Glossolalia: the Challenges and Remedies of the Nature and Functions Evaluating Tongues in the Christian Church: an Integrated Approach

IAR Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies ISSN Print : 2709-3328 | ISSN Online : 2709-3336 Frequency : Bi-Monthly Language : English Origin : Kenya Website : https://www.iarconsortium.org/journal-info/iarjhcs

Review Article

Glossolalia: The Challenges And Remedies of The Nature and Functions Evaluating Tongues in The Christian Church: An Integrated Approach

Article History Abstract:

Received: 05.09.2020 Accepted: 02.10.2020 Revision: 09.10.2020 Published: 10.10.2020 Keywords: Release Kinetics, TDDS patch & Tramadol HCL.

Author Details INTRODUCTION “The rise of the charismatic movement within virtually every mainstream Chesosi Bonface Kimutai Church has ensured that the Holy Spirit figures prominently on the theological agenda. A new experience of the reality and power of the Holy Spirit has had a major impact upon the theological discussion of the 1 Authors Affiliations person and the work of the Holy Spirit.”

Anglican priest and a Lecturer St Pauls Tongues in other Religion. Theological college Kapsabet,Kenya “Descriptions of ecstatic speech are common in the study of comparative religions. In some cases the phenomena bearing Striking resemblance to Corresponding Author* the glossolalia speech described in the N.T. Ecstatic behavior is found Chesosi Bonface Kimutai most frequently in the Shaman, the seer and the prophet. Generally the How to Cite the Article: ecstatic state is associated with the divine or spirit possession and Chesosi Bonface Kimutai; (2020) Glossolalia: The inspiration.”2 Challenges And Remedies of The Nature and Functions Evaluating Tongues in The Christian The nature of Glossolalia Church: An Integrated Approach. IAR J Arts Human Cul Stud. 1(1)1-11. It goes without say that determining the nature and character of Copyright @ 2020: This is an open-access article speaking in tongues or glossolalia is no mean feat. The New Testament distributed under the terms of the Creative position of but not a permanent feature of the gospel. Mandel Creighton Commons Attribution license which permits categorically affirmed that: unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non commercial use (NonCommercial, or CC-BY-NC) provided the The Apostles were endowed with extra- ordinary powers, necessary for original author and source are credited. the establishment of the church, but not necessarily for its permanent maintenance. These powers were exercised for healing the sick and for conveying special punishment. These special powers were committed the church as a means of teaching it the abiding presence of God. They were withdrawn when they served their purpose of indicating the duties to be permanently performed. To „gifts of tongues‟ succeeded orderly human teaching to the gifts of healing by educated human skills; to supernatural punishment succeeded discipline orderly human agency.” 3

This position main contention is that tongues together with other miracles ceased with the apostolic age. Hence the manifestations that are prevalent in the contemporary church are not only counterfeit but also superfluous and irrelevant for the purpose of this miracles are not It is abundantly clear that speaking in tongues was not a novel idea before or at Pentecost. As Lombard crisply observes that, “the Christian of speaking- in- tongues probably had its roots in ancient religions of Asia Minor.”4

1 Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1994), 240 2 Ibid 3 Mandell Creighton, Persecution and Tolerance; Being the Holsean Lectures preached before the University of Cambridge in 1893-4, (London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1906), 55-56 4 L Carlyle May, A survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Christian Religions, https://onlinelibrary,wiley.com>doi>pdf, Retrieved on 17th July 2018 at 2055 GMT.

Chesosi Bonface Kimutai; IAR J Arts Human Cul Stud; Vol-1, Iss- 1 (Sep-Oct, 2020): 1-11

It is evident from a study of comparative religion in Biblical times that tongues were not a phenomenon only prevalent in the Christian church. The Delphic and Pythian religion of Greek understood and comprehended ecstatic behavior and speech to evidence of divine inspiration.5 E Schweitzer in his classic masterpiece the church as the Body of Christ cryptically noted especially in relation to Corinthian church that, “Spiritual phenomenon like speaking in tongues, or other ecstatic experiences occurred also in the lives of the people in heathen cults.”6 This may have been the germ that precipitated the misunderstanding of tongues in the church in Corinth.7 It is evident that speaking in tongues was done by a Manticor prophet who sought divine inspiration that enabled the prophet to speak in an ecstatic manner .then a second person who is an interpreter sought to make this incomprehensive ecstatic utterance intelligible to the customer.8 It is evident from the religions that were prevalent in Biblical words that:

There is no topic that stirs and evokes a great storm of controversy generating more heat than light as that of tongues. In Pneumatology the controversy is necessitated by divergent views of tongues. First, are tongues intelligible and natural languages or are they ecstatic, unintelligible language. Secondly, it is a gift that is still evident in the contemporary church or the gift was only relegated to the primitive church alone. Thirdly, is this phenomenon of tongues exclusively Christian or was it prevalent in other religions in the New Testament. As a result in order to delve into the subject- matter of tongues and deduce a theological sound perspective, a Biblical compliant and balanced position on the tongues. It is imperative that the researcher will delve into the study of Greek Religion, the Old Testament and culminate with the study of the New Testament in order to ascertain the nature, authenticity and import of tongues in Christian life ministry and church.

