Contemplatives and charismatics
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
An Anglican vicar once observed to me that he felt that both practitioners of contemplative prayer and charismatics, were essentially pursuing the same goal, albeit from different directions.
I've often thought about that since.
The older I get the more I see his point.
As many Shipmates will know, I've gone from a full-on evangelical charismatic position (with caveats) to a more sacramental one in the form of the Orthodox Church.
It took a long time.
I've been reflecting on what that means in terms of 'pneumatology' - not that I neatly categorise these things - and practice. It's true that I no longer clap and dance around and wave my arms about. I no longer 'speak in tongues' but could do so if I wanted to - or what passes or approximates to it in charismatic circles.
I tend to see it as 'learned behaviour' these days but wouldn't try to dissuade anyone else from doing it if they find it helpful.
I wouldn't dream of doing what passes for 'prophecy' in most charismatic circles either.
So, am I still charismatic?
I would say so, insofar as I believe all Christians are charismatic in the true sense of the term, endowed with gifts by their Creator and Redeemer.
I'm thinking aloud here - thinking allowed - so please bear with me, but if anyone were to ask how these things 'work' for me now, I'd say that I'm probably as 'charismatic' as I used to be, but that it's expressed or 'appropriated' differently.
Difficult though it is to believe at times, I do think the Orthodox Liturgy is 'pneumatic' and that God meets us in the hymnody and readings, the homily and the Eucharist. Other traditions will say the same, of course.
I suppose the big difference between my approach now to what it was hitherto, is that it feels less 'external' - you know, the charismatic idea that God 'shows up' - as if he isn't present already - or that he suddenly 'zaps' people like the big Monty Python foot descending from the clouds.
'God is present everywhere and filleth all things.'
This is something I think the great contemplatives of both East and West were all heading towards. Brother Lawrence peeling potatoes for the glory of God. No big flashing lights.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not against exuberance and 'hwyl'. Nor do I want to stereotype or caricature charismatics. It's not all froth and fluff.
Only today, an Orthodox friend told me he'd seen some very 'Patristic' comments on a 'happy-clappy website' as he put it.
I'm rambling and I don’t know whether I'm making any sense.
Do I hear an 'Amen'? Or a 'What are you on about?'
I've often thought about that since.
The older I get the more I see his point.
As many Shipmates will know, I've gone from a full-on evangelical charismatic position (with caveats) to a more sacramental one in the form of the Orthodox Church.
It took a long time.
I've been reflecting on what that means in terms of 'pneumatology' - not that I neatly categorise these things - and practice. It's true that I no longer clap and dance around and wave my arms about. I no longer 'speak in tongues' but could do so if I wanted to - or what passes or approximates to it in charismatic circles.
I tend to see it as 'learned behaviour' these days but wouldn't try to dissuade anyone else from doing it if they find it helpful.
I wouldn't dream of doing what passes for 'prophecy' in most charismatic circles either.
So, am I still charismatic?
I would say so, insofar as I believe all Christians are charismatic in the true sense of the term, endowed with gifts by their Creator and Redeemer.
I'm thinking aloud here - thinking allowed - so please bear with me, but if anyone were to ask how these things 'work' for me now, I'd say that I'm probably as 'charismatic' as I used to be, but that it's expressed or 'appropriated' differently.
Difficult though it is to believe at times, I do think the Orthodox Liturgy is 'pneumatic' and that God meets us in the hymnody and readings, the homily and the Eucharist. Other traditions will say the same, of course.
I suppose the big difference between my approach now to what it was hitherto, is that it feels less 'external' - you know, the charismatic idea that God 'shows up' - as if he isn't present already - or that he suddenly 'zaps' people like the big Monty Python foot descending from the clouds.
'God is present everywhere and filleth all things.'
This is something I think the great contemplatives of both East and West were all heading towards. Brother Lawrence peeling potatoes for the glory of God. No big flashing lights.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not against exuberance and 'hwyl'. Nor do I want to stereotype or caricature charismatics. It's not all froth and fluff.
Only today, an Orthodox friend told me he'd seen some very 'Patristic' comments on a 'happy-clappy website' as he put it.
I'm rambling and I don’t know whether I'm making any sense.
Do I hear an 'Amen'? Or a 'What are you on about?'
Comments
Possibly, sometimes. Though quite often charismaticism is a form of millenarianism. I've seen contemplative practices emerge/appear in charismatic circles too, sometimes due to deliberate influence but sometimes as a form of independent evolution - think of all those people who try and see pictures and so on.
