Speaking in tongues [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Richard Leigh

19-06-2003, 05:48 PM

Dear Kit,

Three or four things here:

1) Metropolitan MAXIMOS (Gk Orthodox in Pittsburg) smiled upon the movement among Orthodox earlier, which is not to say that he approved everthing that passes under the so-called charismatic banner. He made a significant presentation to the EP regarding variant unOrthodox expressions of spirituality in America, including Rodney Howard Brown's "Ontario Experience."

2) Let me quote my favorite, Hierotheos Vlachos (on the books he wrote he is titled "Archimandrite," in a 1998 publication of Divine Ascent: A Journal of Orthodox Faith he is titled "Metropolitan" but I couldn't find of where) from The Illness and Cure of the Soul from the Orthodox Tradition. It is presented as a conversation of five Orthodox people in Athens Greece, one the priest, three other men and a woman with the Archimandrite over a period of weeks on his subject of what he calls "Orthodox psychotherapy" by which he meant the "therapeutic" effect of hesychasm, which he explains fully. This book is the last of four volumes of which the first three present his material in theoretic form, and this one in practical form. I will begin the quotation from p. 148:

-- You have mentioned the gift (charisma) of speaking in tongues, said Constatntine. In the ancient Church this gift existed. Why has it vanished today?
--Who told you that this gift has vanished?
--But we do not see people today speaking "foreign languages".
--The gift of speaking in tongues was not for the Christians just to speak foreign languages. That, of course, also occurred, and it was the energy of God which granted it, so that the Church could be fortified. As St. John Chrisostom explains, when the Church was srengthened and true faith was confirmed, it was no longer necesary. Miracles are mostly for those who lack in faith. For this reason holy Chrysostom teaches that the nonexistence of this gift today is a sign of the increas and firmness of faith.
--Why did you say earlier "who told you that this gift has vanished?"
--You did not l3t me finish. The gift of speakin foreign languages was combined with ceaseless inner prayer. The Apostle Paul says characteristically: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above eery name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: And that every tongue should cnfess that Jesus Cjrist is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil.2, 9-11). In this apostolic passage the connection of noetic prayer in the name of Crist with the phrase "every tongue" is obvious. The name of Christ, which is recited in the heart and is a sign of the energy of God within us --the sign that we have become the temple of the Most Hoy Spirit-- is a great ower which subdues every other power and, naturally, the ruler of this world --the devil. This is noetic prayer. The Apostlesknew this inner prayer. The Apostle Paul is very explicit: "be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms and hmns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord" (Eph.5, 18-1-). This gift has never vanished from the CHurch. This is whywe can say with certainty that those who have noetic prayer or prayer of the heart have the gift in tongues, because they speak the "language of the angels.

I think the meaning here is not that tongues is noetic prayer (though I believe it is) but that noetic prayer (i.e., the Jesus Prayer) is "tongues," according to Vlachos. However, he also uses the language of "second baptism" on p. 95, where he says, "---In patrisitic tradition there are evidentlyb two kinds of baptism. Firt, there is he batism by water, and second, the baptism by the Spirit."

As a non-Orthodox myself who came into the so-called charismatic movement in the 70's, after it "hit" the mainline denominations (I'm Lutheran), I can safely say that the distinction that Orthodoxy has from "churches" of the West is her clear understanding of experiential religion, which, if understood thoroughly by us would heal our divisions, for there is little if any place for the experience of God in modern American Luthranism, e.g.

3) Caveat: there are dangers, but know that the Catholic churchis aware of them. She wisely chose to allow the movement as long as it remained under the guidance of clergy. The dangers are specifically the excitation of the phantasy. One does extremely well to have a mature spiritual father/guide in this.

4) Go to http://www.stsymeon.org/SS2.html.

5) There are many converts to Orthodoxy who have come out of Pentacostalism of various sorts and degrees, who now eschew their former experience, notably, a number of graduates from Oral Roberts University, Tulsa Oklahoma.

6) Remember that the Holy Spirit either initiates or comes from repentance.

Peace,
Richard

Justin

19-06-2003, 06:06 PM

Fr. Seraphim Rose speaks at length about this issue in his book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. I'm not sure that I agree with all that Fr. Seraphim says, but then who am I to disagree with him in public?

Justin

PS. According to the cover of the book Orthodox Psychotherapy: The Science of the Fathers, Hierotheos Vlachos is Metropolitan of Nafpaktos. And the Birth of the Theotokos Monastery (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/index.htm) seems to confirm this.

Richard Leigh

19-06-2003, 09:09 PM

Oh yes, John,

So I see, even in the A Journal!

Now all I need to do is find Nafpaktos and immigarate!

Richard

Richard Leigh

19-06-2003, 09:11 PM

Oops, that was Justin, sorry.

Richard

Tim Kerry

19-06-2003, 09:19 PM

Dear Mr. Davies,

There are a number of articles on the phenomenon of speaking in tongues on the Orthodox Information website. In general, as far as the phenomenon manifests itself in American Pentecostalism and the various charismatic churches, it is foreign to Orthodoxy. Fr. Seraphim Rose and other Orthodox critics of Tongues focus on the spirituality and motivations that seem to drive much of the “movement.” As Orthodox saints and writers have pointed out over the centuries, one must always be on guard against spiritual deception, both from without and from within. If one is actually seeking a spiritual experience the fear is that one then begins to open one’s self up to the influence of fallen spirits interested in leading one astray and ultimately to one’s destruction. In many charismatic circles there is an active seeking of a spiritual encounter which, it is believed, opens one to deception. Similarly, Orthodox tradition suggests that spiritual gifts and Grace manifests themselves after a person has struggled and purified themselves. Genuine humility and conquering of the passions indicate that one’s person has grown closer to Christ and authentic personhood. Here, it is thought, the Holy Spirit draws close to a person who has drawn closer to Christ. In charismatic circles the thinking seems to be that ascetic struggles and spiritual transformation as manifested in the lives of the saints can, in a sense, be bypassed and the Holy Spirit can be drawn down. Defenders of Tongues sometimes claim that this is because there is a new dispensation which God has bestowed upon a faithless age approaching the “End Times” and the increase in Tongues is an indication of His Mercy in what may be a final “pouring out.” Again, there doesn’t seem to be any theology or patristically-based reason for thinking any of this. Thirdly, people “struck” or “slain” in the spirit exhibit behaviours that in some instances are identified with demonic possession according to Orthodox testimony. Here, I am referring to growling and animal noises, uncontrollable laughter, or visions that communicate messages at odds with Church dogma and teaching. This is why some Orthodox writers argue that the gift of tongues was ranked the lowest of gifts in Paul’s writings to the Corinthians because it presented certain kinds of spiritual temptations thought to be potentially harmful. The Corinthian church had experienced certain kinds of problems because they had not completely disabused themselves of certain pagan notions or practices; the manifestation of trance-like states, speaking unintelligibly, etc, were already evidenced in pagan practices as well. As such, there was the danger that the Corinthians could have pursued these sorts of experience while mis-identifying the source for them. Lastly, speaking in tongues has most often been interpreted by Orthodox writers – at least the ones I have read – as imparting the ability to the apostles to speak in the language of another people so as to communicate the Truth of Christ. It did not mean speaking a sort of unintelligible gibberish. In an earlier post mention was made of Met. Hierotheos’ book. If you read the book in its entirety, and in the context of the issue of prayer, it is difficult to make the case that Met. Hierotheos was, or is, endorsing the charismatic movement. What the Orthodox call “Prayer of the Heart” as it manifests itself in the monastic practice of hesychasm is something quite different. In fact, if you read the same Met. Hierotheos’ book, “A Night on the Holy Mountain,” you will see this prayer and practice discussed at length, at which point you can then decide if the book mentioned earlier can in any way be taken as an endorsement of the charismatic movement. There may be some priest or bishop somewhere that has claimed tongues speaking per the charismatic movement is compatible with Orthodoxy but this does not mean it is Orthodox. To determine this one would have to determine if the practice itself is at odds with Orthodox spirituality and to date I haven’t read any Orthodox theologians of the past or present who would claim that it is. Lastly, as the lives of the saints are always a good road map for believers, the phenomenon of speaking in tongues does not manifest itself in the lives of the saints. There may be a few early saints -- I don't know -- who had this gift; however, it is not something that one finds throughout the experience of the Church. I might add that a number of more traditional Roman Catholics have started to question the movement as well, given the fact that it sprang up among 19th century Protestant primarily and made its way into Catholicism during the decade of the 1960s when all manner of experimentation and openess was in play.

Regards,

Timothy

Fr Averky

19-06-2003, 10:59 PM

Dear Kit,

How good it was too see your name on this post! As I recall from my days as a Roman Catholic seminarian right at the end of Vatican II, we were taught that speaking in toungues was a gift of Apostolic times, and died out after that. In keeping with the thought of the venerable Hierotheos Vlachos, the speaking of tongues exists within the Church for those who have received the gift and grace of prayer without ceasing. Still., I do not get the feeling that he is talking about the glossolalia, or the fabricated or nonmeaningful speech of modern day Charismatics. St. Paul admonishes Christians who have the gift of tongues not to make use of that gift if there is no one present who can interpret what he might say. He clearly states that if there is no one who can interpret what would be said, it is better to remain silent. I would say that the gift of tongues could not be given to one who is not in the Orthodox Church , which is the vessel of the fullness of Truth.

When I lived in California before I came to the monastery, I volunteered to cook in the evenings for about three weeks at a half way house for young men who came from broken homes and who had been in trouble with the law. This effort was run by a local Pentecostal church, and I was asked to help because one of my co-workers was on the executive board of the organization. It was done with the understanding that I would in no way participate in the religious life of the home.

I was present on at least four occasions when the director came in and said that the Lord had told Him to pray for such and such, and a rather raucous service would take place. One feature was the so-called "speaking in tongues," but having studied a number of languages, and havng been interested in the sounds of many languages, it was clear to me that this "speaking" was indeed senseless babbling. After one of these services, I asked a young man who had been "speaking in tongues" what he had said, and he shrugged and said, " I have no idea; it is just my spiritual language."

[[When I was eight years old, my mother owned a building which she reanted to an Evangelical group. One Wednesday evenhing by good friend whose father was pastor of the group, asked me to sit and listen to the service, hoping that I might convert. During the course of the evening, an old man stood up and started to shout very loudly in a very strange language. It frightened me so much, that I got up and ran out of the building. Later, I asked the pastor what had happened, and what had the man said, and he laughed and said that "only God really knows"]

Back to my thought. This was in 1974, and as you noted in your post, The Charismatic Movement swept into not only Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, but was quite popular for a time among many Roman Catholics and some Orthodox Christians, particularly among the Greeks. I found one element of this movement to be quite disturbing: Those who had received "Baptism of the spirit" were indicated by those who had been given the gift of tongues. Those who had not been given the gift were of course, still regarded as Christians, but they were regarded as being so an a lower level. I observed that those Charismatics who had received this "spirit" became very proud and vain about it. Because these people were not able to receive the Holy Spirit as is received by the Holy Orthodox Church, they could not perceive that those who truly have been given the grace of the Holy Spirit are most humble. The perfect example of a true Spirit -filled person is St. Seraphim of Sarov. When people become filled with pride and vainglory, feeling that they are a "higher" form of Christians, the spirit of which they are possessed, or rather which possesses them is a dark and evil spirit. When a seeming "gift" cause one group of people to feel shamed and inadequate because they have been denied a "gift", then there is something very wrong.