There seems to be a paradigm in the subject-matter of the Holy Spirit from divergence of the experience and the theology to convergence of the experience and the rational formulation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The dogma of the Holy Spirit is technically known as Pneumatology. This is the teaching, “on the third person of the trinity. The word „Spirit‟ (Hebrew ruah, Greek Pneuma) is the word in ancient time to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon and around men, and understood by them as the power of God.”9

Pneumatology is a subject matter that has generated more heat than light. There are two antagonistic presuppositions of Pneumatology those who conceive the Holy Spirit with arid intellectualism without any experience on one hand and those who contemplate on this Holy based on the prism of human experience devoid of any theological reflection. Clark Pinnock in his Magnus Opus, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy is perceptive of the misconceptions and succinctly addresses the quagmire by stating that, “in theology, the mind and heart study and prayer are both important with the mind we analyze data, while in the heart we wait for illumination it.” 10

In a nutshell if Pneumatology is to be adequately addressed the theologian must of necessity rise above neither demeaning intellectual discourse nor repudiating the human experience. The recrudescence, resurgence of the Pentecostal charismatic movement and the influence that has pervaded and permeated the entire Christian church including the mainstream protestant churches and the Roman Catholic churches has catapulted the study of the Holy Spirit to the fore: weather tongues is an intelligible as in Acts 2: 6-8 or unintelligible tongues (1 Cor 14:3-5), confounds the situation. In order to comprehend tongues it is imperative that we delve into Etymology with specific reference to the theological jargon glossolalia. The term glossolalia is a nineteenth – century formulation that is derived from the compound Greek words of glossa which means tongue or language and lalein which has the meaning to speak. The two words appear with particular frequency in the New Testament in the writings of Paul and Luke (Acts 2:4, 11, 10:46, 19:6, 1 Cor 12:10, 28, 14:2, 4, 13:12) 11 . The variation of the use of the term by Paul and Luke is unmistaken and distinguishable. It is clear that, “whereas Acts of the Apostles emphasized the role of speaking in tongues as a form of God‟s self disclosure in public witness and the mission of the church (Acts 2:4-21, 10-44-48; 19:1- )12 1 Corinthians discusses the subject in the context of spiritual gifts, private prayers and in the life of the individual, (1 Cor 12:27-, 13:3,

5 C. Robeck, “Tongues, Gift of” the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , Vol 4,(Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. M B Eerdmana Publishing Co, 1982), 872 6 E Schweitzer, The Church as the Body of Christ,(Richmond: Richmond Publishing Company,1964) 23-40 7 Robeck,872 8 Ibid 9 James D.G Dunn, “Holy Spirit”, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Walter A Elwell, Ed, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988), 986. 10 Clark H Pinnock, Flame of Love: A theology of Holy Spirit, (Downer Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1996), 12. 11 W Vondely. “Glossolalia” William Dryness and Veli-Matti Karkkainen, Global Dictionary of Theology. (Nottingham, England: Intervarsity press, 2008), 346

12 Ibid 2

Chesosi Bonface Kimutai; IAR J Arts Human Cul Stud; Vol-1, Iss- 1 (Sep-Oct, 2020): 1-11

14: 1-40).13. There are those insinuate that tongues are a language that is both intelligible and a known language and those who are persuaded that tongues are unintelligible but it edifies the individual. It is feasible for the two antagonistic positions to complement and not compete with each other. Do we maintain only one position or embrace both positions. The challenge of tongues is found on the contestation on whether it was a phenomenon that was only prevalent in the primitive church only or it is evident in the contemporary church. It must be noted that, “considerable disagreement exist between the view that glossolalia ceased with the end of the Apostolic church and the perspective that it is for the church today.”14

There are three distinct positions on tongues those who contend that the tongues ceased with the apostolic age, secondly those who ascribe to the position that is ceased with those of the Biblical cannon. However, there are those who think tongues will be banished at the Parousia. It is accented by those who held the teaching that tongues were restricted to the Apostolic tongues just like other gifts and miracles because they were the husk but not the Kernel of the gospel and the tongues were temporary important in the contemporary church. This position is buttressed by the fact that the writings of the, “so called Apostolic Fathers contain no clear and certain allusion to miracle working, or to the exercise of the charismatic gifts, contemporaneously with themselves.”15 The writings of the apostolic fathers who were proximate to the Apostles in both time and doctrine do not prominently mention tongues and other charismatic gifts and an integral and irrefutable part of church polity and ministry. Hence it is the considered opinion of this view that tongues ceased to

