C.E.B. (1959), The Gospel According to St. Mark, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 471-2. Mark 16:15.

A Survey of the Literature 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

35

36

37

103

Mark 16:17-18. Acts 2:3. Acts 2:4. Acts 2:6. Acts 2:11. Acts 2:14. Acts 10:46. Acts 10:48. Acts 19:5. Acts 19:6. 1 Cor. 12:28. 1 Cor. 12:31. 1 Cor. 13:1. 1 Cor. 14:2. 1 Cor. 14:4. 1 Cor. 14:6. 1 Cor. 14:13. 1 Cor. 14:14. 1 Cor. 14:19. 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 14:23. 1 Cor. 14:27. 1 Cor. 14:29. 1 Cor. 14:39-40. Harpur, T.W. (1966), 'The Gift of Tongues and Interpretation', Canadian Journal of Theology, 12(3), pp. 164-71 at p. 168, regards this question as being 'left open' by Paul. This is the traditional view. See Greene, David (1865), 'The Gift of Tongues', BibSac, 22, pp. 99-126 at p. 99; Davies, J.D. (1952), 'Pentecost and Glossolalia', JTS, 3, pp. 228-31; Ford, J. Massingberd (1971), Toward A Theology of "Speaking in Tongues'", TS, 32, pp. 3-29 at p. 16. Ellis, Earle E. (1973-74), '"Spiritual" Gifts in the Pauline Community', NTS, 20, pp. 128-44 at p. 138, argues that 'spirits' in 1 Cor. 14 refers to the belief that angelic spiritual beings mediated tongues and prophecy, which reinforces the case for angelic languages. Dunn, J.D.G. (1975), Jesus and the Spirit, London: SCM, pp. 243-4 contrasts inspired speech in the vernacular with angelic tongues. He also argues that the content of these angelic tongues is 'mysteries' (13.2) that is, eschatological secrets of heaven. A similar argument is advocated by Martin, Dale B. (1991), 'Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators', JAAR, 59(3), pp. 547-89 at p. 559. Banks, Robert and Moon, Geoffrey (1966), 'Speaking in Tongues: A Survey of the New Testament Evidence', Churchman, 80(4), pp. 278-94 at p. 279; Tugwell, Simon (1973), 'The Gift of Tongues in the New Testament', ExpT, 84 , pp. 137-40 at p. 137. Carson, Don (1987), Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of I Corinthians 12-14, Grand Rapids: Baker, pp. 84-7, bases his interpretation on Poythress, Vern S. (1979), 'Linguistic and Sociological Analyses of Modern Tongues-Speaking: Their Contribution and Limitations', WTJ, 42, pp. 367-88 at p. 369.

104 38

39

40 41 42 43 44 45

46

47 48 49 50 51 52

Charismatic Glossolalia Beare, Frank W. (1964), 'Speaking with Tongues: A Critical Survey of the New Testament Evidence', JBL, 83, pp. 229-46 at p. 243; Currie, S.D. (1965), '"Speaking in Tongues" Early Evidence Outside the New Testament Bearing on "Glossais Lalein'", Interpretation, 19, pp. 279-94 at pp. 280-81. Clemen, Carl (1898-99), The "Speaking With Tongues" of the Early Christians', ExpT, 10, pp. 344-52, suggests that Corinthian glossolia was 'for the most part unintelligible' (p. 348), while Pentecostal glossolia was expressed 'if not in inarticulate sounds, yet in unconnected words and sentences' (p. 351). See also Martin, Ira Jay (1944), 'Glossolalia in the Apostolic Church', JBL, 63, pp. 123-30; also see: Williams, Cyril G. (1975), 'Glossolalia as a Religious Phenomenon: "Tongues" at Corinth and Pentecost', Religion, 5(1), pp. 16-32; and Williams, Cyril G. (1981), Tongues of the Spirit: A Study of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, ch. 2. Dewar, Lindsey (1924), The Problem of Pentecost', Theology, 9, pp. 249-59, asserts that glossolalia at Pentecost 'was due to the sudden breaking down of a repression in the unconscious minds of the Apostles' (p. 250). Edwards, Hubert E. (1928), The Tongues at Pentecost: A Suggestion', Theology, 16, pp. 248-52. Currie, '"Speaking in Tongues'" (n. 38), p. 294. Ibid. Smith, B.L. (1973), Tongues in the New Testament', Churchman, 87(4), pp. 283-8 at p. 287; cf. Richardson, William (1986), 'Liturgical Order and Glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 14.26c-33a', NTS, 32, pp. 144-53 at p. 148. Everts, Jenny (1994), Tongues or Languages? Contextual Consistency in the Translation of Acts 2', JPT, 4, pp. 71-80; Johnson, Luke Timothy (1997), 'Glossolalia and the Embarrassments of Experience', Princeton Seminary Bulletin, 18(2), pp. 113-34 at p. 117, also published in Religious Experience in Earliest Christianity, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ch. 4 at p. 111. An alternative view is that the apostles used Greek and cited quotations from the Scriptures which Luke describes as a miracle of hearing. See Taylor, R.O.P. (1928-29), The Tongues of Pentecost', ExpT, 40, pp. 300-303 at p. 302. However, te(i) idia(i) dialekto(i) (2:6) does not necessarily indicate a miracle of hearing since it belonged to the believers rather than the unbelievers. That is, Luke is more concerned with what is happening to the believers than the crowd: see Turner, Max (1996), The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: Then and Now, Carlisle: Paternoster, p. 223; Carson, Showing the Spirit (n. 37), p. 138. For a critique of the use of modern linguistics in the New Testament study of glossolalia, see Garcia-Cover, Homero (1997), The Gift of Tongues in the Bible', unpublished PhD dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, pp. 129-30. Poythress, Vern S. (1977-78), The Nature of Corinthian Glossolalia: Possible Options', WTJ, 40, pp. 130-35 at p. 132. Ibid., p. 132. Ibid. 1 Cor. 14:2. 1 Cor. 12:10, 30. 1 Cor. 14:26-33, 39-40; Poythress, The Nature of Corinthian Glossolalia' (n. 47), p. 34. Cf. Garcia-Cover, The Gift of Tongues' (n. 46), pp. 136-50.

A Survey of the Literature 53

54

55

56 57

58 59 60

61

62

63 64 65 66 67 68

105

Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), pp. 61 and 63. The view that Paul must have thought of tongues as primarily a heavenly language is also implausible for Christopher Forbes. This is because the angels of 13:1 look like a rhetorical tool and, as such, provides a 'flimsy exegetical peg'. The analogy of 14:10f is between naturally known languages with what Paul understands as special gifts of language (contra Dunn and Williams); see Gundry, Robert (1966), '"Ecstatic Utterance" (NEB)?', JTS, 17(2), pp. 299-307 at pp. 306-307. The third possibility is a mixture of the two: that Luke considered 'other tongues' to be xenolalia, while Paul understood 'tongues' to be unintelligible and inarticulate glossolalia. See Michael, John H. (1907), 'The Gift of Tongues at Corinthians', The Expositor, 4, pp. 252-66. See Menzies, Robert P. (1994), Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in LukeActs, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, JPTS 6, p. 177; and Turner, Max (1996), Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel's Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, JPTS 9, p.271. But also observe that Turner asserts that glossolalia as xenolalia (recognized foreign languages) 'is found nowhere else in Acts' (p.357), contra Robertson, C.F. (1975), The Nature of New Testament Glossolalia', unpublished PhD dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, pp. 30-37, who assumes that this is obviously the case. 1 Cor. 13:1. Thiselton, Anthony C. (1979), 'The "Interpretation" of Tongues: A New Suggestion in the Light of Greek Usage in Philo and Josephus', JTS, 30, pp. 15-36. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 70; Turner, Power from on High (n. 55), pp. 227-8. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 12. Sweet, J.P.M. (1966-67), 'A Sign for Believers: Paul's Attitude to Glossolalia', NTS, 13, pp. 240-57 at p. 246; also Walker, Dawson (1906), The Gift of Tongues and Other Essays, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ch.l, who argues that the 'overdevelopment' of glossolalia at Corinth was due to the 'Christ-party' from Jerusalem; cf. Smith, 'Tongues in the New Testament' (n. 44), p. 286. See Beare, 'Speaking With Tongues' (n. 38), p. 244, who says of Paul that 'he certainly seeks to direct the energies of Christians into other channels and insists that there are other ways of serving God in the power of his Spirit, which will be of far more benefit to the church'. Smith, D. Moody (1974), 'Glossolalia and Other Spiritual Gifts in a New Testament Perspective', Interpretation, 28, pp. 307-20 at p. 312; MacGorman, J.W. (1983), 'Glossolalic Error and its Correction: 1 Corinthians 12-14', Review and Expositor, 80(3), pp. 389-400 at p. 391. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 13. Johanson, B.C. (1979), 'Tongues, A Sign for Unbelievers? A Structural and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians XIV.20-25', NTS, 25, pp. 180-203 at p. 196. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 13. van Unnik, Willem C. (1993), 'The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 12.31', NovT, 35(2), pp. 143-4, suggests that 1 Cor. 12-14 is not polemical. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 14. Thiselton, Anthony C. (1978), 'Realized Eschatology at Corinth', NTS, 24(4), pp.

106

69 70 71

72

73

74

75 76

77 78

Charismatic Glossolalia 510-26; cf. Fee, Gordon D. (1980), Tongues - Least of the Gifts? Some Exegetical Observations on 1 Corinthians 12-14', Pneuma, 2, pp. 3-14 at p.7. Horsley, Richard A. (1976), 'Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status among the Corinthians', HTR, 69, pp. 269-88; Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 14. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 16. See Henderson, Jeffery Lynn, (1997), 'A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Glossolalia in Corinth', unpublished PhD dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois, ch.l. Poythress, The Nature of Corinthian Glossolalia' (n. 47), p. 130, observes that Gundry has confused the psychological state of 'ecstasy' with the linguistic product. Theoretically, the Corinthians could have spoken ecstatically in xenolalia! Harrisville, 'Speaking in Tongues' (n. 2), p. 47; see also Mills, Watson E. (1985), A TheologicaUExegetical Approach to Glossolalia, University Press of America, Lanham, pp. 8-23, 94-5, who suggests that the primary background to glossolalia is Hebraic rather than Hellenistic but nevertheless regards the phenomenon as ecstatic. Garcia-Cover, The Gift of Tongues' (n. 2), ch. 1, has considered the claim that the OT provides the background to NT glossolalia. He observes that the argument is usually based on the notion of ecstaticism and, as such, is to be found wanting. Behm, J. (1964), 'Glossa, heteroglossos', in Gerhard Kittel, and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Bromiley, Geoffrey W., TDNT, 1, pp. 722-4; Williams, Cyril W. (1981), Tongues of the Spirit, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, ch. 1; Williams, Cyril G. (1973-74), 'Ecstaticism in Hebrew Prophecy and Christian Glossolalia', Studies in Religion, 3, pp. 320-38; Mills, Watson E. (1975), 'Ecstaticism as a Background for Glossolalia', JASA, 27, pp. 167-71. Aubrey, N.G. (1991), 'Glossolalia: An Enquiry into its Background, Development and Significance', unpublished PhD dissertation, Macquarie University, Australia, does not believe that ecstatic antecedents lie in the Greco-Roman world (p. 10). Rather he prefers to trace the antecedents of NT glossolalia to ecstaticism in OT prophecy and apocalypticism of Rabbinic Judaism (2 Esdra, Testament of Job) (chs. 2 & 3). See Dunn, J.D.G. (1975), Jesus and the Spirit (n. 4), p. 242; Hart, M.E. (1975), 'Speaking in Tongues and Prophecy as Understood by Paul and at Corinth, with Reference to Early Christian Usage', unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Durham, pp. 13-14, although she says 'there may have been speech similar to glossolalia, but we cannot be certain', (p. 25); cf. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), ch. 5. For example, House, H.W. (1983), Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth', BibSac, 140, pp. 134-50; cf. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), ch. 6. Although it must be noted that Dale B. Martin has criticised Forbes' phenomenology by arguing that he has too narrowly defined what he is looking for. This means, naturally, that he does not find parallels to it in Hellenism. See Martin, Dale B. (1991), Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators', JAAR, 59(3), pp. 547-89 at p. 548. However, Forbes is supported by Henderson, 'A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Glossolalia' (n. 71), pp. 88, 104. Turner, Power from on High (n. 55), p. 237. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 5.

A Survey of the Literature 79

80 81

82 83

84 85 86 87 88 89

90

91 92 93 94 95

107

Carson, Showing the Spirit (n. 37), p. 78; Turner, Power from on High (n. 54), p. 237. Indeed, Robertson argues that, when mainomai appears, it is in contrast to the ideal function of glossolalia (1 Cor. 14:23), that ekstasis as a biblical term means nothing more than a mild inner rapture of the human spirit, which must be determined contextually, 'The Nature of New Testament Glossolalia' (n. 55), p. 158. See Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 79; also Gundry, '"Ecstatic Utterance" (NEB)?' (n. 55), passim', Johnson, 'Glossolalia and the Embarrassments of Experience' (n. 45), pp. 118-19. For example, Martin, 'Glossolalia in the Apostolic Church' (n. 39), p. 127; Behm, and Beare, contra Smith, 'Glossolalia and other Spiritual Gifts' (n. 62), pp. 318-19; Tugwell, The Gift of Tongues in the New Testament' (n. 36), p. 137; and Gundry, '"Ecstatic Utterance" (N.E.B.)?' (n. 55), pp. 299-307. For example, Roberts, P. (1978-79), 'A Sign - Christian or Pagan?', ExpT, 90, pp. 199-203 at p. 201; Williams, 'Glossolalia as a Religious Phenomenon' (n. 39), p. 21; Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 54. Grudem, Wayne (1988), The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, Eastbourne: Kingsway, pp. 124-5, although Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 54, regards this as being too ambiguous. Cf. Callan, Terrance (1985), 'Prophecy and Ecstasy in Greco-Roman Religion and in Corinthians', NovT, 27(2), pp. 125-40; Carson, Showing the Spirit (n. 37), pp. 77-9. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 55. See Baker, David L. (1974), 'The Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12-14', EvQ, 46, pp. 224-34 at p. 229. Turner, Power from on High (n. 55), p. 238. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), pp. 171-2. 1 Cor. 12:12-31. For an important discussion of how glossolalia is linked to other social status indicators in an ancient context see Martin, 'Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators' (n. 76), pp. 547-89. Martin classifies glossolalia as 'esoteric speech'. Such speech, he argues, is usually associated with indicators of high social status such as education, socio-economic position and leadership. There are some scholars who suggest that glossolalia was used in Corinth to focus the challenge of certain women to established male authority. See Johnson, 'Glossolalia and the Embarrassment of Experience' (n. 45), pp. 128-32; and Wire, A.C. (1995), The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul's Rhetoric, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, p. 185; Eriksson, Anders (1998), '"Women Tongue Speakers, Be Silent": A Reconstruction through Paul's Rhetoric', Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches, 6(1), pp. 80-104. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), pp. 172. Ibid., p. 173. Johansson, Nils (1964), '1 Cor. XIII and 1 Cor. XIV, NTS, 10, pp. 383-92, considers Paul's response in light of Agape. Henderson's reconstruction is also worthy of note; see 'A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Glossolalia' (n. 76), pp. 153-4. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), pp. 113-4. The Reformed position has been stated by Greene, 'The Gift of Tongues' (n. 34), p. 121; Bellshaw, William G. (1963), 'The Confusion of Tongues', BibSac, 120,

108

96

97 98

99 100 101

102

103

104 105

Charismatic Glossolalia pp. 145-53; Robertson, The Nature of New Testament Glossolalia' (n. 55), pp. 38-45, 93-9; also see the discussion of the Reformed position that tongues are a sign-gift to aid evangelism in Turner, The Holy Spirit (n. 45), p. 230. Turner, Power from on High (n. 55), p. 268, regards glossolalia on the day of Pentecost as evidence of the bestowal of the 'Spirit of Prophecy' (Joel 3:1-2). The Spirit, he interprets, as 'the executive power of the exalted messiah for the restoration of Israel'. As such, 'other tongues' functions as one sign of this significant event. Robertson, 'The Nature of New Testament Glossolalia' (n. 55), argues that the primary purpose of glossolalia for Luke is evidential - that is, authenticatory, anticipatory and apologetical, pp. 38-45. Ford, 'Toward a Theology' (n. 34), p. 29. Johnson, S. Lewis (1963), 'The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts', BibSac, 120, pp. 309-11; Robertson, O. Palmer, (1975-76), 'Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing', WTJ, 38, pp. 43-53; Bellshaw, 'The Confusion of Tongues', p. 148; Hodges, Zane C. (1963), 'The Purpose of Tongues', BibSac, 120, pp. 226-308. MacGorman, 'Glossolalic Error' (n. 62), p. 398, Behm, 'glossa' (n. 73), pp. 726-7. Robertson, 'Tongues' (n. 98), although Forbes regards his case as a refinement of options (1) and (2); see Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 94. Grudem, Wayne (1979), '1 Corinthians 14.20-25: Prophecy and Tongues as Signs of God's Attitude', WTJ, 41, pp. 381-96. Roberts, 'A Sign - Christian or Pagan?' (n. 82), pp. 199-203, argues along similar lines but with different conclusions to Grudem. He argues that tongues as a sign are ambiguous, that in the Hellenistic pagan world tongues (as ecstatic manifestations) would be considered proof of divine activity. However, Christians are to look for deeper signs of God's presence: moral transformation, edification of the community and proclamation of the Gospel. See Sweet, 'A Sign for Unbelievers' (n. 60), p. 241, who suggests that Paul is taking up a Corinthian slogan: hai glossai eis semeion eisin tois pisteuousin. See also Johanson, Tongues, A Sign for Unbelievers?' (n. 64), p. 193, who believes that Paul uses v. 22 in the form of a rhetorical question using the Corinthian slogan. However, Gillespie, Thomas W. (1994), The First Theologians: A Study in Early Christian Prophecy, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1994, p. 160, asserts that since 'Paul coined the technical term "tongues" ad hoc in order to deal with the situation in Corinth, the phrase, "tongues are a sign" may not be identified as a Corinthian slogan that Paul is repeating back to them'. Gillespie also understands glossolalia as being 'the sine qua non of divine legitimation of the prophetic word'. See Gillespie, Thomas W. (1978), 'A Pattern of Prophetic Speech in First Corinthians', JBL, 97(1), pp. 74-95 at p. 82. Turner, The Holy Spirit (n. 45), p. 230; Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy (n. 83), ch. 8; and Grudem, '1 Corinthians 14.20-25' (n. 101); cf. Lanier, David E. (1991), 'With Stammering Lips and Another Tongue: 1 Cor.14.20-22 and Isa.28.11-12', Criswell Theological Review, 5(2), pp. 259-86 at pp. 273, 281. Turner, The Holy Spirit (n. 45), p. 231. See the discussion by Fee, Gordon D. (1987), The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp. 679-83. He argues that tongues are a negative sign to unbelievers - that is, for their disadvantage. The effect of uninterpreted tongues