In Holy Orthodoxy, we receive Baptism by Water and the Spirit. First, we are immersed three times into the waters of Baptism, which cleanses us of all our sins, and then we are anointed with Holy Chrism which contains tiny drops of chrism which goes back to Apostolic times. We are annointed with this chrism, and receive "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit." This Charisma belongs to the Orthodox Church.

During the first madness of the Charismatic movement, a Greek Orthodox Archimandrite by the name of Eseubius Stephanou spearheaded the movement among Greeks. He grew so popular that he for a time published quite an impressive-looking monthly magazine. He went about the country filling spiritually-starved Greek Americans with a new emotional high, which generated a great deal of excitement - for a time. The Greek people have a deep spiritual sense, and many saw that this movement had no place in Orthodoxy. He was so convinced that he was a new "Apostle" of this movement, that he made arrangements to take this new "charisma" to Greece. After but a very short time, he was expelled from Greece at the insistence of the Archbishop of Athens. An official letter of complaint was sent from the Synod of the Church of Greece to Archbishop Iakovos of New York and North and South America that this man clearly was a heretic and had caused confusion among some of the simple faithful with his wild and un-Orthodox teachings. Fr. Stephanou was called before a spiritual court, but would give no clear answer as to his beliefs. After that, the Charismatic movemnt quickly died out and he went into oblivion. Happily, the Greek Church has grown spiritually under the loving guidance of Archbishop Demetrios, and with the strong monastic presence of Fr. Ephraim and his monasteries and convents

About this time I went to visit a classmate of mine who had become a Benedictine monk. There had formed a small group of Charismatics who looked to one of the monks of the community who had been carried away the movement as well. I was rather alarmed when I spoke to these people because their vocabulary was that of Penetcostal christians, not that of Roman Catholics. I was friendly with the Prior of the community, and expressed my concern. Sighing deeply, he said that these people were basically made up of the "Lunatic Fringe," and that the monk in question was soon to be sent to Rome to confirm his Cathilic faith, and he hoped that the movement would lose steam, which is what did happen.

In the mid 90's a movement started which I think ( Richard -you will know) is called the "Toronto" movement. I was visiting a fellow who did general repairs around my church to give him a check, and his wife was watching one of the many Televangelists who could be seen on Sunday afternoons. To be polite, I sat with the lady of the house and drank a cold drink. The pastor was giving a rather usual aermon based on the Scriptures, and he was quite serious and sober, not theatrical as some tend to be. All of a sudden, three or four very well dressed men began to giggle audibly, then they fell out of their chairs and begn to roll around in the aisle near the pastor, snorting and literally oinking like pigs! I hastily finished my drink, thanked my host, and left. When we see such things, we can only firmly belive that such thing can in no way be a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, but "The spirit of error, the spirit of guile, the spirit of idolatry and every concupiscence; the the spirit of deceit and of every uncleanness which operates through the prompting of the Devil" (prayers for the reception of Catechumens) .

We who are Orthpodox must avoid in any way any form of prayer, and "movement" which does does into the Tradition of our Holy Church; they are popular fads, and cause a stir for a time, and after enough souls have been captured by the Devil to satisfy him, they fizzle out. Kit, I can only you give my impressions of my own experiences with this movement, and I was so afraid for the souls of those people who flung themselves headlong into spiritual delusion, thinking that they had the "spirit," well they did, but it was a dark and evil spirit - poor lost sheep were being lured away by the Wolf. God help you.

Father Averky

Priest David Moser

20-06-2003, 01:01 AM

The gift of tongues does exist in the Orthodox Church - but it is quite different from the Pentecostal/Charismatic type imitation. Here are a couple of examples.

From the book *In Peace Let Us Pray to the Lord: An Orthodox Interpretation of the Gifts of the Spirit* (Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 2001), written by Fr. Alexis (Trader), an Athonite monk.

He relates the following from the life of the Holy Elder Porphyrios of Mt. Athos (+1991):

"The Elder's cell was often filled with visitors seeking his counsels, his blessing, and his prayers. Once among these visitors, there was a young French woman around twenty-five years of age who desired to receive the Elder's blessing. The Elder had her brought into his cell and asked if there was anyone present who spoke French. As Ms. Tasoula spoke French, she entered the Elder's cell as well.

"The Elder then told the translator to ask the French woman to tell him her name, what work she did, and if she was married. The translator asked the woman the Elder's questions, and the woman replied that her name was Anna, she was a professor, and unmarried. She had come here to Greece as a tourist.

"The Elder then asked her via the translator if she believed in God. The young woman answered, sobbing: 'I am a nihilist. Nothing exists.'

"At this point, the Elder told the translator to leave, despite the objections of others present who wondered how he would communicate with her. The Elder then held her head and asked her if she lived with her mother. And the woman answered.

"The Elder then said: 'My dear Anna, God loves you. He loves you. And God will speak to your little heart.' The Elder continued to speak to her, and the woman understood completely. He talked alone with her for some time.

"When the French woman came out of his cell, she was quite enthusiastic, exclaiming: 'Who told you that the Elder does not know French? He told me everything! He told me everything!' She was quite moved.

"When the Elder was questioned about what took place, he explained that he spoke in Greek and 'heard' the woman's responses in Greek, while she spoke in French and 'heard' his advice in French.

A second example took place at Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco. An American man and his family who had been inquiring about the Orthodox faith were visiting the Cathedral and they found themselves alone in the main Cathedral between services with only the janitor there. The janitor was an old Russian man who spoke no English and this American couple spoke no Russian. They had just experience the Orthodox Liturgy there and were looking at the beautiful iconography and talking between themselves about what they should do. The janitor walked up to them and said clearly and distinctly in unaccented English "You should be baptized now" and then went back to his duties. The man and his family were baptized shortly afterward and he is now an Archpriest in the Western Diocese of the ROCOR.

Priest David Moser

Richard Leigh

20-06-2003, 01:16 AM

Dear Father Averky, Kit, and the rest,

Yes, Fr. I do know. May our Canadian friends forgive me, I said "Ontario," when it was, as you say, "Toronto." Rodney Howard Brown from, I believe South Africa is its mafor proponent, with his brother, whose name escapes me. This is one of the American expressions of non-(and un) Orthodox spirituality that Metropolitan MAXIMOS wrote against in his paper for the EP. I have seen Brown in operation and consider what comes from him diabolic.

The Archimandrite Eusebius you mention is the one who manages stsymeon.org, so, perhaps, given your admonitions Father Averky, one would not want to go to that sight after all.

I agree with you Father regarding what Metropolitan HIEROTHEOS says regarding the connecton betwen "tongues" and noetic prayer. To quote myself: "I think the meaning here is not that tongues is noetic prayer... but that noetic prayer (i.e., the Jesus Prayer) is 'tongues,'"
A further correction to that would be that he actually said the two were "connected" and that the importance of tongue speaking in Apostolic times was that "it was accompanied by ceasless noetic prayer." and he maintains the point that such ceasless prayer continues to this day, and he identifies that as "tongues."

Beyond this, I will say that there are at least two recorded instances where someone spoke in tongues which were recognized each by different scholar as a language of antiquity, and that (at least one of them certainly) was in praise of God, and in neither case did the speaker know what he was saying. But these had nothing to do with what most on this list would consider "Orthodoxy" (i.e., neither of these were Orthodox, and Orthodoxy as "The Church" was not a question), I simply bring it up to point out that the Holy Spirit does many strange and marvelous things in this world even yet.

Richard

Jay Holman

20-06-2003, 02:39 AM

These are wonderful stories Fr. David. Are you and Matushka Ann the American couple?

Jay

Priest David Moser

20-06-2003, 03:06 AM

The answer to the question is no, the person in the story is my elder both in ordination and in life.

And to add a couple of corrections. First, I am not an Archpriest - not by a longshot. Second, my wife's name is Rebekah, not Ann.

Priest David Moser

Effie Ganatsios

20-06-2003, 05:42 AM

Last Sunday I was reading a text on Pentecost - Aghios Pneumatos (Holy Spirit) in preparation for the next day.

Speaking in tongues and prophesing are both gifts of the Holy Spirit but shouldn't be something that we seek. If we are given them then they are not to be scorned but the greatest gift the Holy Spirit gives us is love. Speaking in tongues and prophesing might not come from the Holy Spirit at all so must be treated with extreme caution.

Before writing this message I tried to find the text I read - I was sure I had filed it, but apparently I hadn't.

Fr Averky

20-06-2003, 08:03 AM

Dear father David and Effie,

With all due respect to Richard's feelings, your point is exactly what I am saying -such a gift of the Holy Spirit would have to be within the Orthodox Church, for He cannot operate in circumstances which formed by pride and spiritual delusion.

I believe that our new Orthodox Christian and new member Thomas was once in a Charismatic situation; perhaps he can share his experience with us.

Father Averky

Fr Averky

20-06-2003, 08:07 AM

Richard,

You were talking about the meaning of "nous;" there is a very interesting discussion concerning this in the book entitled "A Night on the Holy Mountain," referred to in this thread. I would suggest that you read it.

Father Averky

Fr Averky

20-06-2003, 08:22 AM

Dear Father David,

Reading your interesting post again, I would like to make an observation if I may. In regards to the old Russian man speaking to the American and his wife, it is also possible that it was the voice of an Angel of the Lord, sent to express to that couple His desire for them. There are many recorded incidents when Angels brought messages from God to men. This is just a thought.

Fraternally yours,

Father Averky

Fr Averky

20-06-2003, 08:49 AM

Dear Richard and Father David,

I just remembered a story that I read in an old issue of a religious magazine while waitng to see my physician. This is just a memory, and not the actual story, but it is close enough. There was an account given by a man as a memory when during the darkest hoursx of the Communist grip on Eastern Europe, he and his wife had occasion to visit one of the Eastern bloc countries. One of his co-workers at home was a refugee from. let us say, Hungary and when he heard that the narrator would be going to his homeland, he prayerfully asked him to deliver small gifts and a certain amount of American money to one of his relatives. Realizing that this would involve a certain amount of personal danger, the man and his wife agreed to make the delivery.