Montanus of the old to the current Tele Evangelism who manifest this characteristic of speaking in tongues. This position has a lot of positive things that it elucidates and expounds. It puts in perspective the place of the Apostles in the church as it is clearly expressed in Ephesians 2:20. The foundation of the church is truly laid of the prophets and the apostles. It will be fool hardy to be presumptuous and assume that apostles and prophets in a primary sense do exist in the contemporary church as some of the speaking in tongues advocates do portend. However, the flip side of this argument is to limit God‟s activity and operation of the Holy Spirit to the apostolic times. The spirit is active even up to date convicting, regenerating, empowering and gifting people. Hence, it is utterly impossible to hem and box one gift of the Holy Spirit to the primitive church only. There is the reality of God‟s sovereignty and human exist for its parson deter was that it was instrumental in planting the church hence that function was superfluous as the church is already in existence. Secondly there is no substantive miracles alluded to in church history that was consistent and in an avalanche apart from the time of the apostles, hence „tongues‟ and „miracles‟ must be relegated to the apostolic times. Thirdly, the speaking in tongues was catapulted to the fore by people who were considered as charlatans and unscrupulous people like Montanus. But we must note that this view is not unequivocal for Eusbesius condemned montanists while Tertullian defended their orthodoxy. Eusbesius vividly and graphically defined montanism that had an uncanny resemblance with the contemporary Pentecostals excesses that seems to be inextricably intertwined. “There is said to be a certain village called Aridabau in that part of Mysia, which borders Phrygia. There first, they say, when Gratus was proconsul of Asia, a recent convert, Montanus by name, through his unquenchable desire for leadership, gave the adversary opportunity against him. And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a matter contrary to the constant custom of the handed down by tradition from the beginning.” 16

In concoction of desire for leadership, ecstatic utterance and Schism seems to have always clogged this tongues movement from its earlier proponent Montanus to the proponents of this position that speaking in tongues is a reality that was prevalent during the apostolic times. However when it is referred to in the contemporary church tongues is pseudo and a fabrication of the fertile imaginations of human for their self-aggrandizement and only remotely connected to the utilitarian concept of service to God and humanity. This fact is authenticated by a litany of examples from church history from responsibility in the work of God in the salvation history. However, this position has an unacceptable dichotomy in that the Holy Spirit was exclusively involved in people speaking in language in the day of Pentecost. But in the contemporary church it is exclusively human efforts that are dispensed at language school. This view only sees the Holy Spirit in spectacular presentation at Pentecost but not in the mundane language training at language school. It is imperative that we have an open view of the Holy Spirit who works both in the spectacular and the ordinary events. The truth that God‟s sovereignty and human responsibility are enmeshed and cannot be extracted in God‟s Spirit ontology and function. This position is unsatisfactory and cannot conclusively explain the phenomenon of tongues when it is relegated to history. The recrudescence, resurgence and revamping of the Pentecostal movement in both mainstream and

13 Ibid 14 Ibid 15 C Benjamin B War Field, Counterfeit Miracles, (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sun, 1918), P5-10 16 Charles .A. Sullivan, A critical look at Tongues and Montanism, https://charles Sasulluvian. com. Retrieved on 30 June 2018 at 24: 24 GMT. 3

Chesosi Bonface Kimutai; IAR J Arts Human Cul Stud; Vol-1, Iss- 1 (Sep-Oct, 2020): 1-11 charismatic churches is a case in point to vindicate the fact that the „gift‟ of tongues may still be p revalent in the contemporary church.

The second position on the nature of tongues is that it ceased with the completion of the cannon of scripture.17 This position is almost synonymous with the first view of tongues. However, the nuance is that with the promulgation of the Biblical cannon the need for sign wonders that includes the tongues become redundant and unnecessary. The Bible is the indispensible guide of all Christians that was written with divine inspiration (1 Peter 2:20-21). It is God breathed (2 Cor 3:16-17). Hence, since we have the scripture we do need „tongues‟. This position though it is laudable in extolling the correct doctrine of scripture it absolute authority in matters of orthodoxy and praxis. The view has the correct understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in the writing of the scriptures where the Holy Spirit superintended the writing of the prophetic apostolic writers of the Bible, without erasing their personalities, until their writings become the exact expression of God‟s work. But to limit the work of the spirit to the writing of the scripture is to minimize the operation of the scripture that is present and working in the entire world and even to date. The undisputed fact that the cannon were closed is not the warrant to limit the gifting of the Holy Spirit. This position lacks in the scriptural merit and logical explaining when you insinuate that the close of cannon is corollary to the cessation of tongues. Since the function of speaking in tongues is no sense related to inspiration of the scripture. Tongues are for propagation of the gospel when it is an intelligible language and for personal edification when it is an unintelligible language. Hence tongues has no correlation with the closing of the cannon and this argument cannot be used to state that it is impossible to deny the existence of the tongues by the mere fact that the canon is closed. This argument is untenable, Biblically unsustainable and logically spurious. Therefore it cannot adequately explain the reality of the phenomenon of glossolalia.