A Survey of the Literature

106

107 108

109 110 111

112 113 114 115

116

109

on an unbeliever is one of dismissal (he or she says: 'You are mad!', v. 23); since uninterpreted tongues do not communicate revelation, the person cannot be brought to faith. Indeed, by seeing the work of the Spirit of God as madness, they come under divine judgement. This, however, is not the purpose of tongues as understood by Paul. While he can say in v. 22 that prophecy is a sign for believers (that is, positively), vv. 24-25 cause difficulty since believers are not mentioned in this regard, but unbelievers. Fee argues that prophecy functions as a sign of God's approval in the assembly of believers and any unbelievers present who overhear such communication do not claim that the believers are mad, but rather that God is in their midst. Therefore, it also functions as a means of revelation which challenges the unbeliever. See also Lanier, 'With Stammering Lips and Another Tongue' (n. 103), pp. 259-86; Smit, loop P.M. (1994), Tongues and Prophecy: Deciphering 1 Cor 14.22', Biblica, 75(2), pp. 175-90. The relationship between 'baptism in the Spirit' and speaking in tongues as its evidence is the classical Pentecostal position. It is based on a reading of the material from Acts 2,10 and 19. For a recent statement of the Pentecostal position see Menzies, Empowered for Witness (n. 55), ch. 13. Turner, The Holy Spirit (n. 45), p. 231. 1 Cor. 14:5c; 14:25. See also Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (n. 104), pp. 658-60; Carson, Showing the Spirit (n. 37), pp. 102-103. Gillespie, 'A Pattern of Prophetic Speech' (n. 102), pp. 74-95, argues, using the account of prophecy provided by Celsus and cited by Origen, that glossolalia functioned to legitimize or confirm the prophetic message. For a response to this interpretation, see Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), pp. 165-8. 1 Cor. 14:27, 28, 29. See also Garcia-Cover, The Gift of Tongues' (n. 46), pp. 154-62. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 95. Ibid., p. 97. Forbes is dismissive of those views which play down the role of the interpretation of tongues as a factor in the scenario. He argues that the interpretation of tongues as a gift is equally inspired, thus making the content of tongues (whether praise in Acts 2, or mysteries in 1 Cor. 14) available to the congregation (p. 100). 1 Cor. 14:5b and 14:13 suggest that the speaker should interpret, but 14.27 suggests that another should interpret. Perhaps Paul expected the speaker to be the primary interpreter but anticipated others to do so as well. See ibid., p. 101. ICor. 14:5b, 27-8, 29-30. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), pp. 96-7. Ibid., p. 98. Richardson, 'Liturgical Order and Glossolalia' (n. 44), p. 151; cf. Engelsen, N.I.J. (1970), 'Glossolalia and Other Forms of Inspired Speech According to 1 Corinthians 12-14', unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Yale, pp. 160-61. Turner, The Holy Spirit (n. 45), p. 233. Turner also suggests that the tongues speech in Acts was doxological and prophetic; Acts 10:46 and 19:6 seem to indicate that a mixture is in evidence (p. 224). See also Harpur, The Gift of Tongues and Interpretation' (n. 33), p. 169, Banks and Moon, 'Speaking in Tongues' (n. 36), p. 282, and Tugwell, The Gift of Tongues' (n. 36), p. 138, also regard glossolalia as a gift for praise.

110

Charismatic Glossolalia

117 ICor. 14:2,28. 118 Turner, The Holy Spirit (n. 45), p. 234. Cf. Williams, J. Rodman (1996), Renewal Theology, 2, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, pp. 231-4. 119 ICor. 14:15, 16. 120 1 Cor. 14:2; Carson, Showing the Spirit (n. 37), p. 143. 121 The question as to whether Paul expected all to speak in tongues is raised by classical Pentecostals. The question is put in 12:30, and suggests a negative answer was expected. Classical Pentecostals interpret this answer to refer to the speaking in tongues in the assembly. They therefore expect tongues to be universally practised among those baptized in the Spirit. But Paul appears to make no distinction between the nature of tongues and private and assembly speech. 122 Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), pp. 92-3. 123 See House, Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth' (n. 75), pp. 134-50. 124 Turner, The Holy Spirit (n. 45), p. 234. 125 Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 92. 126 1 Cor. 14:4. 127 Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), p. 99. 128 The question as to the cessation of tongues is still being asked. See, for example, Toussaint, S.D. (1963), 'First Corinthians Thirteen and the Tongues Question', BibSac, 120, pp. 311-16. For a good summary of the various exegetical options concerning 1 Cor. 13:8-12, see Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech (n. 5), pp. 85-91. Forbes argues for the consensus view that 'the perfect' (to teleioh) refers to the return of Christ, with no distinction to be drawn from the passive/middle voices of v. 8. 129 See Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (n. 74), p. 242, who says: 'What was Christian glossolalia? What did Paul think glossolalia was? These are two separate questions; but by the nature of the evidence it is not easy to keep them disentangled.' 130 See Turner, Power From on High (n. 55), passim. The parallels to the Sinai theophany give the Pentecost narrative its most natural sociolinguistic context. The interpretation which understands the Pentecost narrative as primarily a reversal of Babel still needs to be challenged. Despite resonances, Genesis 11 is nowhere cited and must therefore be situated as a secondary allusion to other more important contextual information. However, a reversal of Babel has its advocates; see Davies, 'Pentecost and Glossolalia' (n. 34), pp. 228-9; Mills, A Theological/Exegetical Approach to Glossolalia (n. 72), pp. 101-103; more recently see Penney, John Michael (1997), The Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Pneumatology, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, JPTS 12, p. 83. 131 Synan, Vinson (1997), The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 91. 132 Ibid., p. 92. 133 Henke, Frederick G. (1909), The Gift of Tongues and Related Phenomena at the Present Day', American Journal of Theology, 13, pp. 193-206 at p. 193. 134 Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition (n. 131), p. 88. 135 Henke, The Gift of Tongues' (n. 133), p. 193. 136 Ibid., p. 194. 137 Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition (n. 131), p. 89. However, this is

A Survey of the Literature

138 139 140 141 142 143

144

145

146 147 148 149 150 151

152 153

111

contested by some sources; see Kay, William K. (2000), Pentecostalism in Britain, Carlisle: Paternoster, ch. 1. (I am particularly grateful to the author for pre-publication copies of chs. 1 and 3.) Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition (n. 131), p. 89. Ibid., pp. 96, 97, 103-106. Ibid., p. 111. Via missionary activity in the Carribean, the Church of God was to find a place in Britain through West Indian immigration, where its name is the 'New Testament Church of God'. Kay, Pentecostalism in Britain (n. 137), ch. 1. Hollenweger, Walter J. (1972), The Pentecostal*, London: SCM, p. 342. See 'Linguistic Nature', p. 82-3. See also Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (n. 142), p. 342; Ruthven, Jon (1968), 'Is Glossolalia Language?', Paraclete, 2(2), pp. 27-30, who argues for xenolalia in 1 Corinthians; cf. Bell, Merton C. (1977), 'The Nature and Purpose of Tongues', Paraclete, 11(3), pp. 18-21; and Hertweck, Galen F. (1981), 'Tongues: An Ecstatic Experience', Paraclete, 15(4), pp. 18-20, who argues against the case for ecstatic speech. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (n. 142), p. 342. However, Faupel, D. William (1996), 'Glossolalia as Foreign Languages: An Investigation of the Early Twentieth-Century Pentecostal Claim', Wesley an Theological Journal, 31(1), pp. 95-109, contests this claim from history and concludes that examples of xenolalia are extremely rare. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (n. 142), p. 342; cf. Hoy, Albert L. (1979), 'Seven Uses of Tongues', Paraclete, 13(2), pp. 8-13; Crank, Charles E. (1986), The Purpose of the Prayer Language', Paraclete, 20(2), pp. 11-14; Smith, W.S. (1964), 'Speaking with Tongues - The Gift and the Sign', Pentecostal Evangel, 44, August, pp. 7, 25. Rom. 8:26; see also Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (n. 142), p. 342. Hartwick, A. Reuben (1995), 'Speaking in Tongues: The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit', Paraclete, 29(3), pp. 9-15 at p. 9. Horton, Harold (1934), The Gifts of the Spirit, Nottingham: Assemblies of God Publishing House, p. 136. MacDonald, William Graham (1993), 'Biblical Glossolalia: Thesis Five', Paraclete, 27(4), pp. 15-22. Horton, Gifts of the Spirit (n. 148), p. 143. Horton, Harold (1946), What is the Good of Speaking with Tongues?, Luton: Redemption Tidings Bookroom, p. 8, citing Mark 16:17 and interpreting this to mean that Jesus promised the gift of tongues. See also Orfila, Ansley (1975), The Purpose of Tongues', Paraclete, 9(4), pp. 25-7; Cottle, Ronald E. (1979), Tongues as Evidence', Paraclete, 13(2), pp. 14-16; Wayne, S.M. (1979), 'Glossolalia as Evidence', Paraclete, 13(4), pp. 11-13; The Assemblies of God General Presbytery (1982), The Initial Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit', Paraclete, 16(2), pp. 1-7; Graham, P. Edward (1990), 'Do the Deaf Speak in Tongues?', Paraclete, 24(1), pp. 21-7; Taylor, Cheryl A. (1995), 'Deaf and the Initial Physical Evidence', Paraclete, 29(3), pp. 37-45. Synan, Vinson (1994), The Role of Tongues as Initial Evidence' in Wilson, Mark W. (ed.), Spirit and Renewal: Essays in Honour of J. Rodman Williams, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, JPTS 5, pp. 67-82. Ibid., p. 67.

112

Charismatic Glossolalia

154 Ibid., p. 69. 155 Ibid., p. 71. 156 In Britain the Assemblies of God (AOG) followed the earlier statements of Boddy who interpreted tongues as the initial evidence of baptism in the Spirit. In 1924 the AOG formulated its position as: 'We believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the initial evidence of which is the speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. Acts 2:4; 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 19-6; Isa. 8:18', Kay, Pentecostalism in Britain (n. 137), ch. 3. 157 Synan, The Role of Tongues' (n. 152), p. 74. 158 Kay, Pentecostals in Britain (n. 137), ch. 3. 159 Synan, The Role of Tongues' (n. 152), p. 75. However, contrary to the Holiness traditions, Pentecostalism has preferred to understand the baptism in the Holy Spirit in terms of empowerment rather than holiness. For example, see Flower, Joseph R. (1968), 'Holiness, the Spirit's Infilling, and Speaking with Tongues', Paraclete, 2(3), pp. 7-9. 160 Fee, Gordon D. (1991), Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, p. 99. 161 Synan, The Role of Tongues' (n. 152), pp. 79-80. See also the series of papers in McGee, Gary B. (ed.) (1991), Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism, Peabody, MA: Henrickson. 162 Synan, The Role of Tongues' (n. 152), p. 80. 163 See Anderson, Gordon L. (1993), 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Initial Evidence, and a New Model', Paraclete, 27(4), pp. 1-10; Menzies, Robert P. (1994), Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ch. 13; Chan, Simon (1997), The Language Game of Glossolalia, or Making Sense of the "Initial Evidence'", in Robert P. Menzies and Wonsuk Ma (eds), Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honour of William W. Menzies, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, JPTS 11, pp. 80-95; Shuman, Joel (1997), Toward a Cultural-Linguistic Account of the Pentecostal Doctrine of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit', Pneuma, 19(2), pp. 207-33; Chuen, Lim Yue (1998), 'Acts 10: A Gentile Model for Pentecostal Experience', AJPS, 1(1), pp. 62-72; and the essays in AJPS, 1(2), 1998. However, for a more traditonal defence of the doctrine, see Petts, David (1998), The Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Theological Distinctive', in Keith Warrington (ed.), Pentecostal Perspectives, Carlisle: Paternoster, pp. 98-119. 164 Mather, A.R. (1983), The Theology of the Charismatic Movement in Britain from 1964 to the Present Day', unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Wales, Bangor, p. 247. 165 Ibid., p. 248. See also Harper, Michael (1968), Walk in the Spirit, London: Hodder & Stoughton, p. 21. 166 Mather, The Theology of the Charismatic Movement' (n. 164), p. 248. Scotland, Nigel (1995), Charismatics and the Next Millennium: Do They Have a Future?, London: Hodder & Stoughton, pp. 30-37, notes how Michael Harper and David Pawson have both changed positions. 167 Pain, Timothy (1986), Tongues and Explanations, Eastbourne: Kingsway, pp. 14, 50-53. 168 Synan, The Role of Tongues' (n. 152), p. 77. However, Ranaghan, Kevin and

A Survey of the Literature

169 170

171

172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194

113

Ranaghan, Dorothy (1983), Catholic Pentecostals Today, South Bend, Indiana: Charismatic Renewal Services Inc., p. 141, see it as evidence of baptism in the Spirit. They also state that it is meant to be a normal experience for of all Christians. Synan, The Role of Tongues' (n. 152), p. 74. Williams, Renewal Theology (n. 118), vol. 2, pp. 210-12. Williams also employs the language of 'initial evidence' and cites Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (n. 73) in support. However, Williams' reading of Dunn is somewhat limited. While Dunn acknowledges that the Pentecostal doctrine is 'more soundly rooted in the NT than is often recognised' (p. 189), he then proceeds to give reasons why it is untenable. For example, he argues that glossolalia for Luke is a manifestation of the Spirit, but not the manifestation; otherwise he would have mentioned glossolalia in Acts 8. He feels that Luke's account is lopsided, and does not answer the questions posed by Pentecostals (p. 191). Williams, Renewal Theology (n. 118), vol. 2, p. 234. The eschatological nature of glossolalia is also discussed by Fee, Gordon D. (1997), 'Toward a Pauline Theology of Glossolalia', in Menzies and Ma, Pentecostalism in Context (n. 163), pp. 24-37. He argues that glossolalia is symbolic of both weakness and strength and thus reflects the 'now and not yet' of New Testament eschatology. Cox, Raymond L. (1975), 'Supernatural Supplication', Paraclete, 9(4), pp. 3-6. Jude 20, 21; 1 Cor. 14:14, 15; Rom. 8:26, 27; Eph. 6:8. Cox, 'Supernatural Supplication' (n. 172), p. 6. Carr, Owen C. (1978), 'Praying in the Spirit', Paraclete, 12(2), pp. 12-16. Ibid., p. 12. Exod. 2:23-25; Judg. 2:18; Pss. 6:6; 28:9-11; 102:17-20; Acts 7:33, 34; Luke 11:1; 22:39-44; John 11:32-38; Matt. 26:37-39; Heb. 5: 7, 8. Carr, 'Praying in the Spirit' (n. 175), pp. 15-16. Laurentin, Rene (1977), Catholic Pentecostalism, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, pp. 79-82. Ibid., p. 80. Ibid., p. 81. Lam. 2:11. Laurentin, Catholic Pentecostalism (n. 179), p. 82. Williams, Renewal Theology (n. 118), vol. 2, pp. 226-30, calls it 'transcendent praise' as well as supplication and the uttering of divine 'mysteries'. Laurentin, Catholic Pentecostalism (n. 179), p. 82. 1 Cor. 14:4. Tugwell, Simon (1972), Did You Receive the Spirit?, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, p. 72. Scotland, Charismatics and the Next Millennium (n. 166), p. 41. Eph. 6:18. Horton, Gifts of the Spirit (n. 148), p. 139. Brock, Raymond T. (1989), The Mystery of Glossolalia', Paraclete, 23(1), pp. 24-6. The corpus callosum refers to a bundle of fibres that connect the two cerebral hemispheres of the brain. Brock, The Mystery of Glossolalia' (n. 191), p. 26. Cox, Raymond L. (1976), 'Explaining Speaking in Tongues', Paraclete, 10(4), pp. 27-30.

114

Charismatic Glossolalia

195 Mather, The Theology of the Charismatic Movement' (n. 164), pp. 242-4. 196 1 Cor. 14:4; MacDonald, William Graham (1994), 'Biblical Glossolalia: Thesis Six', Paraclete, 28(1), pp. 23-6. 197 Horton, Gifts of the Spirit (n. 148), p. 139. Hoy, Albert L. (1968), 'Public and Private Uses of the Gift of Tongues', Paraclete, 2(4), pp. 10-14; Cox, Raymond L. (1977), 'Is the Gift of Tongues a Missionary Tool?', Paraclete, 11(3), pp. 14-17. 198 Hoy, Albert L. (1980), 'Tongues and Spiritual Development', Paraclete, 14(3), pp. 10-14. 199 Ibid., p. 11. 200 1 Cor. 14:12, 13, 5, 26. 201 Horton, Gifts of the Spirit (n. 148), p. 149. 202 Carlson, G. Raymond (1977), 'The Interpretation of Tongues', Paraclete, 11(2), pp. 26-9 at p. 27. 203 Horton, Gifts of the Spirit (n. 148), p. 151. Hoy, Albert L. (1969), The Gift of Interpretation', Paraclete, 3(3), pp. 28-31; Dresselhaus, Richard (1974), The Interpretation of Tongues', Paraclete, 6(4), pp. 7-12. 204 Horton, Gifts of the Spirit (n. 148), pp. 156-7. 205 Lancaster, John (1980), 'Interpretations and Prophecies', Paraclete, 14(1), pp. 8-13. 206 1 Cor. 14:3; 14:31; Horton, Stanley M. (1980), 'One Purpose-Edification', Paraclete, 14(2), pp. 23-9; Hertweck, Galen F. (1984), 'Psychological Factors in Glossolalia', Paraclete, 18(1), pp. 27-30. 207 Holdcroft, L. Thomas (1983), Tongues and the Interpretation of Tongues', Paraclete, 17(3), pp. 7-12. 208 Aker, Benny C. (1995), The Gift of Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14.1-5', Paraclete, 29(\), pp. 13-21. 209 MacDonald, William Graham (1994), 'Biblical Glossolalia: Thesis 7', Paraclete, 28(2), pp. 1-12; Caldwell, Bob (1995), 'A Pastor's Reaction to William MacDonald's "Biblical Glossolalia", Paraclete, 29(1), pp. 22-5. 210 Bundrick, David R. (1995), 'Equal for Edification: A Response to "Biblical Glossolalia - Thesis 7" and Its Critics', Paraclete, 29(1), pp. 1-12; Keene, Kenneth C. (1995), 'AResponse to "Biblical Glossolalia - Thesis 7'", Paraclete, 29(1), pp. 26-8. 211 Aker, The Gift of Tongues' (n. 208), p. 19. 212 Mather, The Theology of the Charismatic Movement' (n. 164), p. 264. Cf. Williams, Renewal Theology, vol. 2, pp. 403-404. 213 Mather, The Theology of the Charismatic Movement' (n. 164), p. 264. 214 Cousen, Cecil, The Gifts of the Spirit, Eastbourne: Kingsway, pp. 87, 97; also Pain, Tongues and Explanations (n. 167), p. 15. 215 Horton, Gifts of the Spirit (n. 148), p. 177. 216 Horton, Gifts of the Spirit (n. 148), p. 186. Thee, Francis C.R. (1969), '"Wherefore Tongues...'", Paraclete, 3(1), pp. 14-20; Hertweck, Galen F.(1982), Tongues: A Sign for Unbelievers', Paraclete, 16(2), pp. 20-22. 217 Pain, Tongues and Explanations (n. 167), pp. 42-5. 218 Flower, Joseph R. (1968), 'Speaking with Tongues - Sign or Stumbling Block?', Paraclete, 2(2), pp. 16-19. 219 Ibid., p. 19.