Soon after they had settled in their hotel in the city where the co-worker's relatives lived, they made their way to the home of the person they had to meet, being as discrete as possible. After praying to God to protect them, they approached the apartment of the co-worker's relative's door and knocked very quietly. The door opened only a tiny crack, and the man's wife explained that they had news for her from America. She cautiously let them in, and when the door closed, she became gracious and warm. The man's wife gave her the small packet containing the cash and gifts, and she and the woman were engaged in a lively conversation for more than fifteen minutes. They then took their leave, and the woman bowed many times and smiled, shedding tears of gratitude. As soon as they were safely away from the woman's neighborhood, the man's wife told him how the woman had told her how grateful she was that they had come, and that she was grateful not only for the gifts, but to know that her relative was safe. After a few minutes of silence, the man then asked his wife, "But how did you have that conversation? You don't know a word of Hungarian!"

I would say that this is not a matter of "speaking in tongues," but a real miracle of God.

Father Averky

Alvin Kimel

20-06-2003, 03:23 PM

For a wise presentation of glossalia, see Fr Simon Tugwell's Did You Receive the Spirit? He situates the gift within the wider ascetical tradition.

Owen Jones

20-06-2003, 03:59 PM

It's pretty obvious that in 1 Corinthians, speaking in tongues is the least of all of the spiritual gifts, with prophecy the highest. (for a true meaning of prophecy, Vlacos is good on this). But charismatics twist it around to make speaking in tongues the highest gift (proof) of the Holy Spirit. And, of course, there is the question is to whether what they are experiencing, or manufacturing, has anything whatsoever to do with speaking in tongues in the Biblical sense, or whether it is a manifestation of the demonic. My experience with charismatics is that they are all a bunch of petty peracletes (in their own minds).

Teo Kia Choong

20-06-2003, 04:18 PM

I have to say that speaking to Charismatics and proto-Charismatics is one of the worst experiences personally, not that I have anything against them,since most of them are my close friends. I asked a friend who was in an evangelical, charismatic church about what their church meant by "Baptism of the Holy Spirit", and the response was no less an emotional one which stressed, "I know I am praying to God the Father when I pray in tongues." But the Scriptural defence for their praying in tongues is no less lacking, and I try not to push the point further for fear of letting it devolve into any argument which would be very un-Christian.

I think the real problem with Charismatic doctrine is that it gives in a lot into emotionalism. When they say, "Surrender to the Spirit", during their services or fellowship, it is a case where they then 'wait for the Spirit to come'(in a literal sense of the word, which then defeats the point of Scripture being that the Spirit has descended from the heavenlies during the day of Pentecost, and works to this day to convict us of sin), and their services tend to become protracted as a result of this "waiting".

One has to question the Charismatic movement as a whole, because of the dubious leadership that has been in their ranks from the movement's inception to their current status. The early founders at the turn of the 20th century were caught for sexual scandals and cases of fraud, and even now, we have cases of Charismatic leaders who claim to be Christians but mislead the pack of Christians by outrightly saying they have a revelation from God or Christ that Christ is not God and such heresies continue on and on. The Bible warns that we will know the false teachers by their fruits, and certainly, if not by detecting their characters, we can at least fall back upon checking their teachings against the Bible.

Richard Leigh

20-06-2003, 06:47 PM

Thank you, Fr. A and Alvin,

for the referrences. I will look for those books. I am especially interested in the word "nous" and so particularly thankful, to you Father, for pointing out the book (article?)

Thanks again to both of you,

Richard

Chuck S.

20-06-2003, 10:47 PM

Richard Leigh

21-06-2003, 12:02 AM

All I can do is give MY experience of "tongues" but I'd say that most people who strive for this, are striving for God. I can look back now and see I was searching for something "real"...I'd say most who do this are doing the same, even though they'd never admit it.

Dear Thomas,

I'd have a hard time believing that someone who'd pursuied of spiritual gifts wouldn't admit they had been seeking something "real." Perhaps you meant to add, "not really having found it," or "...which wasn't really there."

Also, I have trouble thinking that God is absent any great social phenomenon of such spiritual implication as whether or not the Holy Spirit is Himself descending again on his people, even if what purports to be such descent is a great delusion of the enemy. For if it were just that, a mass delusion of the enemy, God would surely intervene on the part of His people; but likewise, if it were not, but rather a move of God, I'm quite sure the enemy would surely interfere.

There are many theologies "out there" on the Holy Spirit and His activity. What you're lookinng at in the Western church is something with extreme potential for confusion. Hence the divisions in so-called Western Christendom. Orthodoxy does not presume to say that the Holy Spirit is not in the Western church, or anywhere else, admitting that she cannot know where the Holy Spirit is not, only where He is, i.e., in Orthodoxy.

I know that there is a lot of misguidance in Pentecostalism, false doctrine regarding the sacraments and the Scriptures.

Let us ask Father Averky to tell us what "prelest" means. I have run across this word in regard to person's phanasy having run wild and their believing their imagined standing "in the Presence of God" bloating their pride. Am I right, Father? Is this what prelest is? This is a sure and certain danger in the so-called charismatic movement. But it doesn't mean that God does not give the gift of tongues. According to Scripture, the reason for it is simply to praise him, it has no purpose in the assembly (or the divine liturgy) unless it is interpreted, i.e., there is an interpreter. So far, I have found know one who knows exactly what this means, so, in assemblies where a tongue is heard, the group waits patiently for someone to give something in English. This is not necessarily what is occurring in such circumstances.

IMO (remembering that opinion derives from phantasy, so, forgive this self expression, if you will) the Holy Spirit has been poured out in these last centuries to bring the church back to Orthodoxy, but certainly that old serpent has not gone without some writhing and a few shakes and swipes of his tail.

I'm certainly headed in that direction (away from the tail, of course), and I see you have made it.

Blessed be God, the Holy Trinity.

Richard

Fr Averky

21-06-2003, 07:21 AM

Dear Richard,

As with lots word which describe Orthodox concepts are difficult to interpret clearly in English, from what I have been taught, "Prelest," simply put is "Spiritual Delusion."

Over the last thirty years or so, there have ben a number of monasteries founded here in the United States. The founders of these communities were at first sincere in their desire to live a monastic life with a few others. As has almost always been the case historically for monasteries, in time, laypeople seeking spiritual help and guidance began to seek out the superior of these monastic communities. Becasue these men were very rarely adequately trained in monasticsm, and had little life experience with having been living in true obedience and in humility, they soon saw themselves as "Holy Elders," collecting any number of spiritual children, who, believing them to be genuine, turned their spiritual lives over to them.

I could mention three of these institutions which ended in total disaster, for the founder became so filled with pride and delusion that he became mad with love of power and influence.

When a person begins to believe that he is very sure that he has made great spiritual progress, and can take into his hands the souls of others, and this is not the case, he has become very dangerous. When an individual has convinced himself that he is a highly spiritual person, and the "lord" (which lord- the lord of the Underworld) has let him know that this true, he is dangerous to his own salvation

One monastery, very well known to this day, was founded by two men who bought property in a Western state with the idea of struggling together and saving their souls. While one of them had attended the seminary, he was known for being very flamboyant and theatrical, not for his sobriety and quiet meekness. The other, a brilliant and well-educated man was a convert, but was by far the more stable of the two. What these men knew about monasticism came from books about monasticism and monastic saints in old Russia. They tried most ardently to apply the principles of the monastic life which they gleaned from their intensive reading and studies, but they were never in a monastery as novices, nor had they ever lived in holy obedience.

To support themselves, they printed a well-know Orthodox publication. In time, people began to come to their monastery to give support and to receive spiritual guidance. After a number of years, the local ruling bishop came and tonsured them monks, but they staunchly refused to be ordained. in time they did get ordained, and the flamboyant one began to think of himself as an "elder," and in time this became a personal tragedy and seriously effected the lives of innocent people who were to put their trust in him. Tragically, the more sober of the two, and the truly sober and serious monk of the two reposed at too young an age. After his death, having no one to tether him to monastic sobriety, the other monk went completely over the edge and ended up bering suspended for a number of reasons. Filled with pride, he continued to serve and to tonsure monks and to receive people into the Church. He was summoned to a spiritual court, but refused. After four years he was defrocked.

This still did not stop him: attaching himself to a spurious Grerk bishop, he came into contact with a esoteric group which had very stange religious beliefs and which had organized itself as and "Order." When their founder died, they needed a new "Guru," and this unfortunate monk was just what they wanted. He rushed around the country baptizing them with virtually no catechesis. In time, the group found out how immoral their "bishop" was, and stared to see the falseness and real madness of their "Living Saint," as one of their members had once called him. In the end, they abandonded him, and he lives in oblivion.

This a long answer, but I chose to answer by example. Thomas's description of his desire to be close to God and to something falsely in order to have the appearance to others that he was, is similar in that these false Elders wanted others to believe that they were grace-filled elders, when they were really self -willed and disobedient men filled with excessive pride. They had become deluded, that one, of them guilty of very serious sins against others was termed "spiritually so high that he cannot sin" by one of the monks who had been with him since the beginning.

Richard speaks about the founder of the "Toronto Movement," and terms his doings a diabolical. When a religious leader has become spiritually deluded, his true inspiration is the Father of Pride, the Father of Lies, the Devil, and unwittingly he has become his servant, offering as an unclean sacrifice, the souls of others.

Laypeople can also become spiritually deluded, and it is for this reason that I have always urged others to commence any spiritual exercise with the knowledge and blessing of a priest, for extremely dangerous is the path of one who attempts who attempts higher spiritaul matters with no one to help him.

We have discussed how in modern times some rare cases the Holy Spirit has indeed given this gift to someone, but as Owen correctly observes, when this minor gift becomes the measure of one's being blessed and loved by God, making him just a little "better" than others, there is a serious problem here.

Thank you Richard, Thomas and Owen.

Father Averky

Chuck S.

21-06-2003, 09:16 AM

Dear Richard,

You're right, my words were not put forth correctly.

What I meant is that I would never have admitted (or didn't want to) that my "tongues" were not real.

No pentecostal is going to admit they're just babbling, even if deep down they know that is all they're doing. (deep down I knew, but I wanted it to be real because then it meant I was a "true" Christian.

Is that any more clear as to what I meant? I may just not be putting what I mean into the right words, so if it isn't clear still, I'll try again! :=)

As far as tongues outside the Orthodox Church, well my knowledge is far too limited for a proper statement. But In my opinion, I suspect it is perhaps possible. Mainly in places of the world where there is no Orthodox Church, or Orthodox missionaries to comunicate the Gospel. But that is merely speculation on my part.

As you said, a quote often said in the Chruch is that the CHurch knows where the Holy Spirit is, but can't say where He isn't. However, even if a non Orthodox could truly speak in biblical tongues, (and I simply dont know but I certainly with God anything is possible) in my experience, what takes place in the pentecostal/charismatic churches is simply not biblical tongues, is not real, or of the Holy Spirit.