I'm not necessarily thinking about techniques here but the end-result or what our RC friends might call the 'intention.'
I'd also suggest that many 'post charismatics' become 'contemplatives' of one form or other.
Well, on a vulgar level they can get there just by a reduction in energy and a bidding down process ("Did you hear God's voice?" ... "Well, did you see a picture?" ... "Maybe you felt something?")
Well, one form of sitting around and waiting can be replaced by another. A while back Ignatian Spirituality was a current in some charismatic circles.
I was just thinking that contemplatives are inevitably charismatic, taking it literally, in one sense at least. When engaged in contemplative prayer, as I spend a fair amount of time being, to try and relax my over-tense brain (centering prayer is very good, because it's not seeking to focus attention on a single thing, which in me could so easily attract hyperfocus, which is anything but contemplative), I am seeking the blessing of the presence of God. It is a longing for and seeking for the holy spirit, as is charismatic worship. I find charismatic occasions frequently far too noisy and focussed on the individual making the noise, but that really is a matter of temperament; I can equally see that contemplative practice looks like a very self-conscious seeking of selfhood by the individual to those for whom it jars.
The language of the charismatic church I attended was skewed toward God the Holy Spirit - it was the Spirit who we needed to ‘invoke’ so that we would have the high, the gifts, the blessings of God as the crashing waves.
The language of the contemplative meetings I have been to hasn’t been specified as God the Holy Spirit, but it has sought connection with the Spirit of God as the deep still water.
With both, in the early days of faith, I was seeking to receive.
The church I currently attend is focussed on the Trinity - perhaps a tad more toward Jesus, God the Son than the Father or the Spirit. I am no longer seeking to receive, as I have been in the past, but seeking to give - that is, to worship God alongside others - but in doing so I receive.
Does that make sense?
I have some quibbles with his stuff but like the emphasis on 'action and contemplation.'
In theory at least, that should take things beyond 'sitting around'.
I think the Ignatian stuff is still in vogue but probably more in App form these days.
Overall, I think the more 'reflective' end of the charismatic spectrum is becoming more 'Quakerly' in feel.
But then the 2nd and 3rd generation of 'Friends' became quite 'Quietist' so perhaps this is an example of history repeating itself.
I have never had the urge to speak in tongues It's supposed to be spontaneous but I have often had the impression that it has been practiced. I have searched for interpretations but have had to rely on the usual suspects to come with something.
I have often prayed alone but I don't really understand what's meant by contemplative prayer
Good question.
I imagine there may be different definitions and understandings of these things.
I suppose I'm using the term 'contemplative' to refer to forms of prayerful meditation associated with the medieval and Renaissance mystics and the more 'Catholic' traditions.
So, for instance, I'd include Ignatian practices within this definition alongside very different 'Eastern' practices such as Byzantine hesychasm - or 'stillness.'
By 'charismatic' I mean a sense of the 'immanence' of God, and not necessarily in a particularly demonstrative kind of way but including the way these things are expressed by contemporary Pentecostal and neo-pentecostal movements.
Good points, @Telford. I admire your caution and restraint.
I'm my experience many charismatic leaders and preachers don't take too kindly to questions or challenge. I've challenged a few in my time and came away relatively unscathed. I know others who weren't quite so fortunate.
I've certainly known of instances where people have suddenly or spontaneously 'spoken in tongues' - sometimes without any prior expectation or instruction.
More often than not, I believe it's a form of 'learned behaviour' which most people - even people without faith - can be induced into quite easily given some prompts, instruction and a degree of susceptibility or suggestibility.
I could 'show' you how to do it in a few minutes and with some practice you'd soon sound fairly convincing.
That doesn't explain the apparently spontaneous instances of course and I keep an open mind on those.
By and large, I don't think it's at all what practitioners claim it is - a kind of personal 'prayer language.'
If people find it helpful though, fine. It's not up to me what they do or don't do.
Praying alone is something I think we should all do a lot more of.
It's not necessarily 'contemplative' though but I'm sure all kinds of prayer could be considered to be meditative or contemplative in some way.
It's a big subject and there are people around who are well up on it and well-schooled in it - and not only monks, nuns and clergy of various kinds.
I'll try to think of some examples.
If you are clearing your mind for 'listening' then surely the expectation is that you are going to 'hear' something?
I s'pose the point I'm trying to make is that both 'contemplatives' and 'charismatics' have a similar end in view - some kind of connection or 'union' with the Divine - however they envisage or approach that.