A Survey of the Literature

115

220 Flower, 'Holiness, the Spirit's Infilling and Speaking with Tongues' (n. 159), pp. 7-9. 221 Drake, David B. (1972), '...And with Fire!', Paraclete, 6(2), pp. 18-22. 222 Ibid., p. 21. 223 Dempster, Murray W. (1989), 'The Church's Moral Witness: A Study of Glossolalia in Luke's Theology of Acts', Paraclete, 23(1), pp. 1-7. 224 Ibid., p. 2. 225 Harper, Walk in the Spirit (n. 165), p. 22; Mather, The Theology of the Charismatic Movement' (n. 164), p. 245. 226 Scotland, Charismatics and the Next Millennium (n. 166), p. 269, sees tongues as having a therapeutic effect at an unconscious and subconscious level. 227 The General Synod of the Church of England (1981), The Charismatic Movement in the Church of England, London: CIO, p. 32. 228 Hocken, Peter (1976), The Significance and Potential of Pentecostalism', in Simon Tugwell, Peter Hocken, George Every and John Orme (eds), New Heaven? New Earth? An Encounter with Pentecostalism, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, pp. 32-3; Tugwell, Simon (1976), The Speech-Giving Spirit', in S. Tugwell et al (eds), New Heaven? New Earth? An Encounter with Pentecostalism, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, pp. 151-5. 229 Tugwell, The Speech-Giving Spirit' (n. 228), p. 151. 230 Hocken, Peter (1989), 'Signs and Evidence: The Need for Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue on the Relationship between the Physical and the Spiritual', Pneuma, 11(2), pp. 123-33 at p. 128. 231 Ibid., p. 131; cf. Turner, The Holy Spirit (n. 45), p. 313. 232 Gunstone, John (1994), Pentecost Comes to Church: Sacraments and Spiritual Gifts, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, ch. 4. 233 Ibid., p. 35. 234 Macchia, Frank D. (1992), 'Sighs too Deep for Words: Toward a Theology of Glossolalia', JPT, 1, pp. 47-73; cf. Macchia, Frank D. (1996), Tongues and Prophecy' in Jiirgen Moltmann and Karl-Josef Kuschel (eds), Pentecostal Movements as an Ecumenical Challenge, London: SCM, and Concilium, 3, pp. 63-9. 235 Everts, J.M. (1993), 'Missionary Tongues?', paper presented at the 23rd Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Guadalayara, Mexico, 1993, pp. 9-10 regards tongues as symbolic of a new eschatological community where differences of gender, class, culture and language are cut through and relationships are transformed. Cf. Solivan, Samuel (1994), 'Cultural Glossolalia in Acts 2: A Theological Reassessment of the Importance of Culture and Language', paper presented at the 24th Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Wheaton; Betancourt, Esdras (1994), The Dynamic of Glossolalia and Multicultural Diversity', paper presented at the 24th Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Wheaton. 236 Macchia, Frank D. (1993), Tongues as a Sign: Towards a Sacramental Understanding of Pentecostal Experience', Pneuma, 15(1), pp. 61-76. 237 Ibid., p. 74. 238 Macchia, Frank D. (1998), The Tongues of Pentecost: A Pentecostal Perspective on the Promise and Challenge of Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue', Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 35(1), pp. 1-18 at p. 1.

116

Charismatic Glossolalia

239 Baker, Heidi G. (1996), 'Pentecostal Experience: Towards a Reconstructive Theology of Glossolalia', unpublished PhD dissertation, King's College, University of London. 240 Yong, Amos (1998), "Tongues of Fire" in the Pentecostal Imagination: The Truth of Glossolalia in Light of R.C. Neville's Theory of Religious Symbolism', JPT, 12, pp. 39-65. 241 Sullivan, Francis A. (1982), Charisma and Charismatic Renewal: A Biblical and Theological Study, Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Books, pp. 132-5; Mather, 'The Theology of the Charismatic Movement' (n. 164), p. 263; see also Turner, The Holy Spirit (n. 45), p. 310. Turner believes that tongues speech can be communicative and function like language even though it may not actually be language: 'So it would be possible to suggest that in "tongues speech" the Spirit interacts with people at the subconscious level (cf. Paul's "my spirit prays") and communication is "encoded" non-lexically through the otherwise natural mechanism of "free vocalisation".' Turner makes use of C.S. Lewis' understanding of 'transposition' - that is, the expression of a richer system through a poorer one (p. 310). 242 Williams, Renewal Theology (n. 118), vol. 2, pp. 214-15. 243 Baynes, Simon (1979), 'Poetry and the Gift of Tongues', Theological Renewal, 12, pp. 8-17. 244 Ranaghan and Ranaghan, Catholic Pentecostals Today (n. 168), p. 140. 245 Suurmond, Jean-Jacques (1994), Word and Spirit at Play: Towards a Charismatic Theology, London: SCM, pp. 155-6. 246 Edwards, Twila Brown (1991), 'Babel or Pentecost?', Paraclete, 25(1), pp. 4-9; also see n. 166 above. 247 Laurentin, Catholic Pentecostalism (n. 179); see also Mather, The Theology of the Charismatic Movement' (n. 164), p. 260. 248 Mather, The Theology of the Charismatic Movement' (n. 164), p. 242. 249 Ibid., p. 246. 250 Ibid., p. 256. 251 Ibid., p. 257. 252 Ibid., p. 254; see also Laurentin, Catholic Pentecostalism (n. 179), pp. 74-7. 253 Williams, Renewal Theology (n. 118), vol. 2, pp. 220-21. 254 1 Cor. 14:10. 255 Turner, The Holy Spirit (n. 45), pp. 313-14. 256 Malony, H. Newton and Lovekin, A. Adams (1985), Glossolalia - Behavioural Science Perspectives on Speaking in Tongues, New York: Oxford University Press. 257 Hutch, Richard A. (1980), The Personal Ritual of Glossolalia', JSSR, 19(3), pp. 255-66. 258 Stanley, G., Bartlett, W.K. and Moyle, T. (1978), 'Some Characteristics of Charismatic Experience: Glossolalia in Australia', JSSR, 17(3), pp. 269-77, suggest that glossolalia is far from being a unitary experience. 259 Le Baron, Albert (1896-97), 'A Case of Psychic Automatism, Including "Speaking with Tongues'", Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 12, pp. 277-97; Flournoy, T. (1963), From India to the Planet Mars: A Study of a Case of Somnambulism with Glossolalia, New Hyde Park, NJ: University Books.

A Survey of the Literature

117

260 May, L. Carlyle (1956), 'A Survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Christian Religions', American Anthropology, 58, pp. 75-96. 261 Samarin, William J. (1972), 'Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia', Language in Society, 1(1), p. 122. 262 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 22. 263 Acts 2:4, 6b, 8; 1 Cor. 13:1; 14:3. For a philosophical comment on glossolalia, see Davies, Brian (1984), 'Speaking in Tongues: a Philosophical Comment', in David Martin and Peter Mullen (eds), Strange Gifts?, London: Blackwell, pp. 220-29. 264 For a summary of Lombard's and Mosiman's typologies see Williams, Cyril G. (1981), Tongues of the Spirit: A Study of Pentecostal Glossolalia and Related Phenomena, Cardiff: University of Wales, p. 126. 265 Jennings, George J. (1968), 'An Ethnological Study of Glossolalia', JASA, 20, pp. 5-16; May, 'A Survey of Glossolalia' (n. 260); for Wolfram, see Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), pp. 23-6. 266 Kildahl, John P. (1972), The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues, London: Hodder & Stoughton, pp. 39, 47; Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), pp. 26-8. 267 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 28. 268 Ibid., p. 31. Szasz, Thomas (1993), 'Crazy Talk: Thought Disorder or Psychiatric Arrogance?', British Journal of Medical Psychology, 66, pp. 61-7, suggests that 'the seemingly senseless speech of persons called "psychotic" resembles glossolalia or the religous phenomenon of the "gift of tongues" rather than a speech disturbance, such as aphasia, indicative of brain disease' (p. 61). 269 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 31. 270 Ibid., p. 32. 271 Cf. O'Connell, Daniel C. and Bryant, Ernest T (1973), 'Some Psychological Reflections on Glossolalia', Review for Religious, 31, pp. 974-7, who regard glossolalia as 'a very pedestrian sort of vocalized nonsense' (p. 976). 272 Samarin, William J. (1968), 'The Linguisticality of Glossolalia', Hartford Quarterly, 8(4), pp. 49-70; Samarin, William J. (1969), 'Forms and Functions of Nonsense Language', Linguistics, 49-50, pp. 70-74; Samarin, 'Variation and variables in religious Glossolalia' (n. 259), pp. 121-30; Samarin, William J. (1972), Tongues of Men and Angels, New York: Macmillan; see also the review article by Mueller, Theodore (1980-81), 'A Linguistic Analysis of Glossolalia: A Review Article', Concordia Theological Quarterly, 45, pp. 185-91; Samarin,William J. (1973), 'Glossolalia as Regressive Speech', Language and Speech, 16, pp. 77-89; Samarin, William J. (1979), 'Making Sense of Glossolalic Nonsense', Social Research, 46(1), pp. 88-105. 273 Some argue that it is an English derivative language. See, for example, Jacquith, James R. (1967) Toward a Typology of Formal Communicative Behaviours: Glossolalia', Anthropological Linguistics, 9(8), pp. 1-8. However, see Bryant, Ernest and O'Connell, Daniel (1971), 'A Phonemic Analysis of Nine Samples of Glossolalic Speech', Psychonomic Science, 22(2), pp. 81-3, who concluded that there was a low correlation between glossolalic samples and the English samples taken from their data. Williams, Tongues of the Spirit (n. 264), p. 172, suggests that, although the native background is camouflaged, there is little borrowing from sources of language other than the speaker's native language.

118

Charismatic Glossolalia

274 Samarin, 'Form and Functions of Nonsense Language' (n. 272), p. 72, says that meaning is conveyed prosodically and paralinguistically. See also Samarin, William J. (1971), 'Evolution in Glossolalic Private Language', Anthropological Linguistics, 13(2), pp. 55-67. However, Laffal, Julius, Monahan, James and Richman, Peter (1974), 'Communication of Meaning in Glossolalia', The Journal of Social Psychology, 92, pp. 277-91, argue that glossolalia represents verbal exchanges which primarily serve to establish social bonds; it is cathartic rather than communicative of feelings or states of mind. Cf. Davies, Douglas (1976), 'Social Groups, Liturgy and Glossolalia', Churchman, 90(3), pp. 193-205, who regards glossolalia as a 'restricted code' which essentially concerns social solidarity; and Poythress, Vern S. (1980), 'Linguistic and Sociological Analyses of Modern Tongues-Speaking: Their Contribution and Limitations', WTJ, 42, pp. 367-88. 275 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 37. 276 Motley, Michael T. (1981), 'A Linguistic Analysis of Glossolalia: Evidence for Unique Psycholinguistic Processing', Communication Quarterly, 30(1), pp. 18-27. 277 Ibid. 278 Ibid. 279 Ibid., p. 26. 280 Enninger, Werner and Raith, Joachin (1983), 'The Design Features of Glossolalia', Kodikas Ars Semeiotica, 6(1/2), pp. 59-70. 281 Ibid., p. 66. 282 Ibid. 283 Dominian, J. (1976), 'A Psychological Evaluation of the Pentecostal Movement', ExpT, 87, pp. 293-7. 284 Flournoy, From India to the Planet Mars (n. 259), pp. 155, 241. 285 Cutten, George B. (1927), Speaking With Tongues Historically and Psychologically Considered, New Haven, CT: Yale Univerity Press, pp. 157-60. See also Gates, Wayne E. (1967), 'A Socio-Psychological Study of Glossolalia', in Frank Stagg, Glenn Hinson and Wayne Gates (eds), Glossolalia: Tongue Speaking in Biblical, Historical and Psychological Perspective, New York: Abingdon Press, pp. 76-97, who uses Piaget's phases of human life to categorize glossolalia as parataxic speech (pp. 90-91). 286 Cutten, Speaking With Tongues (n. 285), p. 168. 287 Shumway, C.S. (1919), 'A Critical History of Glossolalia', unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Boston, cited by Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 254), pp. 41-6. 288 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 46. 289 Ibid., p. 48. 290 Ibid. 291 Pruyser, Paul W. (1978), 'Narcissism in Contemporary Religion', Journal of Pastoral Care, 32(4), pp. 219-31. 292 Mumford, Linda A. (1996), 'An Expanded Psychological Understanding of Religious Glossolalia Among Women', unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Boston. 293 Ibid., pp. 204-205. 294 Ibid., p. 261.

A Survey of the Literature

119

295 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 49. 296 Kelsey, Morton T. (1964, 1981), Tongue Speaking: The History and Meaning of Charismatic Experience, New York: Crossroad, p. 198; although he observes that '[m]ost of Jung's followers have sustained the same view of tongues as a genuine invasion into consciousness of contents from the deepest levels of the collective unconscious' (p. 199). 297 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 50. Kelsey notes that Bobon worked with 'three psychotic patients'. See Kelsey, Tongue Speaking (n. 294), p. 202. 298 Kelsey, Tongue Speaking (n. 296), p. 205, contends that Vivier concluded that glossolalia 'can be understood psychologically on the basis of the strong conviction of the tongue speaking group and the strong association of thought and language. Accepting Jung's view of the collective unconscious, it can be understood as an experience of the Holy Spirit...'; cf. Williams, Tongues of the Spirit (n. 264), pp. 131-4; Vivier, L.M. (1968), 'The Glossolalic and his Personality', Bibliotheca Psychiatrica Neurologia, 134, pp. 153-75. 299 Kelsey, Tongue Speaking (n. 296), p. 231. 300 Christie-Murray, David (1978), Voices from the Gods: Speaking with Tongues, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, p. 211. 301 Tappeiner, Daniel A. (1974), 'The Function of Tongue-Speaking for the Individual: A Psycho-Theological Model', JASA, 26(1), pp. 29-32. 302 For example, Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues (n. 266), pp. 35-8, 45, 59. 303 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 54. Francis, Leslie J. and Kay, William K. (1995), 'The Personality Characteristics of Pentecostal Ministry Candidates', Personality and Individual Differences, 18(5), pp. 581-94 at p. 590, argue that regressive behaviour theory is unsupported by their research using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). 304 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 54. 305 Lapsley, James N. and Simpson, John H. (1964), 'Speaking in Tongues: Infantile Babble or Song of the Self? (Part II)', Pastoral Psychology, 15(146), pp. 16-24. 306 Ibid., p. 19. 307 Pattison, E. Mansell (1968), 'Behavioural Science Research on the Nature of Glossolalia', JASA, 20, pp. 73-86 at p. 84; cf. Pattison, E. Mansell and Casey, Robert L. (1969), 'Glossolalia: A Contemporary Mystical Experience', International Psychiatry Quarterly, 5(4), pp. 133-48. 308 Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues (n. 266), pp. 38^47. 309 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 60. 310 Brende, Joel O. and Rinsley, Donald B. (1979), 'Borderline Disorder, Altered States of Consciousness, and Glossolalia', Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 7(2), pp. 165-88. They state that '... glossolalia appears to promote the introjection of a "good" (libidinal, positive) self-object representation, characteristic of the level of object-relations development of the symbiotic infant and the adult psychotic ... but experienced only temporarily by the glossolalist who harbors no major psychopathology' (p. 182). 311 Castelein, John D. (1984), 'Glossolalia and the Psychology of the Self and Narcissism', Journal of Religion and Health, 23(1), pp. 47-62 at p. 59. 312 Kirkpatrick, Lee A. and Shaver, Philip R. (1992), 'An Attachment-Theoretical

120

313 314 315 316 317

318 319 320 321 322 323 324

325 326

327

328 329 330 331

Charismatic Glossolalia Approach to Romantic Love and Religious Belief, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), pp. 266-75 at p. 267. Ibid., p. 272. Gritzmacher, Steven A., Bolton, Brian and Dana, Richard H., 'Psychological Characteristics of Pentecostals: A Literature Review and Psychodynamic Synthesis', Journal of Psychology and Theology, 16(3), pp. 233-45 at p. 238. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), pp. 63^1. Cutten, Speaking with Tongues (n. 285), pp. 5-7. Smith, Daniel S. and Fleck, J. Rowland (1981), 'Personality Correlates of Conventional and Unconventional Glossolalia', Journal of Social Psychology, 114, pp. 209-217; cf. the earlier study by Smith, D.S. (1976), 'Glossolalia: The Personality Correlates of Conventional and Unconventional Subgroups', unpublished PhD dissertation, Rosemead Graduate School of Psychology, California. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 66. Bradfield, Cecil David (1979), Neo-Pentecostalism: A Sociological Assessment, Washington, DC: University Press of America, pp. 37-54. Bergquist, Susan L. (1973), The Revival of Glossolalic Practices in the Catholic Church: Its Sociological Implication', Perkins Journal, 30, pp. 32-7. Davies, Douglas (1984), 'The Charismatic Ethic and the Spirit of PostIndustrialism', in David Martin and Peter Mullen, Strange Gifts?, London: Blackwell, pp. 137-50, 141-3. Ibid., pp. 143-4. Poloma, Margaret M. (1989), The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, p. 49, suggests instead that devotion, ritual and orthodoxy are significant. Zwaanstra, N. and Malony, H.N. (1970), 'Correlates of Glossolalia among Assembly of God Youth', unpublished paper, Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, California, cited by Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 69. However, there is also evidence that secondgeneration glossolalics are less frequent than their parents; see Malony, H. Newton (1985), 'Debunking Some of the Myths About Glossolalia', in Cecil M. Robeck (ed.), Charismatic Experiences in History, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, pp. 102-1 Oat p. 104. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 68. Pavelsky, R.L., Hart, A. and Malony, H.N. (1975), Toward a Definition of Act and Process Glossolalia: Social, Physiological, and Personality Determinants', unpublished paper, Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, cited by Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 69. Ramsey, J.W. and Malony, H.N. (1971), 'Differences in Glossolalia, Religious Belief, and Religious Orientations among Involved and Uninvolved Assembly of God Youth', unpublished paper, Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, cited by Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 69. Swanson, Guy E. (1978), Trance and Possession: Studies of Charismatic Influence', RRR, 19(3), pp. 253-78. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 70. Ibid., pp. 70, 71. Pattison, 'Behavioural Science Research' (n. 307), pp. 73-86.