I wouldn't call it mass dilusion, or the works of Satan, or anything but I would say, it is just sincere people looking for the fullness of the Christian faith.

This is what I feel the charismatic movement is at its core. protestants looking for the fullness of the Faith, looking for the Church the Apostles founded. (notice the name Pentecostal implies the Church on the day of Pentecost) The thinking goes if they can speak in tongues then they must be the "true church"...or a "true Christian" because after all the Apostles spoke in tongues. So if I do, then my church must be the "true church" just like the Apostles. (not knowing the Church of the Apostles still exists of course in Orthodoxy)

Anyway I've gone too long. I hope I've cleared up what I meant. and again, this is only my experience of it. And some of this simply my opinion. I obviously am not stating dogma. So I really shouldn't generalize, but I suspect I'm not the only one who felt this was in those beliefs.

In Christ, Thomas

Richard Leigh

21-06-2003, 10:01 PM

Dear Thomas,

Yes, you cleared it up quite well.

I think by the history of it though, the Topeka Kansas "outbreak" was spontaneous. But what happens when people without direction, I mean spiritual direction from an experienced elder believer, is that they try to "figure it out for themselves" and piece together an unenlightened "theology" based on the iceberg tip of what they think they're experiencing. And do that in America and watch out!

Much of what God started (my opinion) spontaneously started being taken for the norm, and people began demanding signs and wonders of one another. Oh well, when God is at work, look for the devil to be close beind!

There have been several groups which have tried very well to contain the experience for the greater church. This is where I'd commend the RC's official response to it, but not only them.

Anyway, the Holy Spirit is for the church, and the Gifts God gives are for the church, and the church is to live organically, and no one in particular can speak for Her, on one's own. So, Father Averky is right

Richard

Justin

21-06-2003, 10:57 PM

I wouldn't call it mass dilusion, or the works of Satan, or anything but I would say, it is just sincere people looking for the fullness of the Christian faith.

I do not say what I'm about to say because I think there is an obvious, unquestionable, answer, but because I think it's something that is a legit follow-up question to the above quote...

If and when "miracles" happen at these various meetings (whether in Canada, Florida, or the events held by faith-healers at a local arena), where are they coming from? Or perhaps, from who are they coming?

Also, even sincere people can fall into prelest; "meaning well" is not really relevant. In fact, everyone (except perhaps the mostly holy of saints) falls victim to prelest to some extent or another (so says St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, and I would agree). It's just that some fall (or are led) further into fantasy and illusion than others. Only the saints can truly see themselves as they are, the rest of us are just struggling to see ourselves as we really are.

Richard Leigh

22-06-2003, 01:26 AM

BTW, Kit,

Since you started this thread with a question regarding your wife's involvement, I thought you might be encouraged to get a copy of The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia by L. M. Kontzevitch, for your wife (Check with Father Averky, I'm sure he'll approve it!). She might also enjoy Way of a Pilgrim.

Richard

Cyril Guerette

20-10-2003, 10:30 AM

My tradition, Baptist, is usually opposed to tongues here in Ontario (Toronto is in Ontario BTW). Personally, I disagree with them based upon exegesis of 1 Corinthians. I agree that much of glossolalia is babbling, and I have no problem with this, and it seems in line with what Paul was saying when he privately prays in his spirit. In a Church service however, there must be order, and interpretation is necessary. Ignoring this biblical mandate is what led to the mass confusion and disorder replete in Charismatic circles spoken of above. Yet, a student of mine, whose speaking in tongues is probably regularily the "babble" described above, related to me a story of her praying in a hospital chapel for a sick relative. She began to pray in tongues and a Portugeuse woman passing by the door began to weep. The student's mother was outside and asked the woman why she was crying. She said because someone in the chapel was praying in her mother tongue for healing from God. The mother showed the woman that only her white Canadian English-only daughter was inside and the woman was flabbergasted. Not being a Christian, the mother taught her of Christ with the result of her coming to faith. This is not a third-fourth-millionth person story, but someone I know personally. God brings much good out of bad doctrine and even practice, and the Pentecostal movement, begun in a Black church in America, has brought Christ across the planet at a rate unprecedented in human history. I too disagree with the haughty and faulty idea of higher Christians who received the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" as somehow seperate from true Baptism - I sometimes wonder just how much of 1 Corinthians they have read - but I have come to realize God is using many denominations, each with their imperfect reception of his Word, to bring his Name to the ends of the earth.

Seraphim de'angelo

31-01-2006, 06:38 PM

Greetings all. If I may, there is a good book about Orthodoxy and tongues (besides the one by Fr. Seraphim Rose - Orthodoxy & the Religion of the future) it is This one (http://www.reginaorthodoxpress.com/inpeacletusp.html)

Peace

Seraphim

Andrew

15-09-2006, 02:01 AM

I grew up in the Vineyard. My parents are still involved in charismatic evangelicalism, but five years ago I realized that their was something wrong with it, and went on a search for the true faith... I think most of the speaking in tongues" is kind of like typing adskjfal;skjfdskal;fjgoiue, only with language. It feels good, but it doesn't mean anything. Loud emotional music coupled with an intense yearning for this type of activity to occur will make this type of activity occur - it's not exclusively Pentacostol/Charismatic either - it happens in a lot of shamanic traditions. It's not Christian.

A lot of Charismatic stuff seems demonic, akin to the Montanists. In Peace Let Us Pray to the Lord is a great book on the topic.

Panagiotis

15-09-2006, 04:15 PM

I am surprised to see that no one has brought up the fact that the whole Charismatic movement seems to be a rehashing of the Montanist Heresy which tried to cripple the Authority of the Church way back when. Interesting to note that the experiences of the laity back then also run among this modern heresy as well: Shaking, Quaking, Speaking in Tongues, Prophesy(interpretations), etc.

It just looks like a huge rehashing of heresy. As Solomon wrote "There is nothing new under the sun".

Blessings,
Panagiotis

Peter Farrington

15-09-2006, 09:36 PM

I would not want to encourage the practice of modern tongues in any Church I am now associated with. But I think I share the opinions of some of the posters in this thread.

There is of course the noisy, chaotic, scary Pentecostal Toronto type charismatic expression. I don't think I can say much in support of that at all. I have been in meetings led by John Wimber which seemed entirely emotional and failed to make any connection between holiness of life and spiritual gifting.

BUT..I would have to say that there is a quiet type of charismatic expression which is not like that at all. In my own experience I spoke in tongues privately, and I am sure it was a self-produced language, indeed if I wanted to I could create such sounds now, though I would not consider them 'speaking in tongues'.

BUT..I do believe that my own quiet practice of speaking in tongues was an expression of a real desire to be in the presence of God. It was almost an expression of prayer which does not know what to pray. Now I would pray the Jesus Prayer rather than praying in tongues. I have a feeling that the impetus, the desire, to be in the presence of God at all times, was the same, but I did not have the tools as a relatively sane semi-charismatic.

I would want to teach people about the Jesus Prayer now, the quiet folk I mean. The noisy ones are looking for something else I think.

Peter

Paul Cowan

02-02-2009, 04:46 AM

Greetings everyone!

As Fr. Averky mentioned, I once believed pretty much everything Charismatics teach. I even "spoke in tongues" on ocassion. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Of course I now realize I wasn't speaking in tongues. Some non-charismatics say that when they speak in tongues they're demon possessed. While I would't rule that out entirely, if that is the case I would say it is VERY rare.

For me I was just "babbling"...I was just making stuff up as I went along. At the time I would NEVER have admitted this of course. When I believed those things, I was simply trying to do baiscally two things. And I would say it comes down to these two things for almost all charismatics who "speak in tongues"

1.) I was just attempting to do what I thought I should be able to do. Most pentecostal/charismatics see tongues as as THE sign that one has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and this the sign that one is truly saved. I believed that if I could speak in tongues then I was saved and had a relationship with God. This of course can be very dangerous, because if one doesn't speak in tongues, (or realizes what their doing isn't "real") then in their mind they aren't saved, and this can cause all sorts of spiritual problems. It did for me.

2.) The second main thing is connected to the salvation, but its alot deeper. To me, if I was speaking in tongues then I had a true personal relationship with God. For me, I was searching for something. I WANTED to be close to God, and thought the tongues thing was the best way to do it. If I was speaking in tongues, then I had something others didn't. It was proof to me that I WAS a Christian. And that God did love me.

I actually wanted to speak in tongues so badly. Certainly a part of this was pride, and the assurance of salvation, but for me, personally (and I'd say for most pentecostals) it was wanting something truly and deeply spiritual. I wanted a true connection with God, and if I spoke in tongues, then it was proof to me I had it.

I wanted this deep connection with God s badly, that I had convinced myself that some of the tongues were real, even though deep down I knew they weren't. But I wanted them to be real. Becuase I hungered for something truly spiritual.

That was my experience with it. Eventually I got away from those beliefs, and went the complete oppsoite direction into baptist beliefs just before discovering Orthodoxy.

All I can do is give MY experience of "tongues" but I'd say that most people who strive for this, are striving for God. I can look back now and see I was searching for something "real"...I'd say most who do this are doing the same, even though they'd never admit it.

Hope this helps somewhat in this discussion...

In Christ, Thomas

I realize Thomas is no longer with us and this is an ancient thread...

I got a call from my brother tonight asking me about my experineces with speaking in tongues. He said I told him I did it once, though I don't recall, but it was at a time in my life I belonged to an Orthodox cult. Yes, they exist. (long story)

Anyway, my SIL has a friend who is attending a charismatic church and participating in tongues. His question, is completely scripture based (PC) and how I (OC) felt about it. We talked about what this thread has discussed in Acts and Corinthians and ventured on to discuss the early church fathers versus the protestant reformation and Luther. We talked about Tradition versus scripture alone.

I told him I would ask ya'll how he might approach this lady and show her the error of the charismatic church. It is hard for me to guide him as he is not OC and he will be directing her to his church I am sure. What might be your suggestions? He is open to the early church fathers but does not really know them. (not that I do). I also think he is more open to Orthodoxy than my SIL. Though I doubt he will ever come over.

If I can break through the sola scriptura mindset, I think I can make headway with him. I look forward to your input.

Thanks
Paul

Paul Cowan

02-02-2009, 05:14 AM

RichardWorthington

02-02-2009, 10:02 AM

Additional thought,

How does one repent from prelest if they still believe in it's benefits? How do the demons using tongues instill in people a love of Jesus and joy in people? How do they manifest seemingly "good" things? ie fervor to pray, love of God and neighbor, healings. If people are being led astray by "good" things, how can it be all bad?

These are questions of rebuttal, not necessarily mine. Though I cannot answer them.

