April 29, 2008
Listening to a putative display of glossolalia (apparently to-order) on the old tube last night, I caught myself smiling.
The glossolalist in question was making a bit of a pig’s breakfast out of explaining the phenomenon with any degree of clarity. Apart from my usual thought that it would be much more sporting of the Holy Ghost to inspire these people with the gift of actual, recognisable languages (and, as the Catholic Encyclopædia says: “The charisma of interpretation is [...] the necessary complement of glossolalia; when interpretation is not forthcoming, the speaker with tongues shall hold his peace.”), another thought also flitted through the draughty chasm of my mind. I know, two at a time: working to capacity.
Isn’t it odd, I mused, that those who appear to be most effortlessly eloquent in these strange tongues are frequently those who are least eloquent in talking about them (or anything else) in tongues which are familiar to the rest of us? Do these tongue-tied individuals, I wonder, ever reflect with chagrin on the irony of that?
April 29, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Glossolalia. Strange thing that. Although, obviously, St Paul speaks of it, and as of something genuine and good (though not as good as other gifts of the Holy Spirit). The most convincing explanation I ever got (from a charismatic) was this (my own interpretation): St Theresa of Avila writes about contemplation and how your lower faculties (imagination and so on) get into the way. Now this gift of tongues keeps them busy with something other than “Strange pattern of the wallpaper over there - what does it remind me of?” or “O, I forgot to send that really urgent email - have to do that immediately” - or other thoughts that tend to pop up when one is trying to pray; thus leaving the higher faculties free to be more closely united to God. (Something on these lines. Had no time to check terminology for I to am w*rking…
April 29, 2008 at 5:46 pm
That all seems good, sane, and easy enough to explain, Notburga - but then compared to the type of tongue-speaking we are most often subjected to in contemporary life, what isn’t?
B(abbling) A(imlessly)
April 30, 2008 at 7:35 am
I do agree that it is somewhat strange that this gift occurs to near 100% in some circles and not at all in others (even when people are very pious and docile to the working of the Holy Spirit). Presumably one can also feign it, and it is to be feared that this often happens. But I would be reluctant about a wholesale condemnation of tongue-speaking in contemporary charismatic circles as a fraud. As far as I see it, it may well belong to the “milk” God gives to people as long as they need it, like sensible consolations in prayer, etc., and for one person this “milk” takes one form, and for another a slightly different one.
April 30, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I agree with you in not wanting to condemn the entire modern phenomenon wholesale, Notburga - your hypothesis seems kind and measured. There will be some frauds, may be some genuine occurences and the rest (maybe the vast majority, for all I know) may fall into the category of honest and pious mistakes. God can use our innocent wrongheadednesses to His glorious ends - rough hew them how we will!
[Edited to add: I loathe these new "automatically generated" "Possibly related posts". Most of them make a nonsense of the topics to which they tentatively claim but fail to be related . Anyone know how to stop the blighters?]
May 2, 2008 at 12:34 am
A theology professor of my acquaintance who has studied the charismatic movement in some depth associates the rise of this phenomenon in Catholic circles with the virtual elimination of Latin in the liturgy. He suggests that with some people there’s some kind of subconscious need to move beyond one’s everyday language when one prays.
May 2, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Excellent, Zadok - more grist to the old mill!
May 4, 2008 at 12:36 pm
kbcsbiugfsrbcfs sbhbfv bhcbsc bsdoslsnvb ckgh; gdgcgc. igbiy! hbgis a ndrtgd usn?
May 4, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Certainly, TG - 7.30 at the Martyrs’ Monument it is. Bring a bottle by all means, but leave the goat at home this time maybe?
BA
May 5, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I am sure much of your energy is going on e-flirting with Seraphic, but you could perhaps amuse us some more, no?
May 5, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Being a gentleman (”Assume a virtue if you have it not”), I couldn’t possibly comment on my personal correspondence with a young lady - and besides, it’d only make all the other chaps dangerously jealous. I’d so hate to be the occasion of sin.
But the principal object to my posting more here is currently w*rk - I haven’t had a day off for over a week. The weather is lovely and my workplace is pretty idyllic, but today has been a terrible stress-fest. Which just goes to show: Et in Arcadia aggro.
But grateful as always for your solicitous concern, dear Berenike, I promise to produce a post by Wednesday (my next day off) at the latest. And that’ll learn ye!
B(log) A(ccidie)
May 6, 2008 at 12:19 am
The only thing worse than being blogged about is not being blogged about.
Meanwhile: pome! Pome!
May 6, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“Meanwhile: pome! Pome!”
Who’s sorry now?
More substantial (and less icky) fare tomorrow.
BA x