A Survey of the Literature

121

332 For unsuccessful research see Cohn, Werner (1968), 'Personality, Pentecostalism, and Glossolalia: A Research Note on Some Unsuccessful Research', The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 5, pp. 36-9. 333 Vivier, The Glossolalic and his Personality' (n. 298), pp. 162-3, at p. 170; cf. Smith and Fleck, 'Personality Correlates' (n. 317), pp. 209-17, who state that glossolalics are more anxious but less neurotic than non-glossolalics and that they tend to externalize anxiety into physical and vocal behaviour, while non-glossolalics tend to internalize anxiety into somatic and depressive symptoms; Williams is cautious in his assessment of Vivier, and expects glossolalics to belong to a variety of psychological types; see Williams, Tongues of the Spirit (n. 264), p. 134. 334 Vivier, 'The Glossolalic and his Personality' (n. 298), p. 172. See also Richardson, James T. (1973), 'Psychological Interpretations of Glossolalia: A Reexamination of Research', JSSR, 12, pp. 203-205. 335 Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues (n. 266), pp. 48-9 at p. 49. 336 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 72. 337 Coulson, Jesse E. and Johnson, Ray W, (1977), 'Glossolalia and External-Internal Locus of Control', Journal of Psychology and Theology, 5, pp. 312-16. 338 Malony, H.N., Zwaanstra, N. and Ramsey, J.W. (1972), 'Personal and Situational Determinants of Glossolalia: A Literature Review and Report of Ongoing Research', paper presented at the International Congress of Religious Studies, Los Angeles, cited by Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 75. 339 Gilbert, EJ. (1972), 'Some Personality Correlates of Certain Religious Beliefs, Atttitudes, Practices, and Experiences in Students Attending a Fundamentalist Pentecostal Church College', unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tennessee. 340 Gonsalvez, Emma (1982), 'A Psychological Interpretation of the Religious Behaviour of Pentecostals and Charismatics', Journal ofDharma 7, pp. 408-29 at p. 422, argues that the statistical significance of her results suggest that while all charismatics resemble the hysterical personality type, glossolalics have a greater tendency. See also Gonsalvez, Heliodora Emma (1978), 'The Theology and Psychology of Glossolalia', unpublished PhD dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. 341 Wood, William W. (1961), 'Culture and Personality Aspects of the Pentecostal Holiness Religion', unpublished PhD dissertation, University of North Caroline, p. 97. 342 Ibid., p. 154. 343 Williams, Tongues of the Spirit (n. 264), p. 128. 344 Lovekin, A. Adams (1975), 'Religious Glossolalia: A Longitudinal Study of Personality Changes', unpublished PhD dissertation, Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary; Lovekin, A. Adams and Malony, H. Newton (1977), 'Religious Glossolalia: A Longitudinal Study of Personality Changes', JSSR, 16, pp. 383-93. 345 Simmonds, Robert B., Richardson, James T. and Harder, Mary W. (1972), 'The Jesus Movement: An Adjective Check List Assessment of Members of a Fundamentalist Religious Community', unpublished paper presented to the Western Psychological Association, Portland, Ore., cited by Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 75.

122

Charismatic Glossolalia

346 Richardson, 'Psychological Interpretations of Glossolalia' (n. 334), pp. 199-207. 347 Malony et al, 'Personal and Situational Determinants of Glossolalia' (n. 338), cited by Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 75. See also Coulson and Johnson, 'Glossolalia and Internal-External Locus of Control' (n. 337), pp. 312-17. 348 Pavelsky, Robert Lee (1975), 'The Physiological Correlates of Act and Process Glossolalia as a Function of Socio-Economic Class, Expectation of Glossolalia, and Frequency of Glossolalic Utterance', unpublished PhD dissertation, The Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, pp. 116-19. 349 Gilmore, Susan K. (1965), 'Personality Differences Between High and Low Dogmatism Groups of Pentecostal Believers', JSSR, 8, pp. 161-4. 350 Smith, Daniel Stephen (1977), 'Glossolalia: The Personality Correlates of Conventional and Unconventional Subgroups', unpublished PhD dissertation, Rosemead Graduate School of Psychology, pp. 63-88, reports that his results suggest that (1) glossolalics tend to be more anxious than non-glossolalics; (2) glossolalics tend to externalize anxiety into physical and vocal behaviour, while non-glossolalics tend to internalize anxiety into somatic and depressive symptoms; (3) non-glossolalics appear to be more intelligent than glossolalics; (4) glossolalics have experienced more personal tragedy than non-glossolalics; (5) non-glossolalics are more neurotic than glossolalics; (6) there is no significant difference among the four groups on the level of pathology; and (7) non-glossolalics are more dependent than glossolalics. 351 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 77. 352 Kay, William K. and Francis, Leslie J. (1995), 'Personality, Mental Health and Glossolalia', Pneuma, 17(2), pp. 253-63; Francis and Kay, 'The Personality Characteristics of Pentecostal Ministry Candidates' (n. 303), pp. 581-94; Neanon, G. and Hair, J. (1990), 'Imaginative Involvement, Neuroticism and Charismatic Behaviour', British Journal of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, 7(3), pp. 190-92, argue from data gathered using the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) that charismatic Christians are neither more neurotic nor more imaginatively involve than the general population. Glossolalics showed no significant difference in neuroticism or imaginative involvement than either other charismatics or non-charismatics. Cf. Gibson, H.B. (1991), 'Imaginative Involvement, Neuroticism and Charismatic Behaviour: A Note on the Use of the EPI Scales', Contemporary Hypnosis, 8(2), pp. 109-11. 353 Kay and Francis, 'Personality, Mental Health and Glossolalia' (n. 352), pp. 253-63; Francis and Kay, 'The Personality Characteristics' (n. 303), pp. 581-94. 354 Francis, Leslie J. and Jones, Susan H. (1997), 'Personality and Charismatic Experience Among Adult Christians', Pastoral Psychology, 45(6), pp. 421-8. 355 Ibid., pp. 421-8; Francis, Leslie J. and Thomas, T. Hugh (1997), 'Are Charismatic Ministers Less Stable? A Study among Male Anglican Clergy', RRR, 39(1), pp. 61-9; Louden, Stephen H. and Francis, Leslie J. (1998), 'Are Priests Attracted to the Charismatic Movement Less Stable?', unpublished paper, 1998. I am grateful to Leslie Francis for copies of these papers. 356 Gritzmacher et al., 'Psychological Characteristics of Pentecostals' (n. 314), pp. 242-3. 357 James, William (1902, 1937), The Varieties of Religious Experience, London: Longmans Green & Co., pp. 229, 246; Knox, R.A. (1950), Enthusiasm, Oxford: Clarendon; Lapsley and Simpson, 'Speaking in Tongues' (n. 305), p. 24, suggest

A Survey of the Literature

358 359

360 361 362

363 364

365 366

367 368 369 370 371

123

that there is a danger of psychopathology for a few glossolalics; Hood, Ralph W., Spilka, Bernard, Hunsberger, Bruce and Gorsuch, Richard (1996), The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach, London: The Guilford Press, however, find the fact that empirical studies have consistently failed to find any reliable psychological difference, including psychopathology, between glossolalics and non-glossolalics to be unsurprising. Vivier, The Glossolalic and His Personality' (n. 298), pp. 169-74. Kelsey, Tongue Speaking (n. 296), p. 204. See also Lasebikan, G.L. (1985), 'Glossolalia: Its Relationship with Speech Disabilities and Personality Disorders', Africa Theological Journal, 14(2), pp. 111-20; and Malony, 'Debunking' (n. 324), pp. 103-104, 109. Gates, 'A Socio-Psychological Study of Glossolalia' (n. 285), p. 96. Coulson and Johnson, 'Glossolalia and Internal-External Locus of Control' (n. 335), pp. 312-16. See Spanos, Nicholas P. and Hewitt, Erin C. (1979), 'Glossolalia: A Test of the "Trance" and Psychopathology Hypotheses', Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88(4), pp. 427-34; also Francis and Kay, 'The Personality Characteristics' (n. 301), p. 589, who argue that their data offer no support for the view that glossolalia is pathological behaviour reflecting high neurotic tendencies. Williams, Cyril G. (1984), 'Speaking in Tongues', in David Martin and Peter Mullen, Strange Gifts, London: Blackwell, p. 76. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256). Oman, John B. (1963), 'On "Speaking in Tongues": A Psychological Analysis', Pastoral Psychology, 14(139), pp. 48-51, regards glossolalia as 'infantile megalomania in a setting where he feels confident not only of acceptance, but also of approval' (p. 49). It was written in response to Pike, James A. (1964), 'Pastoral Letter Regarding "Speaking in Tongues'", Pastoral Psychology, 15(144), pp. 56-61, previously distributed in 1963. Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues (n. 266), pp. 37-8, 40-45, 54-5. Ibid., pp. 54-5; cf. Kildahl, John P. (1975), 'Psychological Observations', in M.P. Hamilton (ed.), The Charismatic Movement, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp. 124-42 at p. 132. The association with an authority figure is, however, contradicted by the research of Coulson and Johnson, 'Glossolalia and Internal-External Locus of Control' (n. 337), pp. 312-16; Spanos and Hewitt, 'Glossolalia: A Test' (n. 362), pp. 427-34; Francis and Kay, The Personality Characteristics' (n. 303), p. 589; Cartledge, Mark J. (1998), 'Interpreting Charismatic Experience: Hypnosis, Altered States of Consciousnes and the Holy Spirit?', JPT, 13, pp. 117-32; and Christie-Murray, Voices from the Gods (n. 300), p. 201, although he does suggest that glossolalia might be explained in terms of crowd psychology (p. 205). Cutten, Speaking with Tongues (n. 285), p. 166. Gates, 'A Socio-Psychological Study of Glossolalia' (n. 285), p. 95. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 85. Lapsley and Simpson, 'Speaking in Tongues' (n. 305), p. 20. Kiev, Ari (1963), 'Beliefs and Delusions of West Indian Immigrants to London', British Journal of Psychiatry, 109, pp. 356-63, esp. p. 362; cf. Kiev, Ari (1964), 'Psychotherapeutic Aspects of Pentecostal Sects Among West Indian Immigrants to England', British Journal of Sociology, 15, pp. 129-38.

124

Charismatic Glossolalia

372 Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 90. 373 Hine, Virginia H. (1969). 'Pentecostal Glossolalia: Toward a Functional Interpretation', JSSR, 8(2), pp. 211-26 at pp. 212-13. 374 Richardson, 'Psychological Interpretations' (n. 334), pp. 201-202. 375 Lapsley and Simpson, 'Speaking in Tongues' (n. 305), p. 24. 376 Pattison, 'Behavioural Science Research' (n. 307), pp. 73-86. This is also the main contention of Cox, Harvey (1996), Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century, London: Cassell, who interprets glossolalia in the context of postmodernity. 377 Pattison, 'Behavioural Science Research' (n. 307), p. 77. 378 Morentz, P. (1966), 'Lecture on Glossolalia', unpublished paper, University of California, Berkeley, cited by Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 92. 379 Pavlesky et al, Toward a Definition of Act and Process Glossolalia', cited by Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 92; cf. McGuire, Meredith M. (1982), Pentecostal Catholics: Power, Charisma, and Order in a Religious Movement, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, p. 114. 380 Rarick, W.J. (1982), The Socio-Cultural Context of Glossolalia: A Comparison of Pentecostal and New-Pentecostal Religious Attitudes and Behaviour', unpublished PhD dissertation, The Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, pp. 10, 17. 381 Hutch, The Personal Ritual of Glossolalia' (n. 257), pp. 261-5. Note also the crying/laughing relationship to dying/rising which also compares to participants descriptions of the Toronto Blessing; see Cartledge, 'Interpreting Charismatic Experience' (n. 366), pp. 132-3, for a sacramental interpretation. Williams, however regards Hutch's proposal as speculative; see 'Speaking in Tongues' (n. 363), p. 78. 382 Sequeira, Debra-L. (1994), 'Gifts of Tongues and Healing: The Performance of Charismatic Renewal', Text and Performance Quarterly, 14, pp. 126-43. 383 Cucchiari, Salvatore (1990), The Lords of the Culto: Transcending Time Through Place in Sicilian Pentecostal Ritual', Journal of Ritual Studies, 4(1), pp. 1-14, also notes how the congregation member dialogue is transformed from 'IThou' to 'We' of communitas, through which believers achieve communion with God; and that both of these transformations are 'perfectly reflected in glossolalia' (p.9), thus reflecting intimacy and community. See also Gowins, John Joseph (1990), 'A Pastoral Psychological Study of Glossolalia', unpublished PhD dissertation, Iliff School of Theology, Colorado Seminary, and the University of Denver, p. 191; and note that the transitional object interpretation is also conceptualized in terms of intimacy and community; see Mumford, 'An Expanded Psychological Understanding' (n. 292), p. 261. 384 Proctor II, Russell, (1990), The Rhetorical Functions of Christian Glossolalia', Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 9(3), pp. 27-34. He states that: 'a prayer in tongues is understood as a prayer destined to achieve its desired rhetorical effect, because it is God the Holy Spirit praying to God the Father through the person who speaks in tongues. Clearly Samarin did not grasp this concept when he postulated that "glossolalists certainly do not believe that God is using them to talk to himself!" ... Charismatics do in fact hold this belief, and it represents

A Survey of the Literature

385

386 387 388

389

390

391

392 393

125

for them a process of perfected spiritual persuasion. Glossolalic prayer involved God telling God what to do, while using the tongues-speaking Christian as a channel' (p. 32). De Vol, Thomas I. (1974), 'Ecstatic Pentecostal Prayer and Meditation', Journal of Religion and Health, 13(4), pp. 285-8; Pattison, E. Mansell, Kahan, Joel and Hurd, Gary S. (1986), 'Trance and Possession States', in B.B. Wolman and M. Ullman (eds), Handbook of States of Consciousness, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 286-310. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 99. Ibid., p. 100. Goodman, Felicitas D. (1972), Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study of Glossolalia, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Also see the review by Samarin, William J. (1974), 'Speaking in Tongues: a Cross-Cultural Study of Glossolalia. By Felicitas D. Goodman', Language, 50(1), pp. 207-12; Goodman, Felicitas D. (1972), 'Speaking in Tongues', New Society, 22, pp. 565-6; cf. Goodman, Felicitas D. (1973), 'Glossolalia and Hallucination in Pentecostal Congregations', Psychiatria Clinica, 6, pp. 97-103; Goodman, Felicitas D. (1974), 'Prognosis: A New Religion?', in I.I. Zaretsky and M.P. Leone (eds), Religious Movements in Contemporary America, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 244-54; also Lasebikan, 'Glossolalia' (n. 359), pp. 111-20. For a discussion of how a person acquires such a state, see Goodman, Felicitas D. (1971), The Acquisition of Glossolalic Behaviour', Semiotica, 3, pp. 77-82; cf. Goodman, Felicitas D. (1971), 'Glossolalia and Single-Limb Trance: Some Parallels', Psychotherapy and Psycho somatics, 19, pp. 92-103. Lapsley and Simpson would also argue that glossolalia is always associated with a dissociative state and is a psychomotor behaviour; see Lapsley and Simpson, 'Speaking in Tongues' (n. 305), p. 18. Goodman, Felicitas D. (1969), 'Phonetic Analysis of Glossolalia in Four Cultural Settings', JSSR, 8(2), pp. 227-39. ASCs continued to be the subject of her later work; see Goodman, Felicitas D. (1980), Triggering Altered States of Consciousness as a Group Event: A New Case from Yucatan', Conflnia Psychiatrica, 23, pp. 26-34; and Goodman, Felicitas D. (1986), 'Body Posture and the Religious Altered State of Consciousness: An Experimental Investigation', Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 26(3), pp. 81-118. Stanley and Moyle, 'Some Characteristics of Charismatic Experience' (n. 258), p. 277; Spanos and Hewitt, 'Glossolalia: A Test' (n. 362), pp. 427-34; Spanos, Nicholas P., Cross, Wendy P., Lepage, Mark and Coristine, Marjorie (1986), 'Glossolalia as Learned Behaviour: An Experimental Demonstration', Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95(1), pp. 21-3; Francis and Kay, The Personality Characteristics' (n. 303), p. 589; and Cartledge, 'Interpreting Charismatic Experience' (n. 366), pp. 117-32. For example, Pavlesky, The Physiological Correlates' (n. 348), pp. 116-17. Samarin, William J. (1972), 'Sociolinguistics vs. Neurophysiological Explanations for Glossolalia: Comment on Goodman's Paper', JSSR, 11, pp. 293-6; for a response see: Goodman, Felicitas D. (1972), 'Altered Mental State vs. "Style of Discourse": Reply to Samarin', JSSR, 11, pp. 297-9. In support of Goodman, Williams, Tongues of the Spirit (n. 39), p. 146, argues 'that in the glossolalic act the unconscious levels of personality have a more ready access to