Thanks
Paul

I was a Pentecostalist once, and I also spoke once or twice in tongues: it was just babbling, and nonsense. It is best not to go on about demons ...

Where delusion might occur is that all the 'joy' and 'fervour' might be easily induced or sought in order to keep people from growing deeper into Christ (and the Spirit!!).

God uses our emotions, and gives us nice feelings as needed. Such feelings are like sweets ('candy' in American??). Some of the sweets and 'junk food' I remember from my youth (and, er, perhaps even now ... !) are pineapple chunks, cherry drops, bacon flavour crisps, etc. (Recently I've seen sweets shaped like fried eggs.)

The delusion comes when thinking that such feelings are themselves the gift of the Holy Spirit: they are not!!! The Spirit is the Light of God, pure and uncreated, illuminating from the depths. All created activities with our minds and hearts are irrelevant to this, in as much as they are superlatively surpassed: the illumination of our souls and bodies shows all our thoughts of the mind and feelings of the heart(*) to be like garbage ...

Sweets are useful for us at times, but that does not mean that we should ignore healthy foods like real pineapple fruit and real cherries, real meat, real eggs etc. This is the delusion: Christian groups read their experience into the scriptures and think that they have the fullness of the Spirit and then start to instruct. I have no doubt that God does work deep within them, but they over-estimate their experiences ...

Just a few thoughts, picked up from my spiritual father,

Richard
(*) - even those thoughts and feelings given by God are shown to be garbage in comparison ...

RichardWorthington

02-02-2009, 10:07 AM

If I can break through the sola scriptura mindset, I think I can make headway with him. I look forward to your input.

It can be best to point to the start of St John Chrysostom’s homilies on the New Testament:

It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course.
…
And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for "He," saith our Lord, "shall bring all things to your remembrance." (John xiv. 26). And that thou mayest learn that this was far better, hear what He saith by the Prophet: "I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them," and, "they shall be all taught of God." (Jerem. xxxi. 31–33). And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." (2 Cor. iii. 3).

But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word.

Homily 1 on Matthew
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.iv.html

The Book of Enoch (quoted by the apostle Jude) also says:

he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to 10 eternity and until this day. For men were not created for such a purpose, to give confirmation 11 to their good faith with pen and ink. For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous,

ch 69:9-12 http://reluctant-messenger.com/book_of_enoch.htm

Think of this: Jews (before Christ) essentially saying that they should not need the Mosaic law!!

So, if they adhere to the Bible alone then they are denying the life in the Spirit (a.k.a. deification). The Christian faith is not based on books, but the books are based on Christians who are guided by the Spirit. The Spirit has never forsaken us.

Similarly those who seek to make the papal office or Ecumenical councils infallible are in the same mindset: seeking to replace the direct experience of deification in the Spirit of Uncreated Life with a created knowledge. But since we do not live so pure a life, we do indeed need scripture and authentic written traditions …

Richard

M.C. Steenberg

02-02-2009, 11:20 AM

It is best not to go on about demons ...

Actually, if we're to understand these experiences in a manner that echoes the fathers, it is probably precisely what one should go on about.

Kusanagi

02-02-2009, 03:39 PM

Fr Cleopa says since people can easily learn a new language, via books, lessons and other sources the Gift from the Holy Spirit to speak in othe rtongues is not necessary anymore.

Robert Hegwood

02-02-2009, 06:13 PM

For what it is worth I was a Charismatic from my late teens until I was late 39...my that seems so very long ago. Anyway I "spoke in tongues" quite a bit both publically and privately. In retrospect I would not discount in all cases those who say it is a demonically empowered activity. Nor would I say that among Charismatics and Pentecostals there were never any genuine Spirit given incidences of this phenomena. After all I somewhat doubt that Balaam's donkey was a properly chrismated little odd-toed ungulate when she began to speak in the tongues of men. In my own case though, so far as I can tell, my "tongues" in substance were not a spiritual phenomena. I have received instruction on how to speak in tongues and followed them. Theologically it paralleled evangelical protestant soteriological teaching...repent of your sins, ask Jesus in to your heart as Lord and Saviour, and then trust that your sins are forgiven and washed away by His blood. With the Spirit the instruction went something like: Ask God for the gift of the Holy Spririt with evidence of speaking in tongues just like for the apostles and others at Pentecost, believe that if you ask Him for bread He won't give you a snake or scorpion, then step out in faith, open your mouth and begin to make sounds (as a kind of offering) and trust that God will take them and shape them into a language given to you for prayer. So that's what I did, and at first I too just "babbled" as it were but in a few seconds something else "kicked in" and the "speech" I was uttering came out more articulated, more fluid, like a language in cadence and intonation. And that is what I used as my "prayer tongue" for the next 20 or so years.

It was something I often turned to in situations where I did not know what or how to pray, rather I just directed my attention to the person or situation of concern and let loose until some sense of calm came to me.

Looking back upon that "ability" now...one I know I can still "do" to this day if I want (which I don't), I rather think I was engaged in something called psychomotor disassociation...a self delusional mind/body trick.

It is at this point though that the practice of praying in tongues begins to intersect what I later discovered within Orthodoxy. As I understand things now there was nothing genuinely prayerful about my "tongues". But in given situations my heart and mind were prayerfully, if non-discursively, engaged in praying for others while my mouth just vocalized in its own peculiar way. The tounges then functioned as a "distraction" for my rational/discursive mind and got out of the way of my inner prayer which did not need my "mind" telling God what to do and how to fix things. It was sufficient to hold the person/need up before God and let the "Spirit" interceed for those things I lacked the wisdom and knowledge to pray intellegently for.

In intent I have found this has a lot of resonance with how Orthodox use the Jesus Prayer when praying for others...just a simple concentrated, "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on thy servant", or 'As thou knowest best O Lord,have mercy on thy servant, or similar expressions to that effect. The heart is still praying, still holding someone or some situation up to the Lord for His help, and doing so without proscribing to God how He should meet that need. The difference is there is no mind/body trick...just the offering of a comprehensible but humble little prayer.

So with respect to Charismatic/Pentecostal prayer in tongues I would have to say it showed something of the right "instinct"...a right hunger for a more intimate life of prayer in the Spirit, just a misleading execution...upon which I am inclined to believe sometimes God showed mercy.

Robert Hegwood

03-02-2009, 05:28 PM

Addendum

By way of addendum, let me add one point that I had forgotten originally. I spoke of the "tongues" themselves serving as a kind of distraction for the rational/discursive mind. And this is true to up to a point, but the mind being what it is it cannot be still easily, and Charismatic practice is not about "stillness" of any sort...expecting God to show up and show off as it were.

When in this frame of mind when praying in tongues for more than a few seconds as I recall the mind begins to try and find something more comprehensible to fix upon...and this is where things can be dangerous, because the mind begins scrutinizing the imagination for any hint of perception...some more understandible image to digest. So impressions and thoughts/mental images can be siezed upon as being intimations of the Spirit...and these can be indulged without any substantive discernment. If they become particularly vivid or forceful so long as they don't trip any "theological" red flags (at least not too badly) then they are accepted as being guidance from the Spirit since when praying in tongues it was practically inconcievable that one would get counterfeit guidance.

This sort of thing I am fairly sure the saints and fathers would regard as a potentially very dangerous place to be, especially for someone who was naturally suggestive to the spiritual world who has not purified his heart. Again I suppose it is possible for some of these senses/impressions to be genuine, but I also suppose it is very easy for a great many of them not to be...and without a sound measure to judge by, the door is open for deeper and deeper levels of delusion...or disappointment.

This latter is a poteniality often overlooked which is just as damaging in its own way as out and out delusion. If you have enough "prophetic" impressions that keep turning out to be embarassingly wrong when you are doing your best by such lights as you have to be open and sensitive and obedient to the Spirit and all you ever get for your trouble is humiliation and disappointment, discouragement is not far behind, and when enough of the instructions of the accepted teachers never works for you...or works backwards, then the temptation is to blame God, and even despair which the human psyche cannot sustain, eventually coming to the place where you call yourself a fool for beleiving any of it anyway and chuck Christianity altogether as a failed cruel experiment...and one has plenty of personal experience with it not working to sustain that utter rejection as entirely reasonable.

RichardWorthington

08-02-2009, 10:40 AM

Mr Hegwood,

Thank you for your comments. I can remember attending a youth week, and it was there that we were encouraged to speak with tongues. ... Due to all the excitement of the place I thought that God had given me all the gifts mentioned in Corinthians. I even told the whole congregation when we all returned back ... no one took me aside to point out the blatantly obvious.

Yes it was discouraging - and some gentle 'dampers' from the leaders would have helped ...

BUT Christ is Risen, and His Holy Orthodox Faith lives in us!! (The Charismatics are only playing with a water pistol in comparison to the flood of the divine Spirit within Her!)

Actually, if we're to understand these experiences in a manner that echoes the fathers, it is probably precisely what one should go on about.

Yes, of course, but that does not mean assuming the worst for every person you meet! I can remember hearing of a case where someone actually did speak another human language when speaking in tongues - as opposed to speaking nonsense (with others 'translating'!!) and then thinking that this is the highest of all ...

And the language this person was speaking? German - true and authentic German without learning it.
It only came to light when someone who actually spoke German attended the same service and heard them speak.
The words - comfort to struggling ones? rebuke where needed? a wonderful revelation directly from above, speaking directly to our hearts?
Hmmm ... not quite!! The native German speaker instantly shouted for someone to stop that person speaking, as they were speaking great blasphemies and insults at Christ!!

And that is precisely where demonic activity would be found.

But I never experienced such things, nor saw anything close around me. I did hear of what seemed authentic 'other-worldly' knowledge, simple things which brought people genuinely to repentance and to a love of Christ. It is not for me to judge!

But to return to demons, when I was on holiday in Portugal, I saw many, many statues of Mary immaculate with those three children who saw 'her' when 'she' proclaimed 'herself' to be the Immaculate Conception.

Now this is demonic - three separate people seeing the same vision (if it was one person seeing such things then possibly it could be a purely psychological problem - although verging on the edge indeed!). Although being children, I would easily give way to the possibility that they were suitably influenced by each other, and nothing demonic was present apart from a false spirituality ...

However, I would assume that those Catholics who venerate our beautiful Sovereign Lady in such a false way need not even be touched by demons. I actually liked to see such a devotion to Mary, if only it could be severed from such worldly delusions ... (such 'visions' of Mary and extreme charismatic experiences are fundamentally the same, from the same 'place' ...)

But as said, it can only scare people to rant and rave about demons; I would never assume anything demonic, just worldly exuberance being taken for the Spirit ...

Richard

RichardWorthington

08-02-2009, 11:02 AM

PS. Just to put my comments on the visions of 'Mary' in context:

There were visions of 'her' when 'she' proclaimed 'herself' to be not immaculately conceived, and those were 'she' proclaimed 'herself' to be the immaculate conception.