The position that tongues will cease during the Parousia.18 This position contends that at Christ second coming gifts of tongues will close. This position has the Biblical mitigating proof texts to sustain the argument. 1 Cor 13: 8-12 and 1 John 3: 2 indicates the truth of the transient nature of tongues and their vitality and relevance of tongues may be to do with the work of the lord here on earth and also for the edification of the church with the presence of an interprets. However, my considered opinion is that tongues will be superfluous and irrelevant and without any spiritual vitality in heaven. Hence, this position is both scripturally grounded, logically and pragmatic. As a result we must understand that the truth of the matter is that tongues were enhanced in the apostolic time, there were present during the crafting of the cannon but also evidently present in the contemporary church. The speaking to tongues in an intelligible language as expounded by Luke in Acts 2:1-ff may not be very conspicuous in the present church while the tongues for personal edification is prevalent today. While charlatans and pseudo tongues may be used for selfish ends but this does not nullify the reality that the spirit is present and active in not only spiritual but also mundane matter. As Jurgen Moultmann categorically affirms that the, “so experience of the life-giving spirit in faith of the heart and in the sociality of love leads of itself beyond the limits of the church to the rediscovery of the same spirit in nature, plants, in animals and ecosystems of the earth.”19 It is evident that the spirit is present in the contemporary church just as the gift of tongues. The spirit of tongues should not be limited to the ecstatic utterances or spontaneously learned intelligible language. The gifts of tongues should also be seen in the teaching of the tongues in the language schools that is evident in the teaching, understanding and comprehending foreign language should be comprehended as part of the gifts of tongues.

The fourth position are those who over emphasize the reality of the speaking of tongues as an integral and irreducible part of a worship service. This position is an antithesis and a protest against the status quo that “produced new theology as a kind of new spirituality and aggressive Evangelism methods. Therefore, it has provoked controversy at almost every stage of its development.”20 This Pentecostal position is an antithesis of “the so called cessation principle which articulates the position that miracles or extra ordinary charismata were terminated at or near the end of the epoch of the apostles.”21 On the contrary Pentecostal worship reintroduced a dynamic, enthusiastic type of spirituality in the modern church. The focus of Pentecostal spirituality is experiencing God mystically as supernatural. Their worship service is a curious mixture of spontaneity the exercise of spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophesying and prayer for spiritual healing and acute alertness of the mystical encounter with God.22 This expressive and dynamic worship of Pentecostalism is in keeping with the tradition of Montanists, Anabaptists, evokers, shakers and other revival movement. This worship is often accompanied by singing in tongues, applause to the Lord, rising of hands and the shouting of loud of „Amen‟ and „halleluiahs‟. This worship of Pentecostal has been proactively referred to as

17 Vondely, 872. 18 Ibid 19 Jurgen Moultmann, The Spirit of the Life: A Universal Affirmation, Translated by Margaret Khol Minneapolis: Fortress Press,1992), 225-226 20 Veli- Matti Karkkainen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International and Contextual Perspective, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House,2002), P 90 21 Ibid 22 Ibid 4

Chesosi Bonface Kimutai; IAR J Arts Human Cul Stud; Vol-1, Iss- 1 (Sep-Oct, 2020): 1-11 emotionalism or people with mental laziness who doesn‟t engage their mental faculties in worship. Tongues to the Pentecostals are not only the husk but rather the kernel of worship. Tongues are an attestation and a vindication of the spirit Baptized and filled Christian. In fact tongues become the hall mark, the standard and measure of a person Christianity. This position must be lauded for the renewal and impetus that it has given the contemporary church. However, Pentecostal must be faulted for reducing the sovereignty and person of the Holy Spirit to be analogous to the gift of speaking in tongues. The Holy Spirit is God the bond of the God head active in the entire world. This posit ion limits and harming the Holy Spirit to the church and especially limit him to a particular behavior. This position unwittingly magnifies tongues to be indicative and the only manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

It is utterly impossible to decipher the meaning and nature of glossolalia without exploring the pertinent terms that are inextricably linked with aspects of speaking in tongues. It must be noted that the term glossolalia was not used in English before 1879, its etymology is from the Greek phrase words glossals lalein which literally to “Speak in or by tongues.” 23 It is included in the list spiritual gifts (charismata) that are in 1 Cor 12:8-10. Despite the fact that this term in 1 Cor12:8-10 is a popular equivalent of expression of the gift of tongues. The precise phrase of speaking in tongues does not occur anywhere in scripture.24 A French crudités scholars conjured the term Xenoglossia in 1905 to describe the phenomenon of a spiritualist medium who when in a trace wrote in Modern Greek though she was not acquainted or exposed to the language. The term xenographia was later considered to be more precise and plausible to describe the phenomenon. Xenolalia, is a more frequently used synonym of xenoglossia when it describes glossolalia when the language spoken is identifiable as one among the over three thousand known language that are prevalent across the globe.25 Xenoglossolalia and heteroglossolalia are used to express speaking in the other languages. The terms here refer to an intelligible language in a bigger part but the term glossogaphia refers to automatic writing that is inspired from a higher power but results in no known language.26 In modern scholarship prophetelalia described the inspired vernacular speech of a prophet while akolalia is used to depict the perceived hearing of another language even when one is not spoken.27 The technical term of interpreting terms is echolalia, while idiolect is an agitated repetition of the words of another. It implies of necessity that at the very basic glossolalia.