126

394

395 396

397 398

399 400 401 402

403 404

Charismatic Glossolalia speech functions than is normally the case, not only in obvious states of dissociation but even where there appears to be very little trace of an altered state of consciousness'; while McGuire, Pentecostal Catholics (n. 379), p. 114, regards glossolalia as part of a 'modified reality' which is relatively close to everyday life and in which the glossolalic retains total control over the gift, rather than an 'altered reality', and that studies which have assumed an ACS have interpreted evidence from cultures which value trance and therefore are more likely to evince ASC alongside glossolalia. Samarin, William J. (1969), 'Glossolalia as Learned Behaviour', Canadian Journal of Theology, 15, pp. 60-64; Williams, Tongues of the Spirit (n. 39), pp. 179-80 suggests that in 'serious' tongues there may be well be a degree of dissociation which will vary with intensity; and Preus, Klemet (1982), Tongues: An Evaluation from a Scientific Perspective', Concordia Theological Quarterly, 46(4), pp. 277-93, argues for a combination of a regressive return to an earlier linguistic maturity, accomplished through a learning process, in which people are taught to achieve an ASC, and release tension and answer personal stress and trauma (pp. 289-90). Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 109. See also Swanson Trance and Possession', p. 253. For a critique see Cartledge, 'Interpreting Charismatic Experience' (n. 366), pp. 127-9. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 11. However, Hood et al, The Psychology of Religion (n. 357), p. 202, regard the question as 'conceptually cloudy'. They suggest that a clear operational definition of glossolalia and trance are required in order to test whether they occur together, before seeing whether glossolalia can only be elicited in trance. They suggest that this is probably unlikely. See Cartledge, Mark J. (1999), The Symbolism of Charismatic Glossolalia', JET, 12(1), pp. 37-51, for a test of deprivation theory on inductively gathered qualitative data from the case study of Chapter 3. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), pp. 113, 114, 115. See also Hine, Virginia H. (1974), The Deprivation and Disorganization Theories of Social Movements', in I.I. Zaretsky and M.P. Leone (eds), Religious Movements in Contemporary America, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 646-61 at p. 658, says that '[t]here is evidence of occupational, or status, deprivation, or ... power deprivation'; cf. Malony, 'Debunking' (n. 324), p. 104. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), pp. 116-17. Hine, The Deprivation and Disorganization Theories of Social Movement' (n. 397), p. 658. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 122. Bradfield, Neo-Pentecostalism (n. 319), chs 2-3, tested Clock's typology and found that only organismic, ethical and psychic categories were appropriate to Neo-Pentecostals. In addition he believes that it needs to be supplemented by the work of Gerlach and Hine because it focuses too much upon 'outside' factors at the expense of 'inside' factors. He therefore regards it as too static and functionalist (p. 57). Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 125. Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin and Argyle, Michael (1997), The Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Belief and Experience, London: Routledge, p. 57; Mayers,

A Survey of the Literature

405 406 407 408

409 410

411

412 413

414 415 416

127

Marvin H. (1971), The Behaviour of Tongues', JASA, 23, pp. 89-95, interprets glossolalia in this way too, although he suggests that tongues grow out of a holistic world- and life-view. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 130. Cf. Whitley, Oliver Read (1974), 'When You Speak in Tongues: Some Reflections on the Contemporary Search for Ecstasy', Encounter, 35, pp. 81-94. Pruyser, 'Narcissim in Contemporary Religion' (n. 291), pp. 219-31. McGuire, Meredith B. (1975), Toward A Sociological Interpretation of the "Catholic Pentecostal" Movement', RRR, 16(2), pp. 94-104; McGuire, Meredith B. (1977), The Social Context of Prophecy: "Word-Gifts" of the Spirit Among Catholic Pentecostals', RRR, 18(2), pp. 134-47; McGuire, Pentecostal Catholics (n. 378), p. 91. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), pp. 135-6. Holm, Nils G. (1976), Tungotal Och Andedop Acta', Psychologia Religionum, 5, pp. 221-30; Holm, Nils G. (1978), 'Functions of Glossolalia in the Pentecostal Movement', Psychologia Religionum, 7, pp. 141-58; Holm, Nils G. (1987), 'Sunden's Role Theory and Glossolalia', JSSR, 26(3), pp. 383-9; Holm, Nils G. (1991), 'Pentecostalism: Conversion and Charismata', International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 1(3), pp. 135-51; see the response by Hood, Ralph W. (1991), 'Holm's Use of Role Theory: Empirical and Hermeneutical Considerations of Sacred Text as Source of Role Adoption', International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 1(3), pp. 153-9. Hine, 'Pentecostal Glossolalia' (n. 373), pp. 211-26; see also McGuire, Pentecostal Catholics (n. 380), p. 113, who follows Samarin and understands glossolalia as symbolizing change, validity of the baptism in the Spirit, submission to God and self-assertion. Lapsley, James N. and Simpson, John H. (1964), 'Speaking in Tongues: Token of Group Acceptance and Divine Approval', Pastoral Psychology, 15(144), pp. 48-55. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 140. McGaw, Douglas B. (1980), 'Meaning and Belonging in a Charismatic Congregation: An Investigation into Sources of Neo-Pentecostal Success', RRR, 21(3), pp. 284-301, suggests that when a church's sense of belonging is consistent and comprehensive, it elicits a strong sense of commitment from its members; see also Williams, Tongues of the Spirit (n. 264), p. 218. Ball, Peter (1981), 'Dimensions of Neopentecostal Identity in the Church of England', European Journal of Social Psychology, 11, pp. 349-63, argues that glossolalia played only a limited role for glossolalics within his study. Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues (n. 266), p. 2. Samarin, 'Glossolalia as Learned Behaviour' (n. 394), pp. 60-64; Samarin, William J. (1970), 'Language in Resocialisation', Practical Anthropology, 17, pp. 269-79, who also sees it as crucial to the charismatics' resocialization into the Charismatic movement. See also Gates, 'A Socio-Psychological Study of Glossolalia' (n. 285), p. 88; Spanos, Cross, Lepage and Coristine, 'Glossolalia as Learned Behaviour' (n. 391), pp. 21-3; Francis and Kay, The Personality Characteristics' (n. 303), p. 590, suggest that their data, using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, do not corroborate nor discorroborate this hypothesis; Hood et al, The Psychology of Religion (n. 357), p. 412, suggest that the

128

417

418

419 420

421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430

Charismatic Glossolalia confusion regarding the normality or abnormality of glossolalia is being resolved in terms of normality, and that there is little doubt that glossolalia is a learned behaviour. Samarin, 'Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia' (n. 272), pp. 123-4; McGuire, Meredith B. (1977), Testimony as a Commitment Mechanism in Catholic Pentecostal Prayer Groups', JSSR, 16(2), pp. 165-8; and the response by Harrison, Michael I. (1978), 'Commitment Mechanisms and Routinization in a Social Movement', JSSR, 17(4), pp. 456-60; for McGuire's reply see McGuire, Meredith B. (1978), 'Comment: Similar Events, Different Approaches: Reply to Harrison', JSSR, 17(4), pp. 461-3. Gerlach, L.P. and Hine, V.H. (1970), People, Power, Change: Movements of Social Transformation, New York: Bobbs-Merrill, p. 199; cf. Moore, John (1973), The Catholic Pentecostal Movement' in Michael Hill (ed), A Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britian, vol. 6, London: SCM, pp. 73-90 at pp. 86-7, who notes the role of glossolalia in the process of commitment. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 149; see also Pruyser, 'Narcissism in Contemporary Religion' (n. 291), p. 228. Pattison, E. Mansell (1974), 'Ideological Support for the Marginal Middle Class: Faith Healing and Glossolalia', in I.I. Zaretsky and M.P. Leone (eds), Religious Movements in Contemporary America, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 418-55, argues that the disparity between fundamentalistic values and dominant middle-class values produces significant social and psychological dissonance and that glossolalia offers ideological support for fundamentalism against dissonance and challenges American values (p. 418); cf. Festinger, L. (1962), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Malony, 'Debunking' (n. 324), p. 106. Persinger, Michael A. (1984), 'Striking EEG Profiles From Single Episodes of Glossolalia and Transcendental Meditation', Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, pp. 127-33 at p. 127. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 151. Phipps, K.A.B. (1993), 'Glossolalia and Health: The Perceived Effect in Health Promotion', unpublished PhD dissertation, Indiana University, p. vii. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), pp. 155, 156. Ness, Robert C. and Wintrob, Robert M. (1980), The Emotional Impact of Fundamentalist Religious Participation: An Empirical Study of Intragroup Variation', American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 50(2), pp. 302-15. Copestake, David R. and Malony, H. Newton (1993), 'Adverse Effects of Charismatic Experiences: A Reconsideration', Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 12(3), pp. 236-44. Lovekin, A. Adams (1974), 'Religious Glossolalia: A Longitudinal Study of Personality Changes', unpublished PhD dissertation, Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), pp. 161-4, 165-85. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 185. See also Lovekin and Malony, 'Religious Glossolalia' (n. 344), pp. 390-92; and Malony, 'Debunking' (n. 324), pp. 107-108, who says that none of the groups tested were psychopathological at pre-test, with non-glossolalics the highest in terms of depression, hostility and

A Survey of the Literature

431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438

439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455

456

129

anxiety at the time of the seminar. All persons changed in the direction of personal integration, with those becoming glossolalic changing more than those who did not. He concludes that glossolalic Christians appear to be normal both prior as well as after becoming glossolalic. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 188. Gutierrez, Lalei Elizabeth G. and Wallbrown, Fred H. (1983), 'Enhancing Nonverbal Sensitivity Through Glossolalic Training', Journal of Psychiatric Treatment and Evaluation, 5, pp. 9-13. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 201. Ibid., p. 204. Pattison, E. Mansell and Pattison, M.L. (1980), 'Ex-Gays: Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals', American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(12), pp. 1553-62. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 212. Malony, 'Debunking' (n. 324), p. 106. Poloma, The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads (n. 323), p. 49; Poloma, Margaret M. and Pendleton, Brian F. (1989), 'Religious Experiences, Evangelism, and Institutional Growth within the Assemblies of God', JSSR, 28(4), pp. 415-31. Cited in Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 213. Ibid., p. 218. Dearman, Marion (1974), 'Christ and Conformity: A Study of Pentecostal Values', JSSR, 13, pp. 436-53. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 222. Bradfield, Neo-Pentecostalism (n. 319), p. 33. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 231. Ibid., p. 232. Bord, Richard J. and Falkner, Joseph E. (1975), 'Religiosity and Secular Attitudes: The Case of Catholic Pentecostals', JSSR, 14, pp. 257-70. McGuire, 'Toward a Sociological Interpretation', pp. 94—104. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 244. Ibid., p. 250. Ibid. Ibid., p. 251. Cf. Mills, Watson E. (1972) 'Glossolalia: Christianity's "Counterculture" Amidst a Silent Majority', The Christian Century, 27 September, pp. 949-51. Malony and Lovekin, Glossolalia (n. 256), p. 259. Ibid., p. 262. Gowins, 'A Pastoral Psychological Study of Glossolalia'; cf. Meeks II, F.E.(1976), 'Pastoral Care and Glossolalia: Implications of The Contemporary Tongues Movement in American Churches', unpublished PhD dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, p. 193. Ibid., p. 196.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 5

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia Introduction Following the five stages of the empirical-theological cycle of van der Ven, we now continue into the third, fourth and fifth stage of the process - namely, deduction, testing and evaluation. From a knowledge of the literature and information gathered from empirical work, a theological-conceptual model is devised, which focuses on particular features of the original research question. In the previous empirical case study, questions concerning the nature and function of charismatic glossolalia were considered in an exploratory-descriptive mode. In this stage, the approach changes to an exploratory-explanatory mode as causal relationships between variables are tested. Quantitative Research: A Definition of Some Terms and Concepts In order to help the non-specialist understand this chapter of the book, I shall define and describe some of the terms and concepts commonly used in this kind of empirical research. For the sake of brevity, I shall simply confine myself to the actual terms and concepts used in statistical tests which are displayed in the results.1 For a discussion of the complete range of terms and concepts standard quantitative texts will need to be consulted.2 The term 'population' is normally used of a complete set of people, values or events which can be held together by means of a common definition - for example, Charismatic Christians. A sample is a collection from this population that we may assume is an accurate reflection of the characteristics of the wider population - for example, Charismatic Christians within the geographical location of Merseyside. Probability or random samples are chosen by some form of chance mechanism, such as random numbers. Alternatively convenience or opportunity samples can be used. The assumption that the subjects within the sample are representative of the whole population may be made. This study would be regarded as a convenience sample because it was not randomly selected but used a network list as its basis. Most church congregation sampling would be classified in this way. The number of successfully completed questionnaires returned from the sample is regarded as the response rate. 131

132

Charismatic Glossolalia

The questionnaire survey method asks a series of questions from the respondents. These items are entered into the computer database as individual variables, such as gender, age and occupation, although several variables can be combined to measure a commonality - for example, the concept of charismatic socialization. In this case, these variables function as a scale. When five questions probe different aspects of the same concept it strengthens the nature of the result. Variables are usually classified as: 1 nominal (names - for example, church denomination); 2 ordinal (classifications arranged in rank, the differences between which are not necessarily equal, and which either ascend or descend in frequency for example educational qualifications); and 3 interval (like ordinal but the differences are similar in distance). Likert scales (named after R. A. Likert) are regarded as functioning as interval variables. Likert questions tend to make a statement and then ask the respondents whether they agree strongly, agree, are not certain, disagree or disagree strongly. Since the distance between agree and agree strongly is regarded as the same, these items are treated as interval variables. For example, in the questionnaire used in this research I asked the question: 'How much have the following helped you to understand speaking in tongues?' The option 'famous preachers' is followed by the choices: 'very little 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very much.' The respondent is asked to indicate where on the scale the influence of 'famous preachers' would be placed. Other options such as 'friends' and 'books' were also listed and followed by the same choices. The notions of validity and reliability are important ones for empirical research. Validity refers to the appropriateness of the instrument for the measurement of an attitude or belief. In this context, validity refers to the content of the questions. The meaning of the words used in the questions should be appropriate to the concept being measured. The construction of the question is also related to the notion of validity and it is usually termed 'operationalization'. This is a difficult aspect of quantitative research. Often complex concepts and theories, including theological theories such as, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, can prove difficult to measure by means of simple questions which are easily understandable by the target group. Reliability refers to the consistency of the measurement. For example, the instrument devised to measure a dimension of personality must be able to measure the same dimension repeatedly if it is to be a useful tool. The reliability of scales constructed to measure an attitude or trait can be checked for internal consistency using the Cronbach reliability test. This check gives an alpha coefficient which is a number between 0 and 1. The nearer the number is to 1, the greater the reliability of the measurement, but this depends to some extent on the number of items in the scale. A scale with a greater number of items, say 9, would be expected to generate a larger alpha

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia

133

coefficient than a scale of 3 items. If there was very little difference between the scores, then the shorter scale would tend to be regarded as the more reliable of the two. Statistical analysis is based on the discovery of the central tendency, or average score, for variables in a particular sample. Say, for example, that the scores for a particular variable were: 1, 8, 12, 19, 44, 44, 45 and 51. There are eight numbers and they add up to 224. The mean is therefore 224 divided by 8 = 28. The mode is the number which occurs most often, in this case 44, while the median is the middle number in a spread, that is the halfway point between the fourth and fifth numbers - that is, 31.5. Statistical analysis is also interested in the dispersion of the numbers around the mean. To do this we subtract every number from the mean, square the differences (to get rid of the negative numbers) add the differences together, then average them and take the square root of the average (to undo the effect of squaring). This number is called the standard deviation. For the numbers above the standard deviation is approximately 19.3 The term that is closely associated with standard deviation is variance. The variance of a set of numbers is the standard deviation squared. The term 'correlation' refers to the idea of association between two variables. This is often demonstrated when two variables (x and y) are plotted together on a graph. There is said to be a relationship of association or correlation if the items can be seen to slope up or slope down in a straight line - that is, they are in a linear (straight) relationship. If they cluster, then there is no obvious correlation. A single figure, called the correlation coefficient, expresses this relationship of association between the two variables. The range is between -1 to +1. A figure of-1 would indicate a perfect negative correlation, so that as one variable increases the other decreases. A figure of +1 would indicate a perfect positive relationship, so that the highest score in one variable is related to the highest score in the other variable. If the distribution of the variable is normal (indicated by a bell-shaped curve when the frequency is plotted), the correlation is calculated by Pearson's coefficient which is designated by 'r' (lower case). The notion of significance is an important concept and refers to probability. The most common designation is that the finding would have come about by chance less frequently than five times in 100 (P = .05), although once in a 100 (P = .01) and five times in a thousand are also used (P = .005). The One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) enables the comparison of the means and variances between two or more groups to be calculated (for example, Classical Pentecostals and New Churches). The ANOVA calculation compares the variance of each individual group with the variance of the group means - that is, from the mean of all of the respondents taken together as one large group. If the means differ greatly relative to the variance of each group, the F statistic (named after R.A. Fisher who discovered it), which describes the relationship, becomes large. A significant F ratio shows that there are

134

Charismatic Glossolalia

differences between the groups. This F score is accompanied by a significance score which enables the reader to understand the importance of the scores for analysis of the variables concerned. Multiple regression is an extension of correlation. Correlations between two variables (bivariate) can be extended by using a large number of variables and correlating them with one specific variable called the dependent variable. In this calculation we can determine the total correlation between all the variables in the equation. This is shown by what is designated the R score (a figure between 0 and 1). The R score helps us to see how much variance in the dependent variable can be accounted for by the independent variables in the equation. The standardized R score, R2, is regarded as the measure of the percentage of variance which can be accounted for. Therefore if R2 = .3201 then the percentage variance represented by that figure is 32 per cent. This procedure enables us to view the relationship between the independent and dependent variables together. If the variable we are interested in is entered into the equation last (using the stepwise procedure) then the effect of this variable can be measured while accounting for the effect of the other intervening variables on the maximum amount of variance available to them. For variables to be entered into a multiple regression equation the dependent variable and the independent variables must have been shown to relate together in a linear fashion. In other words, a straight line would be drawn if the relationship between the two variables was presented graphically. This can be determined by plotting a scatterplot diagram and by the linearity test in the SPSS version 8.0 package. A series of multiple regressions can be used to build up a path model of the effects of certain variables on others. This path model is demonstrated in the series of regressions in the results and is based on the empirical-theological model outlined in Figure 5.1 (p. 137). In path models the regression scores are denoted by B coefficients - that is, the figure that measures the amount of variance of one variable accounted for in the presence of another variable. The beta coefficient is a standardized version of the B scores and is used in path models. In this study, the regression analysis leading to path models contains the regression of all the selected independent variables upon the dependent variables of: the glossolalia symbols; the trinity variables; the charismatic experience and socialization variables; the glossolalia experience and understanding variables; and the Eysenck Personality variables. From these different regression equations a number of path models are described (see 'Path Analysis', p. 168). Theological Perception and Reflection Summary From the case study, the perception of those interviewed concerning the purpose of glossolalia focused on the idea that speaking in tongues produced

