Glossolalia

Glossolalia is the most visible divide of Pentecostal and other denominations, but it is not the only one. Today, the desire to speak in tongues after a term they interpret as the presence of the Holy Spirit will easily classify a Pentecostal church. It's curious because, using the same holy book, some Christians equate this gesture with a miracle, much as any other miraculous blessing, while others dismiss the notion and associate it with a past occurrence that no longer exists since the Bible was completed. It is possible to get lost in the myriad of explanations and viewpoints offered by the various perspectives. Different questions emanate from the issue of glossolalia such as whether Christians in church speak simultaneously in different tongues, or whether they should speak one by one. Speaking in tongues among the Pentecostal and charismatic churches could be either or divine speech or a humanmade speech which this essay seeks to explain.
Brief history of glossolalia
In the Christian perspective, the history of speaking in tongues has traced back in the bible, from the New Testament after the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. However, some scholars in 1901 suggest that one may find some hints of the concept of Galatians, Romans, and Ephesian (Shumway 2). As historians record, since the past, the problem of a satisfactory explanation started with the verses of the bible talking about speaking in tongues. There is no agreement on the concept that has a variety of interpretation on the subject seems like one. It labors through the conflicting and confusing literature found in the church histories, magazine articles, commentaries and in critical discussions, saves the encyclopedia. One of the most cited passages by those in the Pentecostal churches is Mark 16:17, where from the version of 1611 of King James version of bible reads that, ‘They shall speak with new tongues.’ As noted by Shumway, the conflict starts from first getting the information of the original meaning of the Greek translation of the terms. There is a lot of sense that got lost in the interpretation of the Bible from the original Greek language to the subsequent others. An example in the quoted verse above, that Greek word translated “new” does not appear in the three oldest manuscripts of the Bible that gave the appendix to the book of the mark.
Another concern on the writings of the history of speaking in tongues is the omission of some terms in the Christians’ holy book. Shumway notes that there is an open integrity of the last twelve verses of the book of Mark that first records the aspect of speaking in tongues, which translates to determining the significance of the promise according to the 17th verse. The final verdict from scholars upon this point is that it is evident that the passage has doubtful authenticity hence doubtful meaning. From such a perception, historians had to change the mode of interpreting the verse to use of any other light of other forms of evidence upon the subject. Although there are many verses in the New Testament, the most familiar verse in the literature of adherents of the concept and defined to have the history of glossolalia is Acts 2:4. The idea becomes typical and unexpressive when for instance the historians do not agree on the origin of the concept of speaking in tongue and doubt the associated original design from the bible.
The linguistic analysis of glossolalia
In 1972, William Samarin analyzed the speech of tongue-speakers same as a linguistic analysis of a foreign language. From researched churches in Italy, the scholar made a phonetic and semantic inventory to describe the words paralinguistic and prosodic features. From the analysis, glossolalia has two essential divisions of speech, the accent, rhythm, intonation and the pause (Samarin 78). He argues that the breath group of the language has categories into subgroups done through phonological features.
One of the critical outcomes from the observations of the scholar is that the foreign language contains syllables made up of consonants and vowels taken from speaker does he only know the native or foreign language. It has a mark of repetition, rhyme, and alliterations. For example, from the prayer of John Kissia, the wording goes like, “Dji-DJI-DJI-DJI-DJI-DJI, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Do-do-do-do-d [sic] -do-do-do, Zzzzzzzzzz, Amen,” (Kissia 1). The language while in comparison to the real language the scholar explains that an actual language is a 186 systematic relationship between the concepts and segment of speech, a relationship, which misses in glossolalia. Additionally, while there is communication function in language, words found in glossolalia has no individual strings of syllables that have to mean.
From the scholar’s perspective, glossolalia has to mean to the speaker, though the definition is only from the emotional aspect such as Joy, concern, and anxiety. From the exact angle, glossolalia is a meaningless but phonologically structured individual utterance, which the speaker believes to be real language though it has no systematic resemblance to any natural language whether dead or living (Samarin 2). Kessia who speaks in tongues during all of his prayers explains that though he cannot explain the meaning of the language he speaks, he believes that it is a divine language, which is known to the angles and all other heavenly beings (Kessia 2). Other forms of communication similar to glossolalia, which people using them pretend to be communicative and supernatural, include Spiritism, Haitian Voodoo, spells, Santeria cult and incarnations that form parts of the occult. Individuals use glossolalia for own goods as a participant of a given group such as a church or the prayer group (Mueller 180). The language has mental functions like signaling the transition into a new state, such as any other initiation rite. A historical note can be added to indicate that the phenomenon of glossolalia is part of a trend where the charismatic movement seems to have a twin to eighteenth-century pietism.