Clearly, the same one God is not behind all of these, but equally the same God is behind neither! To bring the concept of revelation down to the level of giving dogmatic assurances is to totally debase the Christian Faith ... God has given us His Spirit, not books, nor councils, nor theological classes ... even though all of these three are excellent in their own way.

Richard

M.C. Steenberg

08-02-2009, 05:42 PM

I think we need to be aware that recognising demonic activity does not mean 'assuming the worst' of people we meet. Demonic activity does not assume the worst of the person; it assumes the worst of the demons. It in fact assumes the best of the person, since it acknowledges something that we are too keen to dismiss or forget in the modern world: that man has a foe, and that this foe is active, and that in those things where one experiences things that are not fully authentic to God's work amongst man, one is not wholly to blame.

The attempt to disassociate demonic activity from such things fosters a very deceptive view of what the demons are, and how they act. The fact that certain deceptions (such as 'speaking in tongues') may have certain dimensions that are positive in tone (such as the encouragement of a zeal for God, a deep devotion, etc.), does not mean they are not demonic; nor does acknowledging (as do the fathers) the demonic inspiration of such acts deny such positive aspects as may have been experienced, or the goodness of the persons involved. It does, however, allow us to see these things for what they really are, without imposing our own rationalistic mindset on them -- a mindset which often seeks to deny the activity of the spiritual (including the evil spirits) in almost all of our daily actions.

When we assume that we are wise enough to distinguish the demonic from the purely internal passions (e.g. by saying 'that kind of "speaking in tongues" is demonic, but this kind isn't...'), we are almost always deluding ourselves; and more often than not, such distinctions serve primarily to encourage a further divide between the rational and spiritual in the Christian life - rather than encouraging their right integration.

INXC, Deacon Matthew

RichardWorthington

12-02-2009, 11:39 AM

Dear Fr Deacon,

Yes - I was thinking of a purely pastoral approach. The charismatic movement itself - in the late 1800s? - was clearly from delusion, and demonic activity would be rife.
Also, thinking about it, we always looked at the American pentecostal movement as able too easily to go off course (I was a member of Assemblies of God, itself probably American - no offence to Americans, but religious nuttery does seem to be more pronounced there than here in the UK). I also left before the Toronto movement started, and I know little about it.

When we assume that we are wise enough to distinguish the demonic from the purely internal passions (e.g. by saying 'that kind of "speaking in tongues" is demonic, but this kind isn't...'), we are almost always deluding ourselves; and more often than not, such distinctions serve primarily to encourage a further divide between the rational and spiritual in the Christian life - rather than encouraging their right integration.

However, I think the above is too strong: if by 'demonic' we mean 'demon possessed' (such as speaking blasphemies in a foreign language might indicate) then clearly some gentle basic common sense can come into it.

You clearly have never found religious nuts (especially charismatic ones) who have tried to cast demons out of you ... it can be very traumatic!!

If you were to treat Roman Catholic spirituality in a similar way to Charismatic spirituality, would you be having the same approach?

Richard

Anna Stickles

13-02-2009, 01:29 AM

I admit I have not read all of this thread, but
The charismatic movement itself - in the late 1800s? - was clearly from delusion, and demonic activity would be rife.

I really can't agree with ascribing all charismatic, or maybe more properly ecstatic, phenomena as being automatically demonic. (and I would say that at least some speaking in tongues and other phenomena that goes on in the charismatic church is genuinely ecstatic not just pyschological.) although who can argue a certain amount of delusion is involved. The only ones totally out of delusion are the saints and they only achieved this after a long, hard struggle. St Symeon the New Theologian ascribes ecstatic states as being something the beginner experiences due to his impurities.

One example that may contribute to the discussion is King Saul and King David

I Sam 10:5 "After that you will go to Gibeah of God, where there is a Philistine outpost. As you approach the town, you will meet a procession of prophets coming down from the high place with lyres, tambourines, flutes and harps being played before them, and they will be prophesying. 6 The Spirit of the LORD will come upon you in power, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person. 7 Once these signs are fulfilled, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God is with you. …
As Saul turned to leave Samuel, God changed Saul's heart, and all these signs were fulfilled that day. 10 When they arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he joined in their prophesying. 11 When all those who had formerly known him saw him prophesying with the prophets, they asked each other, "What is this that has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?" 12 A man who lived there answered, "And who is their father?" So it became a saying: "Is Saul also among the prophets?"
I think that it is probably not out of line to look at Saul and David as examples that can help explain what is going on in the Charismatic movement. Here we see that Saul had a legitimate experience of the grace of the Spirit. It's very probable that these prophets were speaking in tongues along with other similar ecstatic behaviors. However, what happened later? Saul disobeyed Samuel, and his repentance was only skin deep. He justified himself and blamed the people. Then when Samuel told him the word of the Lord concerning losing the kingship finally Saul relented a little, but only because he was afraid of losing his reputation. ( I Sam 15:13-30) It was not a true repentance. And so gradually Saul due to this stubborn fear and pride got worse and worse eventually becoming demon possessed.

The lesson it seems is that God in his mercy gives his grace without stint, but that the person then is free in how they react. If the leading of grace is rejected (and that leading is always towards righteousness, love and truth) and pride is not repented of "the last condition of that person becomes worse then the first" (Matt 12:45)

Even Saul though was not totally abandoned by God. David's righteousness awakened him to repentance at least twice as we see in I Sam 24 and 26.

Compare Saul with David who also had the Spirit of God, the same spirit that was given to Saul, but the end result is different. David accepted God's correction with humility "Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge." and has left us many truly beautiful and prophetic psalms.

When his son died here is his response.

II Sam 12:19-24 David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.
His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!"
He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and he went to her and lay with her.
And when Absalom took his kingdom.

II Sam 16:5-12 As King David approached Bahurim, a man from the same clan as Saul's family came out from there. His name was Shimei son of Gera, and he cursed as he came out. He pelted David and all the king's officials with stones, though all the troops and the special guard were on David's right and left. As he cursed, Shimei said, "Get out, get out, you man of blood, you scoundrel! The LORD has repaid you for all the blood you shed in the household of Saul, in whose place you have reigned. The LORD has handed the kingdom over to your son Absalom. You have come to ruin because you are a man of blood!"
Then Abishai son of Zeruiah said to the king, "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and cut off his head."
But the king said, "What do you and I have in common, you sons of Zeruiah? If he is cursing because the LORD said to him, 'Curse David,' who can ask, 'Why do you do this?' " David then said to Abishai and all his officials, "My son, who is of my own flesh, is trying to take my life. How much more, then, this Benjamite! Leave him alone; let him curse, for the LORD has told him to. It may be that the LORD will see my distress and repay me with good for the cursing I am receiving today."

In the same way, maybe some of the ecstatic experiences in the charismatic movement may be a genuine touch of God, but the whole culture and doctrine lead many into pride and vanity, causing increasing delusion rather then a gradual enlightenment. This isn't to say though that there aren't individuals who escape this trend, although probably most leave the charismatic movement and move into more balanced congregations.

Father David Moser

13-02-2009, 03:57 AM

One example that may contribute to the discussion is King Saul and King David

I think that it is probably not out of line to look at Saul and David as examples that can help explain what is going on in the Charismatic movement. Here we see that Saul had a legitimate experience of the grace of the Spirit. It's very probable that these prophets were speaking in tongues along with other similar ecstatic behaviors.

I think that we must be careful about applying OT mystical experiences directly to the NT experience. In a post I made (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=73258&postcount=32) on the Orthodox Mystical Experience thread I talked a little bit about the difference between the overshadowing by the Holy Spirit that the OT prophets experienced (which was often marked by ecstatic behavior) and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is given to all the saints in the NT (and which is more often marked by humility and repentance). The two phenomena, while originating from the Holy Spirit, are both different in nature and purpose. The charismatic phenomenon is more akin to that of the OT prophets than the to the NT indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Or so it seems to me.

Fr David Moser

Anna Stickles

13-02-2009, 02:39 PM

The charismatic phenomenon is more akin to that of the OT prophets than the to the NT indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Or so it seems to me.

Fr David Moser

Thank you Father, for bringing this up, it reminds me of something I was reading not long ago.

The book Deification in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition has an excellent section on the different stages of revelation and experience.

"What is revealed by God is revealed in three stages: first there is the general revelation given through creation and especially conscience (Rom 1:19-20) secondly and more completely, there is the revelation to God's chosen people in the OT; and lastly , and finally and in the most complete way there is the revelation in Christ, toward which the OT Prophets pointed.

Each form of revelation is a stage toward the completion of our deification and has its own distinctive religious experience and forms a stage in the process of deification.

Thus, God's revelation through Creation leads to wonder, awe, and reverence toward the Creator and in the conscience, the "fear of the Lord" Prov 1:7) and a desire to do what is right.

The OT revelation gives a much more exact knowledge of what is right and wrong and shows forth the holiness and the love of God for humankind. The Prophets of the OT, especially Moses, shared in God's holiness and had a real and definite experience of the personal God by sharing to some extent in the glory of God.

The NT completes the previous two revelations as Christ "sums up all things in Himself" (Eph 1:10) and enables the coming of the Holy Spirit. In the NT, a close intimacy with God became possible through grace, so that being "in Christ" we can say that there is a true sense in which we are gods--that is, that we can be "divinized" or made "divine" by sharing in the divine life.

What you said in your other post is a good description of what I see going on among the more reputable and spiritual in the Protestant movement (often not in specifically charismatic congregations, but the ones where there is a more spiritual as opposed to strictly intellectual Christian life)

The prophetic blessing was not an indwelling of the Holy Spirit for the renewing of the person, such as we experience post Pentecost, but rather it was an "overshadowing" of the Holy Spirit upon a person who then was used as the "voice of God" to the people.

Although I do not think that we can categorically say that it is not for the renewing of the person, note I Sam 10:6 above. All that God is doing is for the renewing of creation and reversal of the Fall. Our state simply determines how and how deeply the participation is. Obviously the OT prophets were starting at a much more external degree of participation. And it seems to me that there is a marked difference between the later prophets like Isaiah and the earlier prophets like Elijah.

Maybe this gives some insight into what is meant when we recognize that those outside the Church are still God's people but yet do not participate in the fullness of the NT revelation as it exists in the Church.

I think it is interesting what the author of the Deification... book says about catechesis

"There were stages of instruction, as the potential convert became more committed and prepared as he moved toward the illumination promised by baptism, when he would finally move from the night of ignorance and idolatry into the light of new life in Christ.