Meanwhile, @Telford, with the usual caveats, these Wikipedia links may provide some background on the sort of thing I mean by 'contemplative prayer'.
Centering prayer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centering_prayer
Christian Mysticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism
Warning: lots of inaccuracies in that piece it seems.
Hesychasm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm
Health warning: don't try the more complicated or 'advanced' forms of this at home without guidance from someone who knows what they are doing.
I tend to be wary of the 'psychosomatic' techniques such as breathing and adopting certain postures. Some of that stuff can be dangerous I think unless carried out under some form of supervision.
When I asked a charismatic if that was analogous to speaking in tongues I was told rather sharply "Certainly not!" Evidently only one kind of non-verbal expression qualifies.
* just to reassure folks I have enough skill/experience not to put the congregation off.
Try telling a charismatic that 'tongues' are analogous to 'singing scat' ...
I'm sure your priest was right.
I'm not sure what the equivalent would be in the Orthodox tradition as we don't use musical instruments in worship, although some Greek churches have harmoniums.
By and large, we Orthodox don't tend to go in for meditation as such. We tend to stick to the set prayers and trust that those will carry us through.
As an aside, I'm often struck by the apparent corollation between improvisation and 'spontaneity' and what might be called 'inspiration' or the divine afflatus.
In some circles the more apparently 'spontaneous' or improvised something appears, the more it's seen as a sign or token of the Spirit's working. As though the Holy Spirit can't 'work' through set texts and forms and that self-expression is a sure-fire sign of his presence and operation.
Tongues are not scat. Scat is improvised nonsense words. Tongues are different. You would expect me to say that but they are. When used properly They are expressing something that words cannot express.
A typical charismatic worship block moves from upbeat to prayerful, often silence is appropriate.
The general principle is that God is always there, but you feel his presence more at certain times. These are no standard times but can happen at any time God wishes. However if you are in a prayerful place you are more likely to feel the presence.
The loud shouty charismatic image that s somewhat of a cliche and one that doesn’t match reality.
In the Byzantine musical tradition you can find "terirem" - improvised extensions of a chant with nonsense syllables to fill what might otherwise be silence.
The Russian tradition, with choirs rather than single chanters, does not have an equivalent.
As is improvisation more generally, and as someone who moved from charismatic circles to improvisational music circles, I suspect that younger me would have been 'freaked out' by the kinds of mental states I saw and experienced while playing improvisational music because I would have interpreted something social in purely spiritual terms.
I think these things are far closer than you think, and you are lading all sorts of caveats around them that I don't think exists in actual praxis.
This is *highly* culturally coded.
Like I said, 'trying telling a charismatic that tongues are like singing scat' ...
More seriously, I completely agree that the 'loud, shouty charismatic image is something of a cliche' - but it does exist and was probably far more prevalent when it is now when 'charismatic-lite' is the norm.
I'm not quite sure what is meant by the 'proper' use of speaking in tongues. I can't say I've ever seen any particular 'rigour' applied to how the practice is conducted publicly, other than to have apparent 'tongues and interpretation' done in sequence.
My wife was very musical and she could explain how 'singing in tongues' could be improvised and harmonised in a way that sounded 'authentic' and created a sense of the numinous. I certainly knew times like that back in my full-on charismatic days but I also know that it is possible to create the conditions where that sort of thing happens.
Heck, I soon 'learned' how to help facilitate an atmosphere where people would fall over or start to laugh etc 'Toronto' style.
As I've said upthread, I wouldn't write 'tongues' off completely - I've known instances of people who have started to speak / pray in tongues apparently spontaneously and without being induced into it by peer pressure or by meetings which rely on suggestibility.
But neither am I convinced that much of what passes for 'tongues' in charismatic circles is anything other than 'learned behaviour' and a form of improvisation akin to scat.
I can remember times when my 'speaking in tongues' felt more meaningful, if that's the right word, in a kind of 'groans that words cannot express' kind of way. As in Romans 8:26 but it's by no means clear that the Apostle Paul is referring to 'tongues' there.
https://biblehub.com/romans/8-26.htm
I'd also add that I am no longer convinced that it's clear what he's talking about in the oft-cited passages in 1 Corinthians 12-14. It's like listening to one side of a telephone conversation and trying to fill in the gaps.