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia

135

certain 'fruit' or effects. It produced: a sense of beauty; a sense of awe; a sense of power; a sense of intimacy; and a sense of faith being built up (faithbuilding). In turn, power pointed to: strength, change, holiness, miracles, healing and witness. Intimacy pointed to love and security. Faith pointed to a sense of expectancy. The context for these effects in the case study was an understanding of spirituality that perceived glossolalia as being used in the edification of the person and the congregation, and as a weapon to be used in spiritual warfare. Within this spirituality there was a relationship between the self (tongues speaker), God and others (congregation, world, spiritual realm). In terms of the perception of how the interviewees addressed God, a Trinitarian understanding was in evidence: the persons of the Trinity were identified and particular affiliations made. For example, some preferred to think in terms of the Father, or the Son, or the Spirit, or in different combinations. In light of this, it was considered important to explore the effect, or 'fruit', of glossolalia within the spirituality of tongues speakers. For the purposes of survey work, the effect is considered in symbolic terms and, as such, represents dimensions of the symbolic nature and function of glossolalia within the Charismatic movement. The Trinitarian dimension was perceived to be an interesting factor and deserving exploration in its own right. A theological reflection on the nature and function of glossolalia is an enormous task since so much has already been written, especially from New Testament and behavioural science perspectives. The literature review of Chapter 4 provides an unique overview of the range of views regarding glossolalia. One of the obvious understandings gathered from the literature is that glossolalia is a prayer language that is used when the words of one's normal language prove inadequate. It transcends language and yet embodies language. It is a language of the spirit rather than of the mind; it is of the heart rather than of the head. It functions as both a sign, as evidence of the presence of God in a special way, through baptism of the Spirit, and as a gift of prayer and prophecy (when interpreted) in private or corporate settings. It can be a means of group identity and solidarity, a voice of the voiceless and the illiterate, as well as a release for those seeking freedom from the 'iron cage of grammar'.4 From a reading of the literature, it is clear that the five symbols already noted above (beauty, awe, power, intimacy and faith-building) needed to be supplemented. Gordon D. Fee has proposed that glossolalia should be seen not just as a symbol of power but also of weakness. He argued that Paul's understanding of glossolalia was to be found in a reading of 2 Cor. 12:9, that is, '[God's] power finds perfection in [human] weakness', and that therefore glossolalia reflects a position of weakness rather than strength. With the use of Paul's letters to the Corinthians and Rom. 8:26-27, Fee explains how speaking in tongues reflects Paul's basic understanding of the 'now/not yet' tension of eschatology:

136

Charismatic Glossolalia

Within this framework glossolalia for Paul serves the believer not as evidence that the future is already present (vis-a-vis Corinth), but that the future is 'not yet' consummated. It is because of our 'between the times' existence that we desperately need the Spirit's help in our present frailty.5

In light of this elucidation of Paul's theology, which seems entirely justified, the symbols outlined above have been supplemented by a further symbol namely, weakness. Van der Yen's empirical-theological model of theodicy suggests that the broader conceptual context of theodicy be articulated via the use of cosmodicy symbols. That is, a set of symbols was used in order to provide a framework for those who no longer believed in God. These symbols were identical to the theodicy symbols, but defined in terms of cosmodicy.6 In order to provide a context for glossolalia, and to make a comparison, the same symbols were allocated to the general category of prayer (defined for our purposes as the mechanism whereby people communicate or commune with God). These symbols may be said to be effects, or 'fruit', associated with prayer, and it is interesting to see how these symbols are used not just in terms of glossolalia, but also in terms of prayer more generally. Thus the following research question was formulated: What attitudes exist with regard to the meaning of glossolalia within the British Charismatic movement? What factors determine these attitudes and what practical theological insight can be derived from this information? The question can therefore be divided into subquestions. The first concerns attitudes about glossolalia symbols, the second concerns the factors that might explain these attitudes, while the third aims to derive possible practical theological consequences from the causal relationship between the glossolalia attitudes and explanatory factors.1 A theological-conceptual model, as illustrated in Figure 5.1, was devised in order to answer the research question. The concepts or variables are divided into background variables: general and psychometric; intervening variables 1: specific and doctrinal; intervening variables 2: prayer symbols; and dependent variables: glossolalia symbols. The lines between the variables attempt to show causal relationships. The causal relationships between the variables need further explanation at this point. This is best elucidated in terms of specific hypotheses.

137

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia Background Variables

Intervening Variables 1

Intervening Variables 2

Dependent Variables

General Gender Age Education Occupation Marital Status

Specific Experience and understanding of glossolalia ^ Experience and understanding of the Charismatic movement Denomination

Prayer Beauty Awe Power ^ Intimacy Faith-building Weakness

Glossolalia Beauty Awe Power ^ Intimacy Faith-building Weakness

Psychometric Eysenck Personality Questionnaire

t (.

Doctrine Trinitarian Theology

^

t

Figure 5.1 Glossolalia: the theological-conceptual model

Hypotheses 1

Gender influences attitudes towards the glossolalia symbols.91 The background variable of gender, as used in other studies, suggests that it is not a significant variable,9 and that the sample sizes varied in terms of the ratio of men to women.10 However, it has been suggested that, as physical ailments increase so women are more likely to speak in tongues.11 While the evidence for any significance of gender is slight, it is worth testing the relationship between gender and the glossolalia symbols outlined above.

2

Age influences attitudes towards the glossolalia symbols. The variable of age in previous studies indicates likewise that it is insignificant.12 Nevertheless, because the evidence for any significant relationship between age and glossolalia is uncorroborated, this does not mean the causal relationship cannot be tested. Therefore the study considers whether there is a relationship between age and the preferred symbols of glossolalia.

138

Charismatic Glossolatia

3

Education influences attitudes towards the glossolalia symbols. Some previous literature has suggested that tongues speakers were less educated than non-tongues speakers.13 However, no study has considered the relationship between charismatic understanding of glossolalia, as expressed through the symbols outlined above, and education levels. Therefore this study will consider such a causal relationship.

4

Occupation influences attitudes towards the glossolalia symbols. The variable of occupation and the socioeconomic connotations that it carries has been considered before by researchers. It was once thought that tongues speakers were of a lower socioeconomic class than non-tongues speakers,14 and that they were socially deprived. This was certainly considered to be true of the early Pentecostals.15 However, many studies no longer support this deprivation theory.16 Certainly the case study indicated that glossolalia in Liverpool was not limited to the socially deprived; if anything, it was more associated with the middle classes. Nevertheless, the question of how different socioeconomic groups prefer the symbols associated with glossolalia is an interesting and important question.

5

Marital status influences attitudes towards the glossolalia symbols. The marital status of tongues speakers appears to have no significance for glossolalia and does not figure in the literature. It will therefore be tested in order to confirm this picture.

6

Personality traits influence attitudes towards the glossolalia symbols. There have been a number of psychological studies relating personality testing to glossolalia or charismatics in general.17 The most recent studies have suggested that glossolalics are healthy people and perhaps more so than either non-glossolalics and the general population.18 This present study will also consider the personality type of the tongues speaker using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ (r) - this was subsequently modified).19 HJ. Eysenck studied personality traits with a large number of people. These traits were subsequently grouped into 'dimensions' of personality related to human physiology, in particular: • responses to external stimuli by the brain (extraversion or introversion) • the autonomic nervous system (anxiety/neuroticism or stability) • male hormonal or brain activity (tough-mindedness or tendermindedness).20 The dimension of dissimulation was added at a subsequent stage as a check. This questionnaire uses these four dimensions to measure personality. • The extraversion scale measures sociability and impulsivity. The opposite of extraversion is introversion. A typical extrovert likes parties and has many friends, preferring social occasions to isolation.21

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia

139

• The neuroticism scale measures emotional lability and overreactivity. The opposite of neuroticism is emotional stability. A high scoring neurotic is anxious, depressed, sleeps badly and suffers from psychosomatic disorders.22 • The psychoticism scale measures underlying personality traits which, at one extreme, define psychotic mental disorders. The opposite to psychoticism is normal personality. The high scoring psychotic is cold, impersonal, lacks sympathy, is unhelpful, unemotional, and is paranoid that people are against him or her. The low scorers on the psychoticism scale are empathetic, altrusitic, warm, peaceful and pleasant, although they may be less socially decisive people.23 • The lie scale measures dissimulation, or lying and, consequently, is also a measure of honesty. It also measures a tendency to social conformity, as well as lack of self-insight, or immaturity.24 Those who score low on the lie scale have a tendency to social conformity. For the purposes of this research, I shall interpret low lie scale scores as a tendency to social conformity. Recent research has suggested, contrary to earlier research, that charismatics in general are stable (scoring low on the neurotic scale) extraverts.25 7

Charismatic experience and understanding influence attitudes towards the glossolatia symbols. The individual's understanding may well be shaped by factors of personal history and circumstance. A person's personal experience of glossolalia, as indicated in the case study material, needs to be identified and categorized. Therefore the personal experience and pattern of glossolalic use will be considered as a variable which influences the choice of glossolalic symbols. This must also be considered with the experience of the Charismatic movement in general, since it has been suggested that wider involvement in the Charismatic movement is the principal way in which many, and possibly the majority, of charismatics are socialized into use of glossolalia.26 The relationship between wider involvement in the Charismatic movement and the glossolalia symbols will also be tested.

8

Denomination affiliation influences attitudes towards the glossolalia symbols. The background variable of church denomination has been considered by studies of charismatics within different denominations.27 This study will consider what causal connections there may be to the glossolalia symbols.

9

Trinitarian theology influences attitudes towards the glossolalia symbols. The concepts of God, which the respondents held in the theodicy and ecclesial projects of van der Ven were important in addressing the

140

Charismatic Glossolalia theology of the respondents.28 Therefore this study uses the Trinitarian conception of God as an important starting point. Walter J. Hollenweger observes that Pentecostals hold to a largely Calvinistic pneumatology, which is strictly christological.29 In this sense, he argues that it is constrained by the doctrine of the filioque - that is, the Spirit is understood to proceed from the Father and the Son - rather than the Eastern model which sees the procession in terms of the Father (see Figure 5.2 (a) and (b)). Unfortunately, Hollenweger argues that, in current praxis, Western Trinitarian pneumatology looks more like Figure 5.2 (c). He argues that Pentecostals (and implicitly charismatics) do not have a Trinitarian spirituality; instead, they have a kind of Jesus religion or a God-father religion.30 The case study showed signs of a Trinitarian spirituality which would contradict Hollenweger 's assertion. However, it would be interesting to test his theory - that is, the assertion that charismatics have no Trinitarian spirituality - on empirical data. Specifically, one would wish to test two models of Trinitarian spirituality. The first would be the subordinationist model, which Hollenweger calls the current Western Trinitarian praxis. The second model would be the social model of the Trinity, which focuses on mutuality and the community of Persons of the Trinity (see Figure 5.2 (d)).31 Father

Son

Son

Father

Spirit

(a) Eastern Model

Spirit (b) Western Model

Father

Father

Son Spirit (c) Western Praxis

Figure 5.2 Trinitarian models

Son (d) Social Trinity

- Spirit

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia

141

10 Prayer symbols influence attitudes towards the glossolalia symbols. Finally, the context of glossolalia as prayer within charismatic spirituality is well attested by the literature. Therefore it is important to test the exact same symbols both for glossolalia and prayer to appreciate the relationship more fully. The hypotheses listed above posit a direct causal relationship between the variables and the glossolalia symbols. However, the theological-conceptual model also supports a number of hypotheses which seek to elucidate indirect causal relationships, as well as direct causal relationships. Two further hypotheses were considered worthy of being tested: 11 Causal path: Gender to glossolalia symbols. There is a causal path running from gender via stable extraversion to experience and understanding of glossolalia, from there to experience of the Charismatic movement via denomination to a social Trinitarian theology, from there via the prayer symbols to the glossolalia symbols. 12 Causal path: Education to glossolalia symbols. There is a causal path running from education via stable extraversion to experience and understanding of glossolalia, from there to experience of the Charismatic movement via denomination to a social Trinitarian theology, from there via the prayer symbols to the glossolalia symbols. Operationalization The theological-conceptual model is first operationalized by the use of background questions concerning gender, age, marital status, educational level and occupation.32 The psychometric test used the Eysenck 48-question Personality Questionnaire, which was subsequently modified during data analysis (EPQ (r)). The specific variables of experience/understanding of glossolalia, experience of the Charismatic movement and Church background are operationalized using questions regarding: length of Christian identity; Church denomination currently and historically; baptism in the Holy Spirit; frequency and purpose of glossolalia; attendance at charismatic days, conferences or camps; and the use of charismatic literature, audio- and videotapes. The preference for the glossolalia symbols are also operationalized using Likert scales. The glossolalia symbols of beauty, awe, power, weakness, intimacy and faith-building are tested by offering respondents a choice of five point adjectives:

142 1 2 3 4 5 6

Charismatic Glossolalia

beautiful, attractive, lovely, radiant, delightful; awesome, magnificent, stunning, breathtaking, incredible; powerful, forceful, vigorous, dynamic, compelling; weak, vulnerable, powerless, helpless, gentle; intimate, tender, absorbing, deeply personal, moving; edifying, faith-building, inspiring, boosting, enlightening.

The same scales were used to compare to a general question on the subject of prayer. Attitudes towards God are operationalized also using a forced choice option. Questions tested the Trinitarian concepts of social (three persons, equal, community, different, eternal) and subordinationist (unequal, hierarchy, different) doctrines of the Trinity, together with Oneness or modalistic concepts (one Being, identical, historical). This is further reinforced by questions testing respondents' preference for different persons of the Trinity in relation to different aspects of spirituality. These are measured on a fivepoint scale: preference to address a particular person of the Godhead in terms of worship, prayer, adoration, thanksgiving and fellowship. These questions also test the preference of the respondents in terms of Father-God worship or Jesus religion. The Survey The questionnaire was piloted with 12 people and adjustments were made to the questionnaire according to the full comments of respondents. The study aimed to survey core members (house group members) of independent Charismatic churches and any mainline Free Churches who would be classified as charismatic in the Merseyside area. In order to locate these churches I contacted the coordinator of an important network of churches working together in the area. A person from an evangelical and charismatic network of churches assisted in the initial approach. He was very sympathetic to my research and permitted me to write a notice of my research which was published in the network's monthly newsletter. His support was to be crucial in helping me to gain the trust of church leaders. He provided me with a list of 43 church contacts who belonged to churches he knew to be within the Charismatic movement. Out of the 43 names on the list, eight people either refused to participate or proved to be uncontactable, even after persistent attempts. This left me with 35 church leaders who were willing to discuss the project face-to-face. Over a period of about three weeks I travelled throughout Merseyside explaining the project to these people, showing them the agreed procedure and taking them through the questionnaire itself. Out of this number, 32 church leaders agreed, on behalf of their churches, to participate in the survey. However, all the church leaders found the request that I be given names and

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia

143

addresses of core church/house group members a difficult proposition to comply with. This meant that the church leaders administered the questionnaire for me (usually via their church administrator and the church computer database), after I had carefully explained the need for the list to be an objective list of current members of existing house groups, the numbering system and the need for confidentiality. This was agreed in all but one church fellowship, where the nature of the fellowship was ad hoc and there was intentionally no membership structure.33 From the group of 32 churches which agreed to do the survey, nine forwarded a list of respondents' names to me (omitting addresses). Questionnaires were either returned by mail or were collected by me personally. Seven churches had problems with the questionnaire. Within this group, there were three churches which had severe problems with responses: 3.85 per cent, 0 per cent and 6.67 per cent respectively. Other problem churches nevertheless returned responses of 41.67 per cent, 45 per cent, 36.63 per cent, and 39.39 per cent. The difficulties ranged from not understanding the questionnaire to being offended at the type of questions being asked. In one case, another member of the leadership opposed the decision to administer the survey, after which the main church leader felt unable to give his full support to the project, so the agreed procedure failed to be put into practice. This church had the 3.85 per cent return rate. It was decided that because the returns of 3.85 per cent, 0 per cent, and 6.67 per cent were so low, these churches should not be included in the data analysis. This meant that the overall number of churches involved in this study, for statistical purposes, is 29 and that the overall response rate for this number is 633 from 1227 delivered - that is, a 51.59 per cent return. Once the data set had been prepared it was checked and cleaned. This involved doing an initial frequency check and changing coding errors. This was followed by a random 10 per cent check of the questionnaires. The Eysenck section was also checked manually. This was followed by crosstab checks whereby the frequencies of two variables can be checked in relation each other. There is therefore good reason to be confident in the accuracy of the data set. Description of the Research Population The 29 church denominations and their responses are shown in Table 5.1. As the table indicates, there are 11 New Churches and 12 Pentecostal churches, including the Assemblies of God, Elim and an Independent Pentecostal church. There are two Brethren churches and two Baptist churches as well as one United Reformed church and one Evangelical church. This means that the sample is predominantly either Classical Pentecostal or New Church. All these churches carry the charismatic label.

144

Charismatic Glossolalia

Table 5.1 The churches Church Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Total

Number of Questionnaires Percent 11 5 28 14 9 3 10 16 47 46 33 9 16 30 11 10 19 30 10 20 41 12 13 28 8 29 17 71 37

1.7 0.8 4.4 2.2 1.4 0.5 1.6 2.5 7.4 7.3 5.2 1.4 2.5 4.7 1.7 1.6 3.0 4.7 1.6 3.2 6.5 1.9 2.1 4.4 1.3 4.6 2.7 11.2 5.8

633

100.00

Denomination New Church (Pioneer) Brethren Elim New Church (Vineyard) Baptist Assemblies of God Elim Assemblies of God Baptist New Church (King's) New Church (Covenant) Elim Elim Pentecostal (Independent) New Church URC New Church New Church New Church Brethren Assemblies of God Assemblies of God New Church (Ichthus) Assemblies of God Assemblies of God Evangelical (Independent) Elim New Church New Church (Faith)34

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia

145

In the overall sample, 37.9 were male and 61.0 per cent female (1.1 per cent missing). Their ages were spread mainly between the 30-54 age rage. These included 10.6 per cent between 30-34, 14.4 per cent between 35-39,10.7 per cent between 40-44, 10.9 per cent between 45-49, and 13.7 per cent between 50-54. The sample contained 17.7 per cent of single people, 66.5 per cent married and 7.1 per cent divorced. Their qualifications ranged from CSEs (6.2 per cent), GCSEs (6.0 per cent), O levels (16.9 per cent), A levels (8.7 per cent), Diplomas in Higher Education (17.9 per cent), Bachelor's Degrees (17.2 per cent), Master's Degrees (2.4) and Doctorates (0.6 per cent). The education levels were reflected in 6.3 per cent in Class I (professional), 22.1 per cent in Class II (lower professional), 18.6 per cent in Class HIN (skilled non-manual), 9.0 per cent in Class HIM (skilled manual), 2.8 per cent in Class IV (semi-skilled), 1.1 per cent in Class V (unskilled), 3.8 per cent unemployed, 28.0 per cent housewife/retired and 3.3 per cent students. Most of the sample had been Christians for between 5-9 years up to 24 years, thus reflecting the age range of the group. Most respondents had also experienced Christianity in previous denominations before settling in their current church. The largest group had experience of mainline Protestant denominations (45.7 per cent). Scale Construction The questionnaire was constructed with a number of scales embedded into it. These were tested by the survey. In addition, other items which were not initially considered to be scales were tested to see if they could function as scales in order to measure certain attitudes. When the glossolalia scales were tested by means of Cronbach's reliability test (alpha scores), the five-item scales produced the following results: Beauty Awe Power Weakness Intimacy Faith-building

a a a a a a

.8765 .8854 .8292 .5145 .7816 .8275

When the reliability test was administered to the prayer symbols, the identical five-item scales produced following results: Beauty Awe Power Weakness Intimacy Faith-building

a .9042 a .8779 a .7833 a .4803 a .8066 a .8182

146

Charismatic Glossolalia

The low alpha coefficients for the weakness scales suggest that these two scales did not function with sufficient reliability. Therefore it was decided to test these two items by means of two individual items within the scale. On semantic grounds, the two items chosen were 'vulnerable' and 'weak' for both glossolalia and prayer symbols. For discussion purposes these adjectives will be changed to the nouns 'vulnerability' and 'weakness'. The EPQ (r) (modified) scales yielded the following results: Extroversion (E) Neuroticism (N) Psychoticism (P) Lie (L)

a a a a

.8524 (12 items) .8318 (12 items) .4511 (11 items) .7054 (9 items)

The psychoticism and lie scales had to be reduced in order to get the best alpha coefficients available for them. While the psychoticism scale has a low alpha coefficient, it was retained in order to provide the full range of Eysenck Personality dimensions and because peformance could be easily compared to other examples within the literature. The Trinitarian Theology scales (see above) produced the following results: Social Subordinationist Modalist/Oneness Preference for Person

a . 1012 (5 items) a .2202 (3 items) a .0461 (3 items) a .6132 (5 items)

These scales could not be improved significantly. Although the Preference for Person scale produced was initially considered for use, it was thought to be not as reliable as required. As a result, individual items were used in order to test Trinitarian theological ideas. In addition, four new scales were identified from within the data. These were as follows: Charismatic Experience Glossolalia Experience Charismatic Socialization 1 Charismatic Socialization 2

a a a a

.8212 (6 items) .8516 (5 items) .7122 (3 items) .8130 (9 items)

The charismatic experience scale measures charismatic activity, the glossolalia experience scale measures glossolalia activity, and both of the charismatic socialization scales measure the degree of charismatic socialization by means of the Charismatic movement.