It is undisputed that tongues were evident and prevalent in many cultures globally and Africans were not exception;

“In the twentieth century, after Western missionaries arrived in Africa, Some Africans began to see in scriptures and concepts that fit with their traditional African understanding of God and the spirit world. The dreams and visions of the prophets and the early church resonated With their own traditional understanding of supernaturally obtained knowledge. Denomination and exorcism, tongues and supernatural healing all seemed familiar, as did suffering for the faith. Missionaries did not need to convince Africans of the existence of God or the realm of the existence.”28

It seems that tongues were a phenomenon that was present in the African culture even before the advent of the missionaries and Christianity. R Spittler an eminent scholar on glossolalia aptly concludes that glossolalia, is “not even limited to Christianity or even to religious behavior.”29 The truth is that since glossolalia is not only restricted to religious circle, hence it is critical that is also examined from linguistic and psychological perspectives. The various nuanas and shades of tongues or glossolalia warrant such a broad perspective examination. Glossolalia is believed to be an unfathomable divine language which a person appears to speak.30 Though glossolalia is attributed to be a supernatural phenomenon however its true natural character is blurred and obfuscated. New Catholic Encyclopedia describes glossolalia as, “a charisma that enables the recipient to praise God in a miraculous speech.” This depicted divine origin of glossolalia whereas New Encyclopedia Britannica calls it, “a neurotic or psychotic symptoms.” Sometimes it is referred as gibberish tongue Jabbering and „unintelligible words‟. This may be the human allusions to the speaking in tongues phenomenon.31 It must be noted the Bible speaks of two kinds of tongues (speaking in human language and gift of

23 Spittler, 873-888 24 Ibid 25 Ibid 26 Ibid 27 Ibid 28 Michael Poccock, Gailyn Van Rheenen and Douglas M C Connell, The Changing Face of World Mission: Engaging Contemporary issues and Trends, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005), P 136. 29 R Spittler, “glossolalia” The New Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, Stanley M Burgess, Ed (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House 2003), 873-888 30 A Coleman, “Glossolalia”, A Dictionary of Psychology, (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2015), 353-355. 31 James Bishop, An objective look at speaking in Tongues in 8 Brief Points, http://Jamesbishop blog.com retrieved on 2nd July 2018 at 2030 GMT. 5

Chesosi Bonface Kimutai; IAR J Arts Human Cul Stud; Vol-1, Iss- 1 (Sep-Oct, 2020): 1-11 speaking in foreign unknown tongue a heavenly language; the former is known Xenoglossia which is a compound word xenos meaning foreign glossa which implies tongue. Xenoglossia is the use of an actual foreign language by a person who has no conscious knowledge of that language; a very typical example is that of St. Pachomius, the Egyptian founder of the first Christian monastery who was able to speak in Greek and Latin though he never knew either of the language. The later type which is referred to as glossolalia is an unknown tongue or a heavenly language.32

My considered opinion is that though it is believed that both glossolalia and Xenoglossia will end at Parousia. The use of Xenoglossia is not very conspicuous in the contemporary church but may be evident in language school that I am persuaded that the Holy Spirit is at work. Glossolalia has been the most conspicuous evident and sometimes mostly abused in the contemporary church.

Hence glossolalia demands a closer examination especially in regard to its authenticity, veracity and its practical import. Many glossolalia or tongue speakers are a clamant that their experiences are bonafide and genuine. Linguist Felicitas Good man authenticated from a rigorous and in depth research established that “before and after” phase in the lives of the tongue speakers manifested a crystal clear and irrefutable “change” in between which suggested that the experience of speaking in tongues had transformative power.33 Despite the fact that there is a psychological and emotional correlation between glossolalia and their speakers, we must not refute at the onset the notion that those who speak in tongues are mentally deranged nor having psychological hang-ups. This is because they rarely suffer from mental disorders.34 The overwhelming evidence debunks the misconception that glossolalia is pathological for the contrary is true for, “quite clearly, available evidence requires that an explanation of glossolalia as pathological be discarded.”35 It is abundantly clear that glossolalists are neither buffoon nor psychologically warped. However, we must be careful to note both the positive and negative ramifications of glossolalia. We discount the unwarranted labels that those who are with glossolalia are labeled with as neurotic, delusionary, hallucinating, emotionally unstable. According to a study 2003, among 1000 Evangelical Christians in England it was established and confirmed that those who did not dabble in it.36 We must not be deluded to think that glossolalia is a panacea to cure all the challenges that bedevil the Christians for it has both negative and positive impact. J Kaldahal reported that there are both positive and negative implications of speaking in tongues.37 On the positive was increase, “in personal happiness, a sense of greater personal power, joyful and warm personal fellowship among tongues speakers.”38 However, on the other side of the coin there is “dependency on the leader who introduced the person to tongue-speaking and divineness that polarizes the religious community,”39 on the extreme glossolalia can lead to, “convulsion or lose consciousness, or go to a trance, or are involved in the act of laughing uncontrollably, falling down on the ground, rolling around or so.”40 They may even be, “slain in the Spirit.”41

Is this phenomenon completely divine or is it something that is totally a human enterprise. My considered opinion is that it can be either or both for the Holy Spirit is that it can be either or both. I cannot agree more with the profuse words of James Bishop who asseverates that we should accept both the divine auction and human effort in both, for, “the studies conclude that though not dismissing the supernatural claims surrounding glossolalia, it is quite possible that it be required by almost anyone who possesses the motivation to learn it. This learning process can be more effective if the person is explored regularly to social environments that encourage the behavior.42

The contemporary Relevance of Glossolalia: An Integrated Approach The great controversy in the charismatic gifts as identified in 1 Cor 12:8-11 is that, “were these gifts intended by God to be used throughout the entire church age until the Lord returns?. Continuatists answers yes: the charismatic gifts were intended to continue throughout the entire history. Therefore, contemporary believers should be open to them and, some would add, even aggressively seek them, ceasationists answer no: the charismatic gifts were intended to cease after the New Testament.