Glossolalia among different communities
Theologians and social anthropologists have had the question of language in the recent years that have yielded to parallel results. Not all cities are alike in communication and the language used due to the difference in forms between nonverbal and written messages and the content. In an analysis of an expression, the critical aspect is the contextualizing of the communication event. The mode of the language origin if ascertainable, may light the intended meaning. The focus may be either psychological like we saw influencing from glossolalia or the social context within the arena where communication takes place (Davies 195). Therefore, different forms operate in various principles within the constructed codes that have a distinction from both the language as well as the context.
Due to the meaning associated with words, which is different in the diverse communities we have in the world, glossolalia is different in various populations. In an interview with Kezzia, he noted that while speaking in tongues, one has the mandate to avoid abusive words hence when in a foreign country; one has to be careful on the words to use to avoid confusing the congregation. Reflecting from the educational systems between schools and community of working-class children, there could be a cultural discontinuity due to two radically different methods of communication. Such situation exists in some churches like in the Anglican church which has middle-class mainly persons who operate for the most part in an elaborate code (Davies 205). The institution chooses a type of speech with a controlled system though not the same as the limited code of the working-class people. However, this situation is only present in the contemporary society. In the traditional communities, even age was a factor in communication where young people could respect their elders also in the worship period. Different angles of showing respect reveal distinct utterance of words while speaking in tongues during the acts of worship.
A comparison of church fathers and the contemporary Pentecostalism
The best comparison of the two periodical churches and the application of the concept of glossolalia are from the patristic literature. The literature demonstrates whether there is a cessation or the continuation of the charismatic gifts depending on both the past and the contemporary perspective. The fathers of the church think that the gift of speaking in tongues ceased long ago, hence the focus of the literature is on their understanding of what they considered to be glossolalia (Busenitz 62). Through the study, it is evident that there is a different understanding of the nature and function of speaking in tongues between the fathers and the current generation and Busenitz seeks to compare the knowledge from the Pentecostal point of view. Some of the questions as scholars we ask ourselves is whether the church fathers understood that speaking in tongues consists of primarily of spiritual and ecstatic speech for purposes of self-edification. One concept that is not clear is whether the church fathers could define the gift as the natural ability to utter previously unstudied foreign language with the intention of evangelism and for edifying others.
From the patristic writings, not all Christians spoke in tongues since people have different gifts. The concept is different from the present in the Pentecostal and charismatic churches where anyone can speak in tongues at any given time after the manifestation of the said holy spirit. According to Busenitz, not only did either of the church fathers asserted to speak in tongues as a person but they consistently and harmoniously expressed their belief that just some Christians receive that gift (Busenitz 62). Every believer enjoys a unique gift from God, one in one way and another in a different way. It is not necessary that each faithful Christian should cast out demons, speak with tongues or raise the dead. However, Kissia contracts this statement for he argues that during this generation, there is much outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the visible indicator is through all believers having eligibility of speaking in tongues (Kissia 2). For the church fathers, only such one with the gracious gift for the purpose the salvation of unbelievers could see such a gift rest. Therefore, unlike the contemporary churches, the church fathers had no believed that every believer received the same spiritual endowment from the Holy Spirit. People had different gifts with one in Glossolalia and another possessing an unusual gift.
Can Christians speak Tongues without interpretation?
The point of difference between the apostolic and charismatic churches, and their critics is whether Christians should speak in tongues simultaneously in different tongues or they must speak one by one. While the churches hold to the principle that the gift may come to anybody, and they talk simultaneously, their critics point to the book of Acts and Corinthians on the writings of Bible where the speakers in the two books are talking together at once, but the language is familiar to different people in the congregation. About the Bible, Paul states that those who wish to speak in tongues should speak ‘one by one’ posing a question on whether there are two different and opposite teachings on glossolalia (Budiselic 178). However, some people attribute the difference between the two contradicting sides of glossolalia from conducting a textual analysis of the historical situations and contexts to which the bible texts refer.
The understanding of the nature of glossolalia in the Pentecostal churches has three main viewpoints. The believers accept harmoniously that among the majority of the members of that church, the ability to speak in tongues has ascription of the operations of the Holy Spirit. To their belief then, the Spirit provides the language to use to the speaker, whereby, the speaker does not understand, yet the language has an intelligible content. Therefore, the person speaking speaks in any human language, though in the other type of communication that is in its quality and not in quantity. According to Kissia, the language is a means provided by the Holy Spirit to communicate efficiently to their God, hence the reason behind lack of understanding to those around the person worshiping (Kissia 3). The second view is that at the Pentecost and during other occasions recorded in the bible, people spoke in human foreign languages though they did not understand the words they spoke and it had nothing to do with the category of the subconscious. The third resolution from the churches aligned to speak in tongues is that the writer of one of the verses, Paul mentions about angelic language hence the conclusion that the term refers to the mystery of speaking in tongues.