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia

147

Results All data analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 8.0 for Windows.35 The items were tested for correlations (Pearson's r), and comparisons of means made. Scatterplot graphs and lines of best fit were checked in order to secure linearity. An ANOVA linearity test was also applied in some cases where there was doubt as to the exact relationship between two variables. This resulted in the exclusion of the glossolalia variable 'weak' from the regression procedure, since it lacked linearity with any of the other main glossolalia symbols. The results of the correlations provided the basis for the multiple regression tests. Tests for normality and collinearity were carried out post hoc.36 From these multiple regressions path analyses were obtained. All the variables which make up the hypotheses were correlated according to the sub-hypotheses. Information from this procedure was then summarized. In the set of results, some of the variables have been abbreviated for the purpose of table construction. The following abbreviations apply to this section: Beaut Intima Faithb Vuln Beap Awep Powp Intip Fbp Vnp Wkp E N P L public interp sung f/praise f/prayer f/self-ed prayer prophecy worsh sp bat

the glossolalia symbol of beauty the glossolalia symbol of intimacy the glossolalia symbol of faith-building the glossolalia symbol of vulnerability the prayer symbol of beauty the prayer symbol of awe the prayer symbol of power the prayer symbol of intimacy the prayer symbol of faith-building the prayer symbol of vulnerability the prayer symbol of weakness. extraversion [EPQ (r)] neuroticism [EPQ (r)] psychoticism [EPQ (r) (modified)] lie [EPQ (r) (modified)] public utterance in tongues in the past six months interpreted tongues in the past six months sung in tongues in the past six months frequency of praise when speaking in tongues frequency of prayer when speaking in tongues frequency of self-edification when speaking in tongues purpose of speaking in tongues as prayer purpose of speaking in tongues as prophecy purpose of speaking in tongues as worship purpose of speaking in tongues as spiritual battle

148 texp xexp xsoc.2 one/three hier/comm ident/diff qualif NS

Charismatic Glossolalia glossolalia experience scale charismatic experience scale the second charismatic socialization scale preference to think about God as one Being or three Persons preference to understand the Persons of the Trinity in terms of hierarchy or community preference to understand the Persons of the Trinity in terms of identical or different educational qualifications not statistically significant

The Holders of Theological Attitudes Table 5.2 shows that gender significantly correlates with the glossolalia symbols of awe, power and intimacy.37 Awe has the most significant correlation, followed by intimacy and then power. The positive correlations indicate that women correlate most strongly with these glossolalia symbols compared to men. Table 5.2 Correlation between gender and glossolalia symbols (Pearson's r)

gender

Beaut

Awe

Power

Intima

Faithb

Vuln

Weak

NS

.134**

.096*

.108*

NS

NS

NS

** = significant at .01 level. * = significant at .05 level.

Table 5.3 shows that age is significantly related to the glossolalia symbols of awe and weakness. As can be seen from the table, the highest mean scores in relation to awe are for under 25, 25-29, 55-59, 70-74 and over 75. Higher age ranges tend to associate more strongly with the symbol of weakness than lower ones, although the scores are generally low (mean = 1.48; range 1-7).

149

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia Table 5.3 One-way analysis of variance: age by glossolalia symbols

Under 25 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-^9 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75 and over Total

Weakness Mean SD

No.

Awe Mean

SD

No.

39 31 46 72 57 49 62 32 25 15 4 7

21.56 22.10 18.35 16.86 19.28 18.65 19.13 23.25 19.36 19.13 27.00 25.14

9.26 8.40 8.64 8.02 8.68 9.23 8.90 9.79 9.48 9.93 9.56 7.88

39 33 49 72 54 49 61 29 27 15 4 6

1.13 1.76 .55 .42 .26 .27 .43 .62 .78 2.47 2.75 1.67

0.34 1.44 1.43 1.16 0.94 0.73 1.01 1.50 1.74 1.96 2.87 1.63

439

19.55

9.00

438

1.48

1.24

F = 2 .18

P = .015

F

>.29

r = J.

P = .010

Table 5.4 shows that marital status is significantly related to the glossolalia symbols of awe, intimacy and vulnerability. Widowed respondents associated most strongly with the awe symbol. Widowed and divorced respondents associated most strongly with the intimacy symbol. Divorced, widowed and single respondents associated most strongly with the vulnerability symbol.

150

Charismatic Glossolalia

Table 5.4 One-way analysis of variance: marital status by glossolalia symbols

Intimacy Mean SD

Marital Status

No.

Awe Mean

SD

No.

Single Married Widowed Divorced Divorced and Remarried

78 304 20 26 14

20.38 8.75 18.79 8.95 24.15 8.58 22.69 10.05 20.71 8.62

72 297 16 27 14

21.51 21.76 25.63 25.44 21.57

7.60 6.87 6.98 6.61 6.38

Total

442

19.60

9.03

431

22.09

7.04

F = 2,.90

P = .022

F = 2>.90

P = .022

Vulnerability Mean SD

Marital Status

No.

Single Married Widowed Divorced Divorced and Remarried

80 303 20 28 13

2.36 1.76 1.96 1.58 2.50 2.42 3.36 2.38 1.77 1.79

Total

444

2.14

1.75

F = 5.017 P=.001

Table 5.5 shows significant correlations between the Eysenck Personality dimensions of extraversion and the glossolalia symbols of beauty, awe, power, intimacy and faith-building. It also shows significant correlations between neuroticism and psychoticism and the glossolalia symbol of vulnerability.

151

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia

Table 5.5 Correlation between glossolalia symbols and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire [EPQ (r) (modified)] (Pearson's r)

E N P L

Beaut

Awe

Power

Intima

Faithb

Vuln

Weak

.122* NS NS NS

.177** NS NS NS

.144** NS NS NS

.137** NS NS NS

.128** NS NS NS

NS .164** .096** NS

NS NS NS NS

** = significant at .01 level. * = significant at .05 level.

One-way analysis of variance for the background variables of education and occupation indicated that they are not significantly related to the glossolalia symbols. The Context of Glossolalia Attitudes Table 5.6 shows significant correlations between the glossolalia symbols. The strongest correlations are between the symbols of beauty and awe, then power and awe, and then faith-building and power. The two symbols from the weakness scale (vulnerability and weakness) do not perform very well. These items do correlate with each other but the only other symbols correlated with are intimacy, awe and power. Table 5.6 Correlation between glossolalia symbols (Pearson's r)

Beaut Awe Power Intima Faithb Vuln Weak

Beaut

Awe

Power

Intima

Faithb

Vuln

Weak

1.00 .845** .720** .772** .705** NS NS

1.00 .777** .762** .695** .142** NS

1.00 .726** .767** .110* NS

1.00 .740** .154** NS

1.00 NS NS

1.00 .307**

1.00

** = significant at .01 level. * = significant at .05 level.

152

Charismatic Glossolalia

Table 5.7 shows significant correlations between prayer and glossolalia symbols. The highest correlations are for the prayer symbol which corresponds to its respective glossolalia symbol. However, Beap also has a high correlation score with Awe, Awep with Beaut, Powp with Awe, Intip with Faithb, and for Fbp with Intima. The results indicate that the prayer symbols provide an important theological context for the glossolalia symbols, with the exception of the weakness symbols (vulnerability and weakness) which are consistently low in correlations with other symbols. Table 5.7

Beap Awep Powp Intip Fbp Vnp Wkp

Correlation between glossolalia and prayer symbols (Pearson's r) Beaut

Awe

Power

Intima

Faithb

Vuln

Weak

.677** .620** .473** .537** .478** .162** .122*

.647** .720** .519** .557** 494** .178** .135**

.512** .555** .602** .491** .494** .181** .104*

.551** .570** .451** .626** .512** .166* NS

.450** .440** 477 ## .466** .591** .098* NS

.167** .175** .158** .184** .116* .408** NS

NS NS NS NS NS .142** .446**

** = significant at .01 level. * = significant at .05 level.

Table 5.8 shows that the frequency of speaking in tongues is significantly related to the glossolalia symbols of beauty, awe, power, intimacy and faithbuilding. The most significant score is for faith-building (F = 18.18). For this item the majority of respondents say that they use glossolalia nearly every day (mean = 26.92), while 87 say that they use glossolalia at least once a week (mean = 23.99). The second most significant score is for power. For this item the majority of respondents say that they use glossolalia nearly every day (mean = 24.4), while 85 say that they use glossolalia at least once a week (mean = 22.24). The third most significant score is for intimacy. For this item the majority of respondents say that they use glossolalia nearly every day (mean = 23.62), while 85 say that they use glossolalia at least once a week (mean = 21.63). The fourth most significant score is for beauty. For this item the majority of respondents say that they use glossolalia nearly every day (mean = 21.13), while 87 say that they use glossolalia at least once a week (mean = 19.70). The fifth most significant score is for awe. For this item the majority of respondents say that they use glossolalia nearly every day (mean = 20.94), while 88 say that they use glossolalia at least once a week (mean = 19.15). Generally, the more frequent the practice of speaking in tongues, the

153

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia Table 5.8 One-way analysis of variance: frequency of glossolalia by glossolalia symbols

Never Used to, but not now Occasionally At least once a month At least once a week Nearly every day Total

No.

Beauty Mean

SD

No.

Awe Mean

SD

46 2 60 29 87 215 439

16.11 25.50 17.43 18.72 19.70 21.13 19.68

8.22 7.78 8.58 7.72 8.23 8.41 8.48

49 2 61 28 88 217 445

17.76 24.00 17.25 18.11 19.15 20.94 19.57

1.32 10.00 1.11 1.54 0.93 0.62 0.43

F = 4.13 P=.001

Never Used to, but not now Occasionally At least once a month At least once a week Nearly every day Total

No.

Power Mean

SD

No.

47 1 62 29 85 209 433

18.70 10.00 18.66 20.31 22.24 24.40 22.27

8.86 7.69 7.12 7.37 7.01 7.76

48 2 60 26 85 213 434

F = 9.52 P=.000 Faith-building No. Mean SD Never Used to, but not now Occasionally At least once a month At least once a week Nearly every day Total

F = 2.54

48 2 61 28 87 220 446

18.65 19.00 20.18 22.57 23.99 26.92 24.23

F= 18.18

8.74 14.14 7.38 6.26 6.75 6.20 7.45

P=.000

P = .028

Intimacy Mean SD

19.46 26.00 19.58 21.23 21.64 23.62 22.08

F = 5.38

8.24 12.73 7.04 5.71 7.00 6.53 7.05

P=.000

154

Charismatic Glossolalia

greater the association with these glossolalia symbols, especially faithbuilding, power and intimacy. Table 5.9 shows that the items which indicate experience and understanding of glossolalia by means of a public utterance in tongues, interpretation of tongues, singing in tongues and the glossolalia experience scale are significantly correlated to the glossolalia symbols. In particular, the glossolalia experience scale demonstrated strong correlations with all the glossolalia symbols except vulnerability and weakness. For both public utterance in tongues and interpretation of tongues, the strongest correlation is with the glossolalia symbol of power. Singing in tongues is most strongly correlated with faith-building, but negatively correlated with vulnerability and weakness. Table 5.9 Correlation between glossolalia symbols and experience/understanding of glossolalia (Pearson's r)

public interp sung texp

Beaut

Awe

Power

Intima

Faithb

.172** NS .180** .372**

.196** .123* .098* .352**

.218** .148** .201** .439**

.142** NS .157** .459**

.165** NS NS .140** NS NS .303** -.138** -.095* .510** NS NS

Vuln

Weak

** = significant at .01 level. * = significant at .05 level.

Table 5.10 shows that the items which indicate experience and understanding of glossolalia by means of the frequency of tongues for praise, prayer and self-edification are significantly correlated with the glossolalia symbols. It also shows that the items which indicate experience and understanding of glossolalia by means of prayer, prophecy, worship and spiritual battle are significantly correlated with the glossolalia symbols. For the glossolalia symbol of beauty, praise and worship are most strongly correlated activities. For the glossolalia symbol of awe, spiritual battle is the most strongly correlated activity. For the glossolalia symbol of power, spiritual battle and worship are the most strongly correlated activities. For the glossolalia symbol of intimacy, praise, prayer and worship are the most strongly correlated activities. For the glossolalia symbol of faith-building, prayer is the most strongly correlated activity. Generally, the strongest correlations between glossolalic experience and understanding, as mediated through these activities, are for the symbols of faith-building and power. It is also worth noting that the glossolalia symbol of vulnerability is significantly correlated with the activity of glossolalia for self-edification.

155

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia Table 5.10

f/praise f/prayer f/selfed prayer proph worsh spbat

Correlation between glossolalia symbols and experience/understanding of glossolalia (Pearson's r) Beaut

Awe

Power

Intima

Faithb

Vuln

Weak

.317** .296** .146** .288** .259** .333** .248**

.263** .295** NS .266** .296** .289** .301**

.349** .325** .187** .316** .334** .356** .369**

.372** .360** .146** .366** .270** .383** .305**

.398** .418** .387** .397** .344** .395** .394**

NS NS .160** NS NS NS NS

NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

** = significant at .01 level. * = significant at .05 level.

Table 5.11 shows that there are significant correlations between the charismatic experience scale, the second charismatic socialization scale and the glossolalia symbols. The charismatic experience scale measures the strength of charismatic activity, while the second charismatic socialization scale measures the strength of charismatic socialization. The second charismatic socialization scale correlates more strongly with all of the symbols, including vulnerability, than the charismatic experience scale. In particular, the glossolalia symbols of faith-building and power are the most strongly correlated with this scale. These data imply that the Charismatic movement teaches that faith-building, or edification, is the most important aspect of speaking in tongues. Table 5.11

xexp xsoc.2

Correlation between glossolalia symbols and experience of the Charismatic movement (Pearson's r) Beaut

Awe

Power

Intima

Faithb

Vuln

Weak

.173** .287**

.141** .312**

.197** .377**

.144** .311**

.197** .417**

NS .135**

NS NS

** = significant at .01 level. * = significant at .05 level.

156

Charismatic Glossolalia

Table 5.12 shows that church denomination is significantly related to the glossolalia symbols of beauty, power and faith-building. The denominations which most strongly associate with the symbol of beauty are Elim Pentecostal (mean = 23.27) and the Assemblies of God Pentecostal (20.60). The denominations which most strongly associate with the symbol of power are Elim Pentecostal (mean = 24.55), the Assemblies of God Pentecostal (mean Table 5.12

One-way analysis of variance: denominations by glossolalia symbols

Denomination

No.

Beauty Mean

Assemblies of God Baptist Elim House/New Church United Reformed Third Wave Brethren Ind. Pentecostal Ind. Evangelical Total

90 44 44 190 9 12 14 26 11 440

20.60 8.78 17.50 8.13 23.27 6.79 19.56 8.56 18.00 8.80 18.33 8.29 15.21 8.03 18.77 7.98 19.91 10.38 19.70 8.46

SD

F = 2.13 P=.032

Denomination

Faith-building No. Mean SD

Assemblies of God Baptist Elim House/New Church United Reformed Third Wave Brethren Ind. Pentecostal Ind. Evangelical Total

89 43 45 198 8 12 14 27 11 447

25.10 7.02 21.33 7.55 26.71 5.67 24.50 7.14 25.00 8.54 22.67 9.53 20.64 8.33 24.22 8.65 20.09 10.55 24.25 7.45

F = 2.60 P=.009

No.