Besides, @Hugal, it's not as if you are the only one here who has seen or been involved in this sort of thing. I would have counted as a fully-paid up card-carrying charismatic from 1982 until perhaps 2009/10. It's hard to put a date on when I 'stopped' as it were - and to be honest, I don't think I have. There's more to being 'charismatic' than being 'charismatic' as it were and it's not as if I no longer believe in the working of the Holy Spirit. I just happen to believe that he tends to work in a different kind of way to how many charismatics expect.
I don't actually believe I've 'stopped' being charismatic, I just tend to think these things work in a different kind of way.
@Alan29 - I've heard that, and wouldn't be at all surprised. Equally, if you see footage of some Hassidic or Ultra-Orthodox Jewish worship it looks pretty full-on and 'charismatic' in some sense.
Whatever the case, I get the impression from the intriguing instances we have from the Hebrew scriptures of the prophets rolling around and doing all sorts of funky stuff that 'ecstatic' states were always temporary.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I'm more open to 'charismata' from a highly-educated RC, Anglican or Orthodox mystic or monastic than I am to the good people from the Pentecostal assembly down the road. I think that working-class Pentecostalism - in both its black-led and 'white' forms - can be far more authentic than middle-class charismaticism.
But, as you might expect, these days I'm with St John Chrysostom who wrote, 'tongues are neither altogether useless, nor very profitable.'
I can't say I miss them. Nor do I think my spiritual life is any the poorer for that.
I can still 'turn them on and off' if I want to - there is some kind of residual 'muscle-memory' there but I don't think of them as actual 'languages' of some kind - whether human or angelic. There are a form of verbal improvisation that becomes 'automatic' with repetition and frequent use.
If people want to do that and find it helpful, fine. But let's not pretend it's anything other than what it is.
'I praise God I speak in tongues more than all of you ...'
I remember Josephine, Mousethief's wife who was an excellent contributor on these boards making the point that if 'tongues' were translated as 'languages' in most English translations of the New Testament rather than the more esoteric sounding 'tongues', then she doubted that Pentecostalism and its more middle-class charismatic relative would ever have gained much traction.
Medieval commentators tended to interpret the references in 1 Corinthians as the ability to speak languages one hadn't learned, rather than some kind of esoteric 'prayer language.'
It's hard to work out exactly what was going on from the Pauline epistles and from Acts so the best we can do is come up with an approximation and educated guesswork. And Tradition too, of course. 😉
'Glossolalia' was not unknown in the ancient world nor is it restricted to Christianity of course. There are instances from other religions, Buddhism, Islamic mysticism ...
I s'pose my view these days is that it is 'there' and that it happens and fair enough if that's the case, but it's not something I'd pursue or recommend. But I wouldn't 'forbid' it either.
There are some interesting studies into the phenomena and some intriguing questions - and I don't doubt that in some instances it can 'release' something from deep within the psyche.
But for the most part all one hears is the usual 'shondera hundera angarah bangerarah ave-a-bicardi, sell'im-a-honda, untie-me-bowtie' stuff.
The same goes for so-called 'prophecy' and 'words of knowledge'. It's the same half dozen or so scenarios over and over again.
'Some of you here feel like you are in a dark wood ...'
Some of us here wish you'd bloody shut up ...
Now, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the 'genuine' article but for the most part I've reached the conclusion that what passes for 'tongues' and 'prophecy' in current charismatic circles is a cardboard cut out version of the real thing.
That said, at its core I still believe that at gut-level the charismatic thing is a genuine attempt to engage with the Divine and the numinous and that occasionally they may hit the jackpot.
"..But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."
That was a very "charismatic" cherry picking.
The modern Mindfulness thing which @Hugal alludes to derives in part from Christian contemplative practices - with some Buddhist elements thrown in.
I think the Mindfulness thing has value but like anything else it isn't the be-all and end-all and needs to be supplemented or complemented by other practices.
I have questions about some things that come from the Richard Rohr stable but I think the emphasis on 'Action and Contemplation' hits a good note.
I also think there's more to 'contemplation' than 'Centring Prayer' and more to being 'charismatic' than things like 'tongues' and 'prophecy.'
And more to Mindfulness than chewing a raisin and noticing the sensations.
But we've all got to start somewhere.
Ha! Which is precisely what I was getting at. You'll have noticed I prefixed my comments with 'not according to charismatics.'
I didn't claim that the verse I plucked out of context represented my own position.
Charismatics are well-known for cherry-picking verses. We all are to a greater or lesser extent.
FWIW, as I'm no longer Sola Scriptura, I have little difficulty in owning up to being somewhat baffled as to what the Apostle Paul was talking about in his first epistle to The Corinthians.