The structure by which catechumans... were instructed in the Christian faith follows this movement from darkness to light. First, the arguments from Creation to the existence of a God who made the world...thenhe or she had to learn the basics of a true morality....Thirdyly and lastly, the convert was taught about Christ... Again and again in the early Church one may find this threefold catechetical structure, in more and more elaborate forms: (1) reasoning to bring out the logos in the pagan --that is the sense of God the Creator and the promptings of consience which bring the pagan nearer to the Logos who is the basis of all reason and morality; (2) specific moral instruction based on the ten commandments; (3) initiation and progress in the life in Christ --progressive deification.

RichardWorthington

14-03-2009, 03:45 PM

I really can't agree with ascribing all charismatic, or maybe more properly ecstatic, phenomena as being automatically demonic.

I agree: as we do not automatically talk about demons regarding Roman Catholicism, so too we should not generally talk about demons when talking with Charismatics themselves. That is why I made the comparison. It is not about being 'wise enough' to discern between demonic and non-demonic, but about befriending people: trying to convince someone they are deluded by demons is not a very good way to share Christ ...

St Symeon the New Theologian ascribes ecstatic states as being something the beginner experiences due to his impurities.

Which is exactly what we see in the lives of charismatics and also catholic saints: a 'beginner' can be someone in holy orders, of great monastic lifestyle, known for much church activity, praying, fasting, etc!! The 'stigmata' are an excellent example of this.

Lord have mercy on us all!

Richard

M.C. Steenberg

14-03-2009, 04:02 PM

I think this recent exchange about the role of demons, and the nature of 'demonic' activities, perhaps evidences some deficient understandings of the demons in Orthodoxy. The idea that identification of demonic activity is not pastoral is, in my mind, quite false - as much as it is also quite out of sorts with the example of the Fathers. As to the applicability to discussions with Pentecostals in particular: the reality of workings in the spiritual realm - positive and negative - is in fact precisely an area that should be engaged with in this context, as the Pentecostal mindset is far more willing to accept this than many others.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Áureo A. da. R. Ferreira

11-04-2010, 10:42 PM

This question about "speaking in tongues" is simple to resolve and good Bible translations easily solve this issue.

We know that the KJV is a translation from Protestant and Protestants (Traditional) separated the "church rebellious" (Rome) they have the idea that "speaking in tongues" was something related to Latin! So they called the language of "strange" because the Latin was strange to them (this explanation can be found in the original preface of the KJV).

And as they felt that Latin was this "strange language" then became necessary to change the meaning of the verb 'ακουει' that since the time of Homer does 'hear', sometimes as a language can not be heard?

This question has permeated the minds of Protestants (who edited the KJV) then simply Heard became understood.

Then all the mysticism of chapter 14 of 1st Corinthians is completely jaded leading the eccentricities that we see today.

According to Orthodox tradition the 'speak in tongues' occurs silently and only in the heart of the believer who is a 'communication' God-> Man. So that "nobody listens"

Áureo Ferreira

Vasiliki D.

12-04-2010, 03:03 AM

Áureo A. da. R. Ferreira

12-04-2010, 07:45 PM

I have not read through all the posts since the lengths are quite sufficient. I just wanted to share what I was taught about "speaking in tongues" from various athonite elders when I was younger.

To "speak in tongues" is not to actually speak in the foreign language itself. On the day of Pentecost, I have been taught, the Apostles spoke in their own native tongue but it was the Holy Spirit who opened the "ears" of those listening to hear the Apostles in their language.

I am not sure if anyone has covered this before or discussed it, however, this is what I have been taught from an early age that the the "speaking of tongue" is the "speaking in the heart of the listener" rather than what it is that comes out from the mouth of the speaker.

vasiliki

You're completely correct!

Any other interpretation of the following assumptions:

1 - Speaking in tongues is the heart and only the faithful receive edification;
2 - Nobody listens;
3 - On Pentecost, the interpretation is the same as Options 1 and 2, but God acted miraculously made the Gentiles who listened to the apostles declared in 'Hebrew'.

Our Saints defended the idea that the miracle of Pentecost occurred in people who heard the statements Apostolic, this idea was expounded by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory Nazianzen, Pope Gregory I, Venerable Bede, and many others.

And once again reiterate that the basis of Western interpretationist confusion is related to bad translations of the Bible.

Áureo Ferreira

Michael Stickles

14-04-2010, 06:33 PM

To "speak in tongues" is not to actually speak in the foreign language itself. On the day of Pentecost, I have been taught, the Apostles spoke in their own native tongue but it was the Holy Spirit who opened the "ears" of those listening to hear the Apostles in their language.

I am not sure if anyone has covered this before or discussed it, however, this is what I have been taught from an early age that the the "speaking of tongue" is the "speaking in the heart of the listener" rather than what it is that comes out from the mouth of the speaker.

That's an interesting interpretation, but what I found in some of the Fathers seems to run in the other direction.

St. John Chrysostom seems to indicate that tongues is speaking in another language, in his 29th homily on 1 Corinthians (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xxx.html?highlight=tongues#highlight) (emphasis added):

Whoever was baptized he straightway spake with tongues and not with tongues only, but many also prophesied, and some also performed many other wonderful works. For since on their coming over from idols, without any clear knowledge or training in the ancient Scriptures, they at once on their baptism received the Spirit, yet the Spirit they saw not, for It is invisible; therefore God’s grace bestowed some sensible proof of that energy. And one straightway spake in the Persian, another in the Roman, another in the Indian, another in some other such tongue: and this made manifest to them that were without that it is the Spirit in the very person speaking.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem's 17th Catechetical Lecture (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.xxi.html?highlight=other%20tongues#high light) seems likewise to imply this (emphasis added):

And they began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. The Galilean Peter or Andrew spoke Persian or Median. John and the rest of the Apostles spoke every tongue to those of Gentile extraction; for not in our time have multitudes of strangers first begun to assemble here from all quarters, but they have done so since that time. What teacher can be found so great as to teach men all at once things which they have not learned? So many years are they in learning by grammar and other arts to speak only Greek well; nor yet do all speak this equally well; the Rhetorician perhaps succeeds in speaking well, and the Grammarian sometimes not well, and the skilful Grammarian is ignorant of the subjects of philosophy. But the Holy Spirit taught them many languages at once, languages which in all their life they never knew. This is in truth vast wisdom, this is power divine. What a contrast of their long ignorance in time past to their sudden, complete and varied and unaccustomed exercise of these languages!

And again, St. Gregory of Nazianzen's Oration on Pentecost (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxiv.html?highlight=strange%20tongues# highlight) (emphasis added):

They spoke with strange tongues, and not those of their native land; and the wonder was great, a language spoken by those who had not learnt it. And the sign is to them that believe not, and not to them that believe, that it may be an accusation of the unbelievers, as it is written, With other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people, and not even so will they listen to Me saith the Lord. But they heard. Here stop a little and raise a question, how you are to divide the words. For the expression has an ambiguity, which is to be determined by the punctuation. Did they each hear in their own dialect so that if I may so say, one sound was uttered, but many were heard; the air being thus beaten and, so to speak, sounds being produced more clear than the original sound; or are we to put the stop after “they Heard,” and then to add “them speaking in their own languages” to what follows, so that it would be speaking in languages their own to the hearers, which would be foreign to the speakers? I prefer to put it this latter way; for on the other plan the miracle would be rather of the hearers than of the speakers; whereas in this it would be on the speakers’ side; and it was they who were reproached for drunkenness, evidently because they by the Spirit wrought a miracle in the matter of the tongues.

However, several of the other Fathers I looked at used language that is more ambiguous, and could be read either way; and my limited search undoubtedly missed a lot of patristic statements. Plus, it would not surprise me at all if the gift has more than one possible "mode of operation."

In Christ,
Michael

David Robles

14-04-2010, 09:48 PM

I posted this in the 'In Depth' section but maybe it belongs here

'The Gift of Speaking in Tongues' by Fr Zacharias in 'The Hidden Man of the Heart'

Fr Zacharias Zacharou in his book The Hidden Man of the Heart, explains the gift of speaking in tongues and why it was given to the Church on the day of Pentecost.
"We know that the gift of speaking in tongues (glossolalia) was given to the nascent Church for a specific purpose. The old Israel had become accustomed to worshiping and praying in a largely external manner, and when the Spirit came on the day of Pentecost, He wanted this to change. His intention, therefore was to teach the people to pray in spirit, in the 'hidden man of the heart' (I Peter 3:4). p.176
Those who prayed in tongues were happy being certain of one thing: God had broken into them and was at work in them. St Paul distinguishes between prayer in the spirit (pneuma) and prayer in the mind (nous) and identifies prayer in the spirit with praying in foreign tongues. (1 Cor. 14:15 and 1 Cor 14:14).
"for St Paul, spirit and mind are almost identical: he sometimes says that the highest purpose of Christianity is the renewal of the spirit and sometimes the renewal of the nous (mind). Nevertheless in trying to distinguish between the two, I would say that the spirit is present in the mind as something higher, deeper than the mind itself - that is revealed through the mind, just as the soul can be said to be revealed through the emotions". p.177
Prayer in the spirit is identified with prayer in tongues, when man's spirit is aware of the irruption of God into his life. In this kind of prayer the highest faculty of the human being is inspired by God, receiving his energy. Man then surrenders to the breath of the Holy Spirit, .., and the Spirit intercedes with unutterable groanings (Rom. 8:26) for those in whom He dwells, sometimes with words which are beyond the understanding of the psychological man.

In prayer of the mind, by contrast, the mind rises toward God in pious thought and godly desire. Such prayer is characterized by holy contrition or joy, but it is not liable to surrender to the great impetus and boundless spiritual exaltation we have just described. A degree of control is exercised by the person who prays in the mind (nous): he is able to direct his thoughts, desires and feelings.

Total surrender to glossolalia (speaking in tongues) involves a certain loss of control: it is an explosion of grace and joy, and while we are fully aware that God is within us, somehow we deny ourselves any awareness of our fellow members of the Body.

The best explanation for God's gift of tongues to the early Church lies in the necessity of teaching newly converted Christians to pray with their heart rather than just externally, as they were likely to have been used to doing, But the Church soon discovered a deeper way to educate the heart, for She was concerned to cultivate the inner man. She discovered the invocation of the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. And little by little, the Prayer of the Heart replaced the gift of speaking in tongues. The Jesus Prayer is a way of praying in the spirit without loosing any control of the spirit, and therefore, without running the risk of usurping the space of the other members of the Body of Christ.

In conclusion to speak in tongues or to pray in the spirit is indeed to immerse our nous in the sea of the Spirit. But the Apostle himself prefers to draw us in to shore, that we avoid even the possibility of disorder in the Body of the Church, and that everything be done for the sake of the edification of the people.

If this gift (speaking in tongues) has indeed been given temporarily to some people, perhaps it will enable them to discover the true unbroken Tradition of the Church, the Tradition of the Prayer of the Heart, which is the surest and humblest prayer in the edification, inspiration and salvation of man.. Through this prayer we receive the greatest of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the gift which will heal our nature and strengthen it 'guiding us into all truth' (John 16:3). It will enable us to bear the fullness of divine love. And this gift will never outlive its purpose - indeed it will accompany us beyond the grave.