32 Ibid 33 Felistas Goodman, Speaking in Tongues: A cross cultural study of Glossolalia, (Chicago University Press, 1972), 30 34 N Spanos and E Hewitt, Glossolalia: A Test of the Trance and Psychopathology Hypothesis in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1979; 88(4): 427-434. 35 V Hin, “Pentecostal Glossolalia” in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion: 1969 P 142-226 36 L Francis and M Robbins, “Personality and Glossolalia; A Study among Male Evangelical Clergy,” Pastoral Psychology, 2003:51,(5): 391-396 37 Ibid 38 Bishop, Ibid 39 Ibid 40 Ibid 41 Goodman, Ibid 42 Bishop, Ibid 6

Chesosi Bonface Kimutai; IAR J Arts Human Cul Stud; Vol-1, Iss- 1 (Sep-Oct, 2020): 1-11

The two diametrically opposed positions of glossolalia or tongues is the contemporary church. There are those who emphasize the position that tongues are present in the contemporary church for the Bible affirms categorically that, “many gifts are available to believers to use in ministry until the Lord returns.”43 While, “some argue that one class of those gifts the charismatic gifts were intended only for the building of the early church and thus ceased in the first century.”44 As a result those who exercise these gifts are, “either deceiving themselves or are being deceived demons.”45 On the other hand there is that ultra continuationist view that asserts that, “gifts are meant for today as much as any other gift mentioned in the New Testament.”46

Those who hold the continuatinist view identify five scriptures that the gifts are mentioned among them tongues among the list of gifts, given to the church of God 1 Cor 12:8-10, 1 Cor 12:28-30, Romans 12:6-8, Eph4:11 and 1 Peter 4:10-11. 47 In these passages of scripture tongues are mentioned in conjunction with other gifts like, “prophesy, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leadership and showing Mercy.”48 1 Cor 12:28-30 are charismatic gifts, include, “utterance of wisdom, utterance of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, miracles, prophecy, discernment of spirit, tongues and the interpretation of tongues.”49 As a result it is illogical and not tenable, “to allow for exhortation, giving and showing mercy while excluding spirit-inspired words of wisdom, prophecy, speaking in tongues and healing”50 This dichotomy on gifts that ceased and ones that continuous are capricious and based on a Western world View that the supernatural pejoratively and with skepticism. Secondly, these dichotomies are arbitrary and subjective and not based on any objective, rational but rather based on preconceived biasness. Consequently this dichotomy is biblically unsustainable for it is not explicitly stated in any portion of scripture.

Fourthly, the scripture is categorical that, “all the gifts are intended for the entire church age.”51 As a result the Christians were exhorted to attain, discover and utilize the same gifts contrary to the assertions of the ceasationists. It is evident clear that, “Paul explicitly commands believers to „strive for the Spiritual gifts” (Speaking specifically of the charismatic gifts listed in 1 Cor 120. Believers are especially to “strive for” and be “easer” for the gifts of prophecy (1 Cor 14:1, 39). Paul specifically commands believers not to „quench the spirit, “despite the words of prophets, „or‟ forbid speaking in tongues‟ (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22, 1 Cor 14:39) since we believe that the Bible is both timely and timeless in the sense that it applied directly to the immediate audience of the Epistle but also relevant to the contemporary church. Hence these exhortations on charismatic gifts and have a real bearing on the contemporary church that is to imply that the gifts and even of tongues was both timely and timeless until the end in Parousia.

Fifthly, the gifts including were meant for service in the church, the edification of the church while it is still on earth, hence the gifts will always be relevant as long as the church is militant but it ceases to have meaning when the church is triumphant. In a nutshell, “until the body of Christ -until the Lord returns- the gifts are to remain in operation.”52 This implies that logically as the church is still on earth and battling the diverse forces in the spiritual warfare there will always be need for spiritual gifts including the charismatic gifts. The New Testament is unequivocal that “all the gifts are intended for the entire church age.”53 As a result we have no reason whatsoever to assert that the charismatic gifts are not for the contemporary church. The integrated approaches of speaking in tongues are relevant and feasible in the contemporary church. There is continuity in that respect integrated in tongues. However, there is also a discontinuity in regard to tongues.