That isn't to say we can't attempt an exegesis but my reading of it now wouldn't accord with how I read and wrestled with it in my full-on charismatic days.
That doesn't mean I dismiss all charismatic claims or doubt their sincerity.
Some Orthodox in the hesychastic tradition (re-)interoret Saint Paul's words as applying to one form of the Jesus Prayer: Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ ἐλέησόν με (Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me) - exactly five words in Greek, and meaningful/intelligible in contrast to meaningless mantras.
But as far as the point about intelligibility goes, spot on.
I remember an earnest charismatic on these boards, many years ago now, who went from New Frontiers into Orthodoxy. I list touch with him and often wondered what became of him.
I remember him saying that he got more of a 'buzz' out of chanting the Psalms or the liturgical texts than he ever did from charismatic fizz and zing.
Not that it's all about getting a 'buzz' of course.
I still maintain that charismatics and contemplatives are both aiming at the same thing from different directions and that the 'common denominator' is a sense of 'warmth' and intentionality.
It may be expressed differently but in each case there is an engagement of the heart and will as well as the head. The Christian faith is about more than giving intellectual assent to a set of doctrines.
No. The re-interpretation is late, and based on the coincidence of the number of words..
Quite. And if you just don't click with the culture it doesn't work. No wave of the Spirit, no Words of Knowledge, no "Pictures", no sense of the presence of God.
I have stood in the house of triumph
And loudly sung its song.
They threw me out when my words turned
To "How long, O Lord, how long?"
Without acknowledging that cultural factor Charismatics cannot explain, except by implicit or explicit victim blaming, the lasting absence of any sense of the presence of God some experience.
I've felt waves of emotion, being taken outside of myself, overcome by beauty, like I've heard tell of Charismatic experience. But it was at Cropredy a few years back and I don't think it was the Spirit of Sandy Denny anointing her fans as she saw fit. Even helped by the half a minikeg of Old Speckled Hen that was inside me by then.
If only!
How can those who believe in 'The Real Presence' in some way 'prove' that this is the case?
X-ray a communion wafer and you'd find the ingredients it's made of. And you'd also be rather missing the point ...
I can certainly relate to the idea of Sandy Denny's voice taking me 'somewhere else' and 'out of myself' even without imbibing Old Speckled Hen.
Your musical tastes and mine converge there.
The older I get the less inclined I am to put too much store or value on 'experience' as such. As I've shared elsewhere on these boards, I've recently joined the choir at our church.
So far, I've got a real 'buzz' out of that ... for one thing it makes the Liturgy feel a lot, lot shorter
In a similar way, I'd suggest that most - but perhaps not all, I'm not a cessationist - putative 'spiritual gifts' only have 'currency' where they are accepted as such. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe in 'tongues' and 'prophecy' then you are going to accept whatever utterances purport to fall into that category in your particular church circles as the real deal - or make excuses for them if they sound a bit lame.
Those of us who knocked around in charismatic circles for any length of time will have probably experienced meetings where the bar was set high at the outset - 'People will be healed tonight!' only for each 'appeal' to diminish from apparent 'words of knowledge' which don't actually apply to anyone present to calls for 'salvation' (when everyone present is already a believer) to an appeal for people to come forward for 'a blessing' or problems with belly-button fluff or something equally trivial.
Of course, not all charismatic churches are as inept and crass as that but the claims generally exceed the reality by a country-mile. Which isn't to say that people don't occasionally get healed or experience something remarkable.
My point though, is not to criticise or dismiss charismatics - some of my best friends are charismatics - but to argue that, in essence, at its best the charismatic thing and the contemplative traditions are aiming at the same thing but from different directions.
The best thing about the charismatic scene is a warmth and depth of genuine fellowship (that can go badly wrong but it needn't) and a sense of the 'immanence of God.'
I certainly wouldn't deny charismatics either of those accolades.
I might have reservations and concerns about some of the claims and practices, but I don't have any issue with the intention or motivation.
The Jesus Prayer which does not have to be "Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me" but which is generally a mantra centred around the name of Jesus. I believe that Evangelicals have on occassion just used "Jesus" and had good results but that is too radical for the Orthodox.
The other historic one "Make haste, O God, to deliver me! O Lord, make haste to help me!" is claimed by John Main to date back to John Cassian. It is not clear shether it is a mantra or an ejaculatory prayer before it became the opening response in many offices.
More modern approaches often use single words such as virtues, or gifts of the spirit.
Christian Contemplative prayer as described by Fr Thomas Keating does not use mantras.
My understanding is that in Christianity a 'mantra' acts as a centering focus, much as an icon or candle might provide a centering focus for wordless prayer. Repeated ritual acts can also do this.
I am not even sure that it is right to describe Eastern religious use of the mantra as meaningless. It might not operate as a word with a specific dictionary definition but it is being used as a sound to do something and as philosophers have pointed out we use words to do things. Thus the doing also contains meaning. It is not babble but a purposely chosen sound at least.
No it isn't. I've read and heard Orthodox say that it's fine to simply use the word, 'Jesus' if one wishes.
I think the 'meaningless' charge was levied against 'glossolalia' by Ex_Organist.
I don't think that 'glossolalia' can be described as a mantra nor do I think that charismatics would claim it to be one.
Heck, thanks to a very generous book token I've recently shelled out on all five volumes of The Philokalia, so if it was just about apparent 'mantras' and the 'Jesus Prayer' then there wouldn't be five hefty volumes of it, would there?
Equally, in fairness to our charismatic friends, I also don't think it's fair to restrict discussion of 'spiritual gifts' to the usual suspects of 'tongues and prophecy.'
At their best, I think all these traditions - whether Byzantine hesychasm, contemporary Western contemplative prayer, the charismatic movement and yes, secular Mindfulness, have much more 'to' them than the things we immediately think of - be it glossolalia, the Jesus Prayer or mindfully eating a raisin and watching one's posture.
Of course I would say that scat and tongues are different. It is true. Just because it is me saying it doesn’t make it less true. Just because things can me made to look like something genuine doesn’t mean that the genuine doesn’t exist,
There are many charismatics who are contemplative and prayerful. We should be like a good cappuccino. There may be froth on top but there is good quality coffee under it.
Don't misunderstand me, @Hugal, I am not saying that the charismatic and the contemplative and prayerful are diametrically opposed and cannot overlap. There is convergence and commonality. Which is the point I was trying to make in the OP and in subsequent posts.
Read what I write and not what you appear to think I'm writing.
I didn't say that glossolalia and scat were identical, what I was saying is that they are similar, that they share characteristics in common. You've only got to listen to what passes for 'tongues' in most charismatic gatherings to see the parallels. By and large it appears to be an improvised form of verbalisation with no cognitive content. It certainly isn't a 'language' in any true sense of the term.
As far as I am aware there are no documented cases of 'tongues' being an actual known human language. There was talk at one time about an occultic instance where someone spoke in Ancient Spanish but I understand that has now been debunked.
There are claims that actual languages have been used by 'tongues-speakers' but none are on record, which is pretty extraordinary given the number of people who claim to be able to speak in tongues.
It is a matter of historic record that the early Pentecostals came up with the idea that 'tongues' were some kind of personal prayer language once it had been demonstrated that they were not speaking actual languages as they had initially supposed. They resorted to a quirky interpretation of a hyperbolic Pauline text - 'though I speak with the tongues of angels' - to insist that they were speaking 'heavenly' or angelic languages.
With the best will in the world I very much doubt the angels are going round saying, 'Shondera hondera angara bangarah ave-a-bacardi sell'im-a-honda, untie-me-bowtie ...'
Now then, what I did say and which you appear to have overlooked, is that I have known instances of people who have apparently began to speak in tongues without any peer pressure or inducement. I keep an open mind on that. I would not rule out that possibility nor say that all 'tongues' are phoney.
What I am saying is that for the most part, what we find in charismatic circles appears to be a form of learned behaviour, with people either copying what other people do or developing a form of rhythmic and improvised non-verbal speech (for want of a better term) through practice and over time. In many instances it seems to be encouraged and induced by people applying a degree of pressure on the seeker. That may be less common now than it used to be in traditional Pentecostal circles and in sections of the charismatic movement as a whole.
I think all that is incontrovertible. That said, I fully accept that there are mysterious neurological processes at work that science has yet to explain or explore.
As for 'cherry-picking' - arguably the standard charismatic interpretations of the key texts used to support their position is a form of cherry-picking. I wouldn't quite go that far, but would observe that some of the most egregious forms of cherry-picking I've come across have come from charismatic churches of one form or other. That isn't to say the practice is confined to charismatics - of course not - and I'm sure we can all come up with examples from elsewhere.
Again, as I've said upthread, I am not a cessationist and am more than happy to accept that there are genuine instances out there of spiritual gifts such as 'tongues' (however we understand