It is important that we understand this phenomenon of glossolalia- we must not be seduced by it. But let us above all be gracious to those who believe they have experienced this gift and gently point out to them that it is the beginning of something far greater that will lead them to the heart of the Tradition.

Selections from 'The Hidden Man of the Heart' by Archimandrite Zacharias Zacharou, Mount Thabor Publishing 2008 p. 176 to p.189.

From the blog 'Finding the Way to the Heart'
at http://findingthewaytotheheart.blogspot.com/

David Robles

15-04-2010, 07:19 AM

Just to add to my post directly above 'The Gift of Speaking in Tongues' by Fr Zacharias in 'The Hidden Man of the Heart'
The book 'The Hidden Man of the Heart' is available from Light & Life at
http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=HIDD100
1544

Vasiliki D.

15-04-2010, 11:01 AM

Hi Michael, I appreciate your feedback and am glad that God has given Monachos someone who has such a good background in Patristics!

This is such a blessing to me on so many occasions. I am not very well read on Patristics so I really can not have a fruitful discussion with you or debate the content either way :(

Marie-Duquette

07-05-2010, 06:53 PM

Vasiliki D.;91850]I have not read through all the posts since the lengths are quite sufficient. I just wanted to share what I was taught about "speaking in tongues" from various athonite elders when I was younger.To "speak in tongues" is not to actually speak in the foreign language itself. On the day of Pentecost, I have been taught, the Apostles spoke in their own native tongue but it was the Holy Spirit who opened the "ears" of those listening to hear the Apostles in their language.

So would you say, Vasiliki, that as the Fathers/Elders teach, that a person is listening attentively to a homily or attending Divine Liturgy, let's say in Greek, and that this person, not understanding the Greek language, is understanding the inner meaning of what is being heard, with the "ears of the heart" and not with the "outer ears"? What is being heard is not necessarily a literal translation, but a mystical understanding.

I am not sure if anyone has covered this before or discussed it, however, this is what I have been taught from an early age that the the "speaking of tongue" is the "speaking in the heart of the listener" rather than what it is that comes out from the mouth of the speaker.

What you have said, being a translator yourself, seems to indicate that it is the inner spirit of the listener communicating with the spirit of the speaker; and, by spirit, it is meant that the Holy Spirit is intervening/interacting between the two. This is seems to be a Gift of the Holy Spirit given to the "hearer/listener," and meant to be a grace for the spiritual growth and benefit of this person. Otherwise the words would be automatically just floating over the head of the listening with no meaning whatsoever.

As you mention above this sounds as if it would be an interesting and enlightening topic for discursive sharing. I say this because when persons of differing ethnic backgrounds are trying to communicate on a Forum or in person at coffee hour there are so many differing levels of understanding going on. If I speak with a Russian speaking person who doesn't speak English, and I, not knowing the Russian language, can communicate to some degree by an inner understanding of love, acceptance, empathy; and little by little there will begin a true communion, inter-communication and understanding between these two persons.

So, couldn't the same be said of the inner communication or communion going on when person is attending a Liturgy done in Slavonic or Greek.

Other attempts have been made lately concerning "speaking in tongues" but, the aspect of "speaking in tongues" in relation to what the Fathers/Mothers say about this topic, has not been expounded upon, though David. Robbles has pointed the members of this forum to the book: The Inner Man of the Heart, which perhaps explain this topic more thoroughly I have not read the book yet, but hope to do so in the future.

marie-duquette

p.s. Sorry I haven't succeeded in posting this correctly using the quote wraps.

Owen

07-05-2010, 07:04 PM

This is close to, if not identical to, my own view that the Pentecost experience was a case of the Holy Spirit acting as a Universal Translator. The phenomenon is not limited to Pentecost, nor to that particular time in history; isolated instances of it still occur today, as it is written, "The wind blows, and you here the sound thereof, but you can't tell whence it comes nor whither it goes."

Marie-Duquette

07-05-2010, 07:13 PM

Owen, I agree with you that the Holy Spirit acts as a Universal Translator, as you mention in your last post # 59, and that the phenomenon is not limited to Pentecost or any particular time in history. The wind of the Holy Spirit blows as it wills. sometimes it is in a "gentle breeze" and at other times a "violent storm". the point is WHO is listening?

Thanks!

Ruth Sammons

08-05-2010, 11:09 PM

Yesterday I was given a book to read. It is called The Ascetic of Love, and it is about Mother Gavrilia Papayanni 2.10.1897 - 28 3 1992.

I have had time to read only the first few pages, but look forward to reading about this loving humble woman of God.

In the introduction is the sentence "A love which gave wings to all of us, in whatever we did ... In her humility with which she concealed her charisms, her many spiritual gifts ... In her Discernment ... In her Prescience ... In her healing hands ... In the Tongues we overheard her speaking at nights ... In the grace in which some of her spiritual children saw her, bathed in the Light and rising above the ground."

the book is 463 pp long, maybe I will find out more in due course, but I though it would add to the discussion if it were known that this Orthodox nun spoke in tongues.

Ronnie Shakespeare

06-10-2011, 05:58 AM

As we know through scripture the early church used tongues in church services. It was controled being used by Just a few people in turn and somebody interperted the tounges. Also there was another type tounge that could not be interperted and understood> praying in the spirit which christians did in private to God which only God understands
Also paul pointed out that not all christians had the gift of tongues.

At what point in church history did this Practise of praying in tongues stop and why?

Kosta

06-10-2011, 07:59 AM

All tongue speaking were rational authentic human languages. All references to this gift in the Patristic witness never make any mention of ecstatic utterance. In fact it seems the interpreter may have not possesed supernatural power at all, evidence suggests that the power to speak in tongues during church was only given in a language where atleast one brethren was fluent enough in order to retranslate the message for the majority native speakers. Thus if a group of syrian speakers attended a hellenic speaking church and one of the greek brethren was given the gift to preach in syriac, inturn either a fellow syrian who also knew greek would translate it back or a fellow greek with speaking knowledge of syriac would do so.

It is questionable what exactly took place in the Corinthian church. The Fathers believed they spoke in rational authentic foreign languages but were disruptive. The only other explanation is that Paul was nicely rebuking the pagan baggage that crept into the corinthian church, hence his harsh rebuke of women that they should remain silent. The various oracles were extremely popular in the hellenic world, there was even a minor one right in Corinth. Basically females would prophecy in gibberish and interpreters would translate the prophecy. The corinthians were attempting to reproduce a christianized version. Hence why Paul is emphasizing prophecy alone over the unknown tongue and admonishing the women to remain silent and not teach in church..

Kusanagi

06-10-2011, 01:25 PM

Kosta

06-10-2011, 10:50 PM

It hasn't stopped
Fr Iustin Parvu communicated well with a Japanese pilgrim even though he didn't know Japanese and nor did the pilgrim know Romanian.

It also was the same when Fr Cleopa spoke with St Justin Popovich, first translators were used then the translators realised the fathers could communicate with each other without translations they stopped translating.\

This is important because the Fathers only saw the need for an interpretor when the speaking in tongues was done in public, so all present can be enlightened In private conversation interpretors werent needed (further evidence that the gift only involved authentic foreign languages). Interpretors obviously were not need in private prayer using tongues but St John Chrysostom criticized private prayer in tongues as pretty much useless. In fact this thinking was in line with all the Fathers that came before him. It was always emphasized this gift is only meant to edify the faithful and not for yourself and to give understanding. He makes reference that private prayer in tongues no longer existed, but was practised in the 'older days' (perhaps it died out a generation earlier). He is also clear that these private prayers were said in authentic rational human languages:

For if a man should speak only in the Persian, or any other foreign tongue, and not
understand what he saith, then of course to himself also will he be thenceforth a
barbarian, not to another only, from not knowing the meaning of the sound. For there
were of old many who had also a gift of prayer, together with a tongue; and they prayed,
and the tongue spake, praying either in the Persian or Latin language, but their
understanding knew not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, “I’ll pray in a tongue,
my spirit prayeth,” i.e., the gift which is given me and which moves my tongue, but their understanding is unfruitful..." (Homilies on Corinthians)

Ronnie Shakespeare

08-10-2011, 01:32 AM

So do some orthodox christians who have been given the gift of tongues pray and sing in tongues=spirit in private to God?

Kosta

08-10-2011, 06:05 AM

No, The Fathers always de-emphasized such practises. This is because privately speaking/singing in tongues is an inappropriate use of this gift. The Patristic witness has always viewed the gift as a tool to edify the foreign-speaking brethren which are present in the church. While the interpretor would edify the native brethren including the individual speaking in tongues by translating the message back into the speakers native language. . St John Chrysostom's excerpt from my previous post says that in his time the practise of private tonguespeaking already died out.

Ronnie Shakespeare

08-10-2011, 07:57 AM

Does the practice of praying in a tounge with another to interpert still happen occasionaly in public church today by men to edify, or has that stopped aswell?

Father David Moser

08-10-2011, 10:38 PM

Ronnie,

You seem to have some preconcieved ideas of what the gift of "tongues" is and how it should function. Yes the gift still is manifested when it is necessary. It is not a part of our formal worship but rather something that is manifested as a teaching or pastoral tool. It is entirely possible that this gift does occur in the context of our worship, but it would be in the manner of "interpreting" or "understanding" a language which one does not speak (for example if a English speaker were to miraculously understand the Slavonic or Koine Greek of a particular service).

Orthodox services are liturgical - they are very structured since they are our corporate prayer (we are all praying together the same words and the same time) and so we don't just pop up with spontaneous interjections in the midst of the prayer. It would be like a member of an orchestra jumping up in the midst of a beautiful symphony to insert a bluegrass riff because he felt inspired to do so. Maybe beautiful, but out of place. The Apostle enjoins us to do all things in good order and so we do not disrupt the flow and continuity of the services because someone thinks he might have a "message" whether in "a tongue" or in the common language. Such a message would not be appropriate at that time or place and because it does disrupt the good order and beauty of the prayer would be suspect since our Lord does not bring chaos and therefore the "source" of this "message" would be from some other source.

The whole spectrum of pentecostal/charismatic teaching about the gifts and the practice that has arisen from that teaching is flawed and in error. Thus if you wish to perceive and understand the gifts of the Holy Spirit in their proper context, interpretation and practice, you are going to have to set aside all that old teaching, humble yourself and begin from the beginning with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. What you were taught about these things is in error because it is without its proper context. You cannot understand them fully until you have conformed yourself fully to the teaching of the Church. There will be no place for what you consider to be these "ministries" since you will be trying fit a misshapen square peg into a perfectly round hole.

Fr David Moser