The act as a divine one, to define how, when and where the glossolalia is applicable depends on one's understanding of its purpose. As we saw with the comparison between the church fathers and the contemporary church, those maintaining that the gifts are outdated cannot seek such manifestations as necessary. However, for those who connect glossolalia with the expression of the daemon will be against it. Additionally, those with a view of the concept as the knowledge of a foreign language from which a speaker has never learned, and maybe God through miraculous way bestowed the gift upon him or her; there is such a manifestation to such a person. Kissia elaborates that for his present, it was a miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit and he cannot explain the foreign language he utters during his prayer (Kissia 3). However, for the people who argue for the importance of such manifestation that there are notable differences over how, when and where the gift is expressed. The perspective noted in the Pentecostals acknowledgment of glossolalia that it is not everyone who agrees on the importance of interpretation or the effect of the gift of speaking in tongues on unbelievers.
From the above discussion, we can conclude with some significant statements about glossolalia in the Pentecostal and the charismatic churches. At the beginning of these churches in the 20th century, some of the original religions believed that the phenomenon of glossolalia implied the restoration of missionary languages that would encourage the church for a fast evangelization. However, this concept has objection today despite some cases in history where some of the people under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit spoke in foreign languages that they never learned and others understood the languages. Another statement relevant to our study is that the miracles belong to revelation periods, and only appear when God is speaking to His people via an authentic messenger to declare His gracious purpose. When the revelation period is closed, the duration of miracle-working also stops as a matter of course (Busenitz 64). Lastly, in the past during the church fathers, Evangelical and Wesleyan leaders perceived tongues as spurious counterfeit produced by the Satan. In a statement from the Wesleyans in 1996, the church stated that it no longer viewed the phenomenon as originating from Satan but was in a continued question on whether it reflects the New Testament practice. Therefore, the concept of interpretation of the tongues remains with the perception through which the church practicing it takes into its faith.
The relaxing effect of glossolalia
Scholars connect the experience of glossolalia phenomenon to the feeling of euphoria, a concept of relaxation and changed state of consciousness. The positive neuropsychological relaxing effect of the event through the activity of limbic system and interior hypothalamus has a close association with glossolalia. From the scientific aspect, this states helps in relaxation of the body and reduces the skeletal, muscular tension same as the metabolic functions that protect the organism from disorders such as stress and decrease of the cerebral cortical activity (Koic 374). The principle of the altered state of consciousness (ASC) is a combination of ergotropism and trophotropism, where a person experiences the fusion with the surrounding, the universe, and God. The person in such an experience has the feeling of power, mastery, distortion of sense and grandiosity. It is from this perspective of relaxation that the Christian from churches with glossolalia orientation has a taste of connection with their God through the manifestation of the gift by the Holy Spirit.
There is a big difference between glossolalia, religious hallucinations like the vision of Virgin Mary and other similar vision experiences, which have a different integration into the systems of believing. As Kos notes, images occur spontaneously and disappear, while for speaking in tongues, someone learns the concept, it can go for some years, but there is atenuatence in time. Glossolalia has several types as differentiated among speakers and includes calm, witness and excitement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, in the religious context, more so from the charismatic Christian setting and the Pentecostal churches, glossolalia has a high respect. Scholars aligned to this church have come out to defend the concept through giving contextual boldly and the background of the Bible verses that seem to contradict on the idea that speaking in tongues is a concept that does not need interpretation. They connect the idea with the aspect of having possession of the Holy Spirit and communicating with God. The gift of the tongue is a given prayer and a language for proclaiming the gospel in which the preachers had never learned. However, to others, the concept needs an interpretation to make the congregation understand. Those who claim it is a purely divine language which does not require translation, the critics of glossolalia claim that it is just a mere language formulated for fame and meaningless.








Work cited
Budiselic, Ervin. "Glossolalia: Why Christians Can Speak in Tongues in a Church Service without Interpretation." Kairos: Evanđeoski teološki časopis 10.2 (2016): 177-201.
Busenitz, Nathan. "The Gift of Tongues: Comparing the Church Fathers with Contemporary Pentecostalism." The Master's Seminary Journal 1 (2006): 61-78.
Davies, Douglas J. "Social Groups, Liturgy, and Glossolalia." Churchman 90.3 (1976): 193-205.
Koić, Elvira, et al. "Glossolalia." Collegium antropologicum29.1 (2005): 373-379.
Kissia John, "Prayer and explanation of the concept of Glossolalia by a Pentecostal believer."
Mueller, Theodore. "A linguistic analysis of glossolalia: a review article." Concordia Theol. Q 45 (1981): 185-91.
Samarin, William J. "The linguisticality of glossolalia." (1968).
Shumway, Charles William. A critical history of glossolalia. Diss. Boston University, 1919.