Despite the affirmation that tongues exist in the contemporary church, we also affirm that tongues do not exist in the same way and instance as in the primitive church. There is a discontinuity in that instance. It is abundantly clear that charismatic gifts were spoken in the New Testament were firstly the Gibraltar for authenticating Apostolic authority. It is irrefutable that they laid foundation for the church. Tongues and the charismatic gifts provided divine guidance to early

43 Gregory Boyd and Paul R Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2009), 236. 44 Ibid, 238 45 Ibid 46 Ibid 47 Ibid 48 Ibid 49 Ibid 50 Ibid 51Ibid 52 Ibid, 239 53 Ibid 7

Chesosi Bonface Kimutai; IAR J Arts Human Cul Stud; Vol-1, Iss- 1 (Sep-Oct, 2020): 1-11 believers at, “a time when the New Testament, the final revelation of God, was not yet complete.54 An irrevocable fact that in the contemporary church that;

The New Testament is now complete, therefore, Christians do not need supernatural gifts the guide them in their fifth walk.”55 Hence, the charismatic gifts are no longer operational today.56

It goes without say that there is a hyperbole in the statement that tongues are no longer operation in the contemporary church, the truth is that they are still operation but not in the same way and respect to which they were operation in the beginning of the church. The use of tongues is not analogous in both the earth church and the contemporary church. This is necessitated by various salient factors.

First, the New Testament “makes it clear that early church were intended to help build the church‟s foundation. An important passage in this regard is Eph2:13, 18-22. 57 Therefore, it is undisputed that, “Christians today are to build on the foundation already laid, not add to the foundation itself. Hence, there is no further need for Apostles or prophets or the charismatic gifts that attested to their authority.” The truth is that we do not have charismatic gifts in the contemporary church to either attest the scriptures or authenticate a measure for the objective measure is the scriptures or the whole council of God. This attestation role of charismatic gifts including tongues is temporary is affirmed in Hebrews 2:2-4. There is a parallelism with the supernatural nature of God‟s special revelation, the verification of the message and the messengers and was not to be normative to the entire church until the contemporary church.

This supernatural confirmation was specific to the anointed people who were initially giving the divine revelations. The signs and wonders in the New Testament were not intended for all time. They were used by those who declared the message first those who become the foundation of the Church.58

These truth is authenticated by the portions of scriptures in 2 Cor 12:2, Acts 14:3,2:22,43,4:30, 5:1-2, 7:36,8:13). Hence, “the signs are wonders were God‟s ways of showing the audiences that his hand was upon these preachers as they spoke the word of the Lord and laid the foundation for the future church.” 59 It cannot be over emphasized for 1 Cor 13 emphasizes the temporary nature of speaking in tongues.60 It is evident in church history that the Christians who wanted to have tongues in the same way and expression as in the apostolic church resorted to counterfeit for it does not exist in the same way as the New Testament tongues.

“It is undisputed historical fact that the exercise of charismatic gifts significantly decreased after the first century and eventually ceased altogether in the early church. Moreover, it is likely that few references to charismatic gifts we find in second, third and fourth centuries refer not to genuine New Testament gifts, but to counterfeits. The group that tried to hang on to the use of charismatic gifts- a group called monetarists was clearly heretical in aspects of its Theology. The primary reason the early church opposed them was because they were purporting to gives new revelations and end time prophesies. There was no place for such revelation and prophesies, the church rightly saw because all the church needed was found in the completed New Testament.61

There is always an undisputed link between speaking in tongues and charismatic gifts as it was done in the Apostolic times and special revelation and prophesy the two are inextricably intertwined as inseparable as two pieces of paper glued together. Hence it is logically untenable and unreasonable to expect that the same tongues of the Old Testament are still present in the contemporary church in the same way with the cannon being closed.

The tongues or glossolalia that has is not synonymous or equivalent to the New Testament tongues. This is also observed from the practical considerations. The gifts have been divisive in the contemporary church that u nifying as it was in the primitive church. secondly, when such utterance are unwittingly elevated to be at par at New Testament it may lead some astray for the Bible is the only absolute authority in matters of orthodoxy and praxis and it leads to obsession to the spectacular gifts at the expense of the fruit of the spirit.

54 Ibid 55 Ibid, 243 56 Ibid 57 Ibid 58 Ibid, 244 59 Ibid,245 60 Ibid 61 Ibid 8

Chesosi Bonface Kimutai; IAR J Arts Human Cul Stud; Vol-1, Iss- 1 (Sep-Oct, 2020): 1-11

My considered opinion is that integrated view of glossolalia or tongues adequately addresses all the pertinent issues on glossolalia by avoiding the extreme position of t either emphas izing continuity or discontinuity by seeking to synergize both by acknowledging that in glossolalia there is both elements of continuity that the gift is still evident in the contemporary but also discontinuity in that it is not in the same expression in the Apostolic church and the contemporary church. It is true that the function and nature of glossolalia in the Apostolic and contemporary church are distinct. In the New Testament church it was for authentication of the Apostolic /prophet ministers and the scripture. However, the glossolalia in the contemporary church is for personal edification and empowerment. The nature of glossolalia in the New Testament was that in public worship it was an intelligible language that was understood by listeners and in private the ecstatic unintelligible language was used for self edification was permitted. In the contemporary church the intelligible language is not evident while the ecstatic unintelligible language is for both public and private worship contrary to scripture.

It is evident that tongues has their place in the church without disparaging its importance or minimizing the fact that when it is misconstrued it leads to dissension, pride and over emphasis of gifts at the expense of fruit of the spirit. The study should humble even the glossolalia enthusiasts for if the same phenomenon is rampant even in other religion or even in the African traditional religion. It must be noted that there is a psychological dimension to tongues. But it must be noted that there is the universality of the Holy Spirit as eloquently elaborated by Clark Pinnock who states that there is the, “cosmic range to the operations of the spirit.”62 It means that the role of the spirit evident in creation, languages and in every culture. The universality of the spirit has pervaded virtually in all religion and it is involved even in the psychological orientation of glossolalia. The multi dimensional and versatile work of the Holy Spirit must of necessity be acknowledged and embraced. The same is true for gifts like tongues it is not to be limited to one function. It is a gift for languages as well as edification, it is also a gift for encouragement as well as to authenticate the divine special revelation tongues or rather glossolalia could be both an intelligible language for public use and unintelligible ecstatic unintelligible language for private edification. The protean nature of the function of the Holy Spirit in the creation, the church, in the unifying the trinity must be asserted in comprehending the gifts of the Holy Spirit so that we do not limit the expression, intention, time and function of the gifts as glossolalia has been limited in the contemporary discussion. The gift is both evident in the language schools of the mainstream churches as it is profoundly presented in the Pentecostal worship. We should learn not to constrain, hem and box the Holy Spirit to operate in a particular modus operandi for the Holy Spirit is sovereign.

PERSONAL APPLICATION It is truly an exercise in futility and myopic if the reading will not a practical bearing and implication in the life of an individual. Hence this study has had overwhelming implication in my personal life and ministry. Firstly, it has made shun my biasness and myopic towards tongues and glossolalia completely relegating it to the Apostolic times and rendering the present tongue speaking to be at best counterfeit and at worst a well orchestrated fraud. The truth that I have gleaned from the study is that there is an element of both continuity and discontinuity in the subject matter of glossolalia. Secondly, that I should not disparage and limit the work of the Holy Spirit to certain form of worship for the Holy Spirit is evident and at work in the entire universe. The spirit is equally at work in mainstream and even charismatic churches, the spirit is at work in even all religion and cultures and hence should never, box, constrain, quench or restrain the Holy Spirit. I have also deduced that the apparent misuse of a gift does not imply that the gift is absent in fact it is an illusion that the real gift is still present and evident. It is my submission that I have been humbled to accept the gifts of the Spirit in others, Secondly, to be open to the Spirit and to submit to the sovereignty and universality of the Holy Spirit in the expression of his gifts and the wills to the glory and honor of God.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Bishop, James. An objective look at speaking in Tongues in 8 Brief Points, http://Jamesbishop 2. Blog.com retrieved on 2nd July 2018 at 2030 GMT. https://onlinelibrary,wiley.com>doi>pdf, Retrieved on 17th July 2018 at 2055 GMT. 3. Burgess, Stanley M Ed. (2003). The New Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Grand 4. Coleman, A. (2015). A Dictionary of Psychology, Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2015. 5. Creighton, Mandell. Persecution and Tolerance; Being the Holsean Lectures preached before 6. Dunn, James. D.G. (1988). “Holy Spirit”, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Walter A Elwell, Ed, Michigan: Baker Book House. 7. Francis, L., & Robbins, M “Personality and Glossolalia; A Study among Male Evangelical Clergy,” Pastoral 8. Goodman, Felistas. (1972). Speaking in Tongues: A cross cultural study of Glossolalia. Chicago

62 Clerk H Pinnock, Flame of hove: A Theology of the Holy Spirit, (Downers, Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1996), 490. 9

Chesosi Bonface Kimutai; IAR J Arts Human Cul Stud; Vol-1, Iss- 1 (Sep-Oct, 2020): 1-11

9. Gregory, B., & Eddy, P.R. (2009). Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. 10. Hin, V. (1969). “Pentecostal Glossolalia” in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion: 1969. 11. Karkkainen, Veli- Matti. Pneumatology. The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International and Contextual Perspective. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2002. 12. May, L Carlyle, A survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Christian Religions, 13. McGrath, Alistair. (1994). Christian Theology. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. 14. Moultmann, Jurgen. (1992). The Spirit of the Life: A Universal Affirmation. Translated by Margaret Kohl Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 15. Pinnock, C. H. (1996). .Flame of Love: A theology of Holy Spirit. Downer Grove: Intervarsity Press. 16. Poccock, Michael, Gailyn Van Rheenen and Douglas M C Connell. (2005). The Changing Face of World Mission: Engaging Contemporary issues and Trends. Grand Rapids, Michigan:Baker Academic. Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. 17. Robeck, C. (1982). “Tongues, Gift of” the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol 4.Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. M B Erdmann Publishing Co. 18. Schweitzer, E. (1964). The Church as the Body of Christ. Richmond: Richmond Publishing Company, 1964 19. Spanos, N., & Hewitt, E. (1979). Glossolalia: A Test of the Trance and Psychopathology Hypothesis in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 20. Sullivan, Charles.A. A critical look at Tongues and Montanism. https://charles Sasulluvian. 21. University Press, 22. Warfield, C. Benjamin. (1906). Counterfeit Miracles. New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sun, 1918.the University of Cambridge in 1893-4. London: Longmans, Green and Co, Retrieved on 30 June 2018 at 24: 24 GMT. 23. William, D., & Veli-Matti Karkkainen. (2008). Global Dictionary of Theology. Nottingham, England: Intervarsity press.