Power Mean

85 43 44 192 8 11 13 27 11 434

23.14 6.99 19.77 8.09 24.55 6.87 22.68 7.64 22.25 8.76 20.91 9.96 15.85 7.17 21.78 7.77 18.64 10.71 22.26 7.78

F = 2.78

SD

P=.005

157

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia

23.14) and the New Church group (mean = 22.68). The denominations which most strongly associate with the symbol of faith-building are Elim Pentecostal (mean = 26.71), the Assemblies of God Pentecostal (mean = 25.10), a United Reformed Church (mean = 25.00), the New Church group (mean = 24.50), and an Independent Pentecostal Church (mean = 24.22). Table 5.13 shows significant correlations between items measuring aspects of Trinitarian theology and the glossolalia symbols. The item which asks respondents to indicate a preference for thinking about God in terms of either 'one Being' or 'three Persons' correlated with the symbols of power and faithbuilding. The positive score indicates a stronger preference for 'three Persons'. The item which asks respondents to indicate a preference for understanding the Persons of the Trinity in terms of either 'hierarchy' or 'community' correlated negatively with the symbols of power and faithbuilding. The negative scores indicate a preference for 'hierarchy'. The item which asked respondents to indicate a preference for understanding the Persons of the Trinity in terms of either 'identical' or 'different' correlated negatively with the symbols of beauty, awe, power and weakness. The negative scores indicate a preference for 'identical'. The first item supports a social understanding of the Trinity. The second item suports a subordinationist understanding of the Trinity. The third item supports a modalist (or Sabellian) understanding of the Trinity. Table 5.13 Correlation between glossolalia symbols and Trinitarian theology (Pearson's r) Beaut

Awe

Power

one/three NS NS .098* hier/comm NS NS -.113* ident/diff -. 168** -.155** -.107**

Intima

Faithb

Vuln

Weak

NS NS NS

.119* -.128* NS

NS NS NS

NS NS -.114*

** = significant at .01 level. * = significant at .05 level.

Table 5.14 shows that the item measuring the preference of the respondent to thank God in terms of a particular Person of the Trinity is significantly related to the glossolalia symbols of awe and vulnerability. With respect to the glossolalia symbol of awe, respondents most associate this item with thanks to Jesus Christ (mean = 20.77), second the Holy Spirit (mean = 19.67) and third the Father (mean = 18.22). Although a far greater number (No. = 214) prefer to associate it with the Father, they express their preference less strongly compared to Jesus and the Spirit. With respect to the glossolalia

158

Charismatic Glossolalia

symbol of vulnerability, respondents most strongly associate this symbols with thanks to Jesus Christ (mean = 2.30), second the Father (mean = 1.90) and third the Holy Spirit (mean = 1.17). Again, a greater number prefer to express this symbol in terms of the Father, although their preference is expressed less strongly compared to Jesus. These data suggest that the Person of Jesus Christ is more strongly associated with the activity of thanksgiving, which in terms of the glossolalia symbols is most closely associated with awe and vulnerable. Table 5.14

One-way analysis of variance: Trinitarian theology by glossolalia symbols (Person preferred to thank)

Person

No.

Awe Mean

SD

No.

Father Jesus Holy Spirit Total

214 148 6 368

18.22 20.77 19.67 19.27

8.95 8.69 12.03 8.96

210 151 6 367

F = 3.62 P=.028

Vulnerability Mean SD

F = 3.57

1.90 2.30 1.17 2.06

1.55 1.75 0.41 1.64

P=.029

Explanation of the Theological Attitudes Stepwise regression was undertaken using variables which correlate with the dependent variables beauty, awe, power, intimacy, faith-building and vulnerability. The variable to be tested was entered last in the list of the independent variables and a record kept as to whether it was included in the regression models or excluded. Only variables which were identified as having a significant correlation with the particular dependent variable were included in the list of independent variables. This meant that the list of independent variables differed for different dependent variables. The glossolalia experience scale was used initially in these regressions. However, it was subsequently considered to be too imprecise for these purposes, so the individual items which make up the scale were used instead. The SPSS 8.0 default settings for the inclusion and exclusion of variables were used (entry: F probability = .05; removal: F probability = .01). The beta scores are the those which contribute to greatest the possible variance for the dependent variable. If a variable was excluded during the regression procedure, then no score is given in the table.

159

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia

Table 5.15 shows the regression of the correlated independent variables on each of the dependent glossolalia variables. This study has postulated that the context for glossolalia is prayer and that the context for understanding the glossolalia symbols is also the prayer symbols. The regression analysis confirms this understanding. Table 5.15

Regression analysis (1): glossolalia (B = standardized beta scores) Beaut (B)

Glossolalia Beauty Awe Power Intimacy Faithb Vuln Prayer Beap Awep Powp Intip Fbp Vnp Wkp

Awe (B)

Power (B)

Intimacy (B)

Faithb (B)

.267 .197 .146

.226

.400

.455 .497 .210 .192

.451 -.219

.291 .100 .370

-.167 .444 -.126

.112

.208

-.151 -.114 .336

-.156 -.181 .399

-.122

-.151

.284 .314

Vuln (B)

-.156 .339

.331

Glossolalia Experience

.162 .106

f/self-ed sp battle R2

.808

.829

.717

.732

.752

.189

Glossolalia provides the primary context for each individual symbol. This is most obviously expressed through the influence of one glossolalia symbol on another. The strongest individual glossolalia symbols are awe (B = .497 on

160

Charismatic Glossolalia

beauty; B = .400 on power) and beauty (B = .455 on awe). The most pervasive glossolalia symbol is intimacy, influencing beauty, awe, faith-building and vulnerability. The secondary context is the context of the prayer symbols. The strongest prayer symbols in their influence upon glossolalia symbols are beap (B = .451 on beauty glossolalia), awep (B = .444 on awe glossolalia), intip (B = .399 on intimacy glossolalia), fbp (B = .339 on faithb glossolalia) and powp (B = .336 on power glossolalia). The frequency of speaking in tongues for self-edification (B = .162) and spiritual battle (B = .106) also contribute to the glossolalia symbol of faithbuilding. It remains to note that, in terms of the percentage of variance (R^), the highest score comes from the awe regression (82.9 per cent), followed by beauty (80.8 per cent), faith-building (75.2 per cent), intimacy (73.2 per cent), power (71.7 per cent), and then vulnerability (18.9 per cent). The other intervening and background variables were removed in the process of multiple regression. With such a high correlation between the glossolalia and prayer symbols, other weaker variables are necessarily excluded. This means that path analysis becomes impossible, since temporally or logically prior variables are excluded in the context of such high variance scores. Therefore, in order to get an idea of which variables do in fact exert an influence on each glossolalia symbol, a series of stepwise multiple regressions were undertaken with the following intervening variables: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

gender age qualification38 E N P L f/praise f/prayer f/self-ed. prayer prophecy worship spiritual battle xexp xsoc.2 one/three hierarchy/community identical/different

161

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia

These variables were entered as a block and rotated so that each variable was entered last in order to test its ability to contribute to the variance. Therefore, for each regression of a single dependent variable, 19 regressions using all these variables were conducted. Tables 5.16-22 contain the results of this second set of regression analysis. Table 5.16

Trinity one/three hier/comm ident/diff

Regression analysis (2): glossolalia (B = standardized beta scores) Beaut (B)

Awe (B)

Power (B)

.169

.136

.160

.260

.308

Charismatic Experience and understanding xsoc.2 .234 xexp Glossolalia Experience f/praise f/prayer f/self-ed prayer prophecy worsh spbat

Intimacy (B)

.229

.302

Vuln (B)

.185

.238

.196

.273

Faithb (B)

.201

.242

.149

.141 .215 .130 .203

EPQ E N P L

Background gender age qualif R2

-.129 .186

.168

-.123 .243

.227

.368

.022

162

Charismatic Glossolalia

Table 5.16 shows the multiple regression of the independent variables on the dependent glossolalia variables. For the glossolalia symbol of beauty, the most important variable is worship, followed by charismatic socialization and then a social doctrine of the Trinity. For the glossolalia symbol of awe, the most important variable is charismatic socialization, followed by spiritual battle and a social doctrine of the Trinity. Qualification has a negative score, indicating that the greater one's education, the less one associates with this glossolalia symbol. For the glossolalia symbol of power, the most important variable is charismatic socialization, followed by spiritual battle and a social doctrine of the Trinity. For the glossolalia symbol of intimacy, the most important variable is charismatic socialization, followed by worship and the frequency of glossolalia in terms of praise. Qualification has a negative score on this symbol, indicating that the greater one's education, the less one associates with this glossolalia symbol. For the glossolalia symbol of faithbuilding, the most important variable is charismatic socialization, followed by the frequency of speaking in tongues for self-edification and a social doctrine of the Trinity. The variance score is completed with the variables frequency of tongues for prayer, the purpose of prophecy and the purpose of spiritual battle. For the symbol of vulnerability, the only variable to contribute to the variance is the charismatic socialization scale. It is important to note the importance of the charismatic socialization variable, which points to the acquisition of glossolalia and these symbols in terms of a learnt experience. The predominence of a social doctrine of the Trinity for four main glossolalia symbols is also worthy of note. Finally, the importance of glossolalia experience variables for the key symbol of faithbuilding is also significant. They contribute significantly to the highest variance score for any of the glossolalia symbols. Table 5.17 shows the multiple regression of the independent variables on the dependent prayer variables. For the prayer symbol of beauty, the most important variable is the lie dimension which scores negatively, suggesting social conformity. This is followed by a social doctrine of the Trinity, charismatic socialization and prophecy. For the prayer symbol of awe, the most important variable is charismatic socialization, followed by a negative lie score, a social doctrine of the Trinity and positive extraversion score. For the prayer symbol of power, the most important variable is charismatic socialization, followed by prophecy, a social doctrine of the Trinity, a positive extraversion score and a negative lie score. For the prayer symbol of intimacy, the most important variable is gender (the positive score refers to women), followed by charismatic socialization and a social doctrine of the Trinity. For the prayer symbol of faith-building, the most important variable is a social doctrine of the Trinity, followed by prophecy, the frequency of tongues for selfedification, a negative lie score, charismatic socialization and worship. For the prayer symbol of vulnerability, the most important variable is spiritual battle, which is negatively scored. This means that the less one thinks of the purpose

163

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia Table 5.17

Trinity one/three hier/comm ident/diff

Regression analysis: prayer (B = standardized beta scores) Beap (B)

Awep (B)

Powp (B)

Intip (B)

Fbp (B)

.204

.153

.149

.143

.238

Charismatic Experience and understanding xsoc.2 .187 xexp Glossolalia Experience f/praise f/prayer f/self-ed prayer prophecy worsh sp bat EPQ E N P L

.212

.191

-.178

-.131

.159

.128

.202

.142

.214 .139

.147

Wkp (B)

-.217

-.246

.153

-.144

Background gender age qualif R2

.188

.159

.134 -.215

.218

Vnp (B)

-.169

-.167

.192

.169

.127

.161

.103

.285

.124

.077

of glossolalia in terms of spiritual battle the more one thinks of prayer in terms of the symbol of vulnerability. This is followed by a positive neuroticism score, frequency of tongues for self-edification, a subordinationist doctrine of the Trinity and charismatic socialization. For the prayer symbol of weakness, the

164

Charismatic Glossolalia

most important variable is a modalistic doctrine of the Trinity, followed by a negative psychoticism score, indicating that the lower the psychoticism score, the greater the association with the prayer symbol of weakness. There is an interesting comparison between the variables contributing to the varaince of prayer and glossolalia symbols. Both contain important contributions from a social doctrine of the Trinity, charismatic socialization and the glossolalia experience variables. However, the interesting difference is the impact of the Eysenck Personality dimension. In particular, the contribution of the lie scale is worthy of note. In this series of regression it is negatively scored, indicating social conformity. The influence of the background variable of gender indicates the importance of intimacy in prayer for women. The influence of subordinationist and modalistic doctrines of the Trinity are associated with the minor prayer symbols of vulnerability and weakness. Table 5.18

Regression analysis: Trinitarian theology (B = standardized beta scores) One/ Three (B)

Glossolalic Experience f/praise f/prayer f/self-ed prayer prophecy worsh sp bat

Identical/ Different (B)

.161

-.130

EPQ E N P L

-.133

Background gender age qualif R2

Hierarchy/ Community (B)

.033

.142

.143

.040

.020

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia

165

Table 5.18 shows the multiple regression of the independent variables on the dependent Trinitarian theology variables. For the dependent variable One/Three, the most important variable is the frequency of tongues for praise, followed by prophecy, which is negatively scored. This means that the frequency of tongues for praise is associated with a social doctrine of the Trinity, while prophecy is associated with a Oneness/Sabellian doctrine of the Trinity. For the dependent variable Hierarchy/Community, the most important variable is qualifications, indicating that the variable education associates with the Persons of the Trinity in terms of 'community' - that is, a social doctrine of the Trinity. The only other variable to contribute to the variance is extraversion which is negatively scored. This means that extraversion is associated with the Persons of the Trinity in terms of 'hierarchy'. For the dependent variable Identical/Different, the only variable to contribute to the variance is qualification. Again, this indicates that education is associated the Persons of the Trinity in terms of Different. This, again, correponds to a social doctrine of the Trinity. Table 5.19

Regression analysis: charismatic experience and socialization (B = standardized beta scores) XEXP (B) Glossolalic Experience f /praise f/prayer f/self-ed prayer prophecy worsh spbat EPQ E N P L

.157

.170 -.158

XSOC.2 (B)

.194 .203 .172

.142 -.133

Background gender age qualif R2

.098

.208

166

Charismatic Glossolalia

Table 5.19 shows the multiple regression of the independent variables on the dependent variables of charismatic experience and charismatic socialization. For the dependent variable of charismatic experience, the most important variable is extraversion, which is positively scored indicating the greater the extraversion, the greater the charismatic activity. The next most important variable is neuroticism, which is scored negatively. This means that the less the neuroticism, the greater the charismatic activity. The third variable to contribute to the variance is frequency of speaking in tongues for prayer. For the dependent variable of charismatic socialization, the most important variable is prayer, followed by frequency of speaking in tongues for self-edification and prophecy. Extraversion is positively scored, while psychoticism is negatively scored, indicating that extraverts associate more with charismatic socialization while psychotics dissociate themselves from it. The importance of understanding glossolalia in terms of prayer, prophecy and self-edification is especially borne out in relation to charismatic socialization, and this fits well with the understanding associated with the Charismatic movement. That charismatics also score highly in extraversion terms is also displayed by this data. The negative neuroticism score in relation to charismatic experience supports research conducted by others, which indicates that charismatics are generally stable - that is, low-scoring in neuroticism - extraverts. These data confirm that picture. However, the negative psychoticism score fits well with the picture of psychotics who socialize less well than the general population and charismatics in particular. Table 5.20 shows the multiple regression of the independent variables on the dependent variables of the frequency of tongues for praise, prayer and self-edification. For praise, the most important variable is gender; a positive score means that this variable refers to women. The next important variable is neuroticism, which is negatively scored, followed by the lie dimension and then extraversion, which are both positively scored. Finally qualifications, positively scored, indicates that education is positively associated with the frequency of praise in glossolalia. For prayer, the most important variable is gender, and a positive score once again means that this variable refers to women. Neuroticism is negatively scored, while extraversion and the lie dimension are positively scored. For selfedification, the most important variable is the lie dimension which is negatively scored. The only other variable is extraversion which is positively scored. The lie scales' positive scores indicate a lack of social conformity in relation to the items of praise and prayer, while the negative score for self-edification indicates the opposite - that is, a tendency to conform socially on this matter. This suggests that this item is more socially mediated than the other two items.

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia Table 5.20

EPQ E N P L

Background gender age qualif R2

167

Regression analysis (1): glossolalia experience and understanding (1) (B = standardized beta scores) Frequency of tongues for praise (B)

Frequency of tongues for prayer (B)

Frequency of tongues for self-edification (B)

.134 -.185

.149 -.191

.115

.135

.113

-.134

.196

.207

.117 .105

.096

.027

Table 5.21 shows the multiple regression of the independent variables on the dependent variables for the purpose of speaking in terms of prayer, prophecy, worship and spiritual battle. For prayer, the most important variable is extraversion, which is positively scored, followed by gender, also positively scored and indicating women. For worship, the most important variable is gender, again denoting women. This is accompanied by the variable of extraversion, again positively scored. For spiritual battle, the most important variable is gender, again denoting women. This is followed by age, which is positively scored, indicating the greater the age the greater the association with spiritual battle. The lie dimension and extraversion are also positively scored. This result shows the relationship of extravert women to the charismatic activities of prayer, worship and spiritual battle. Spiritual battle is also contributed to by age and the lie dimension, suggesting that this feature of charismatic life is dominated by older extrovert women who tend not to conform socially.

168 Table 5.21

Charismatic Glossolalia Regression analysis (2): glossolalia experience and understanding (2) (B = standardized beta scores) Prayer (B)

E N P L

Background gender age qualif R2

.188

Purpose Prophecy Worship (B) (B)

Spiritual battle (B)

.141

.099

.113

.144

.151 .140

.047

.039

.052

.112

Table 5.22 shows the multiple regression of the independent variables on the dependent variables of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire [EPQ (r) (modified]. For extraversion (E), the most important variable is age, which is negatively scored. This means that the younger the person, the greater the extraversion (exuberance of youth). For neuroticism (N), the most important variable is gender, which is positively scored and refers to women. The second variable to contribute to neuroticism is age, which is negatively scored. This means that the younger the person, the greater the neuroticism. For psychoticism (P), the most important variable is gender, which is negatively scored and refers to men. The next most important variable is age, which is negatively scored. This indicates that the younger the person, the greater the psychoticism. The final variable contributing to psychoticism is qualifications, which is also negatively scored, indicating the lower the qualifications, the greater the psychoticism. For the lie dimension (L), the most important variable is age, which is negatively scored. This means that the younger the person, the greater the association with the lie dimension. The other variable contributing to the lie dimension is gender, which is also negatively scored, indicating men. This means that men associate more with the lie dimension. Path Analysis The following path analyses are grouped around certain factors: EPQ, experience and understanding of glossolalia, charismatic socialization and

169

A Survey of Charismatic Glossolalia Table 5.22

Background gender age qualif R?

Regression analysis: Eysenck Personality Questionnaire [EPQ (r) (modified)] (B = standardized beta scores) E (B)

N (B)

P (B)

L (B)

-.096

.217 -.099

-.211 -.190 -.181

-.145 -.197

.009

.056

.099

.060

Trinitarian theology. It became too complex to try to indicate all the factors which are contained in the regression analysis. Figure 5.3 shows the importance of the extraversion factor on the glossolalia symbol of beauty. The various extraversion paths also indicate the nature of charismatic spirituality as extravert in focus. Extraversion exerts its influence via the frequency of praise, the frequency of self-edification, prayer and worship. All but worship run to beauty via the factor of charismatic socialization. This indicates the importance of charismatic socialization for interpreting these charismatic activities in terms of the glossolalia symbol of beauty. Worship provides the exception to such activities. The frequency of praise runs to beauty via one/three, indicating that a social doctrine of the Trinity is an important factor that is not mediated by charismatic socialization. The other EPQ indicators suggest that charismatic spirituality is associated with stable (N), normal personalities (P). The lie dimension suggests that, for the frequency of praise, respondents do not tend towards social conformity. The lie dimension also suggests the contrary for the frequency of selfedification: that respondents do tend towards social conformity. It is worth noting at this point that the intercorrelation between the extraversion and lie scales indicates that there is no tendency towards social conformity for the sample as a whole (r = .148, sig .01 level). Consequently, the importance of charismatic socialization in these path analyses is heightened. Figure 5.4 also shows the importance of the extraversion factor on the glossolalia symbol of awe. The only differences between Figures 5.3 and 5.4 are: the replacement of worship by spiritual battle, and the change of beta scores for charismatic socialization and Trinitarian theology. The extraversion and lie dimension run into spiritual battle. The positive lie score suggests a tendency not to conform socially.

Charismatic Glossolalia

170 E

P

L

N -.185

.135

.141s

.134

-.134 \

.115

f/praise

f/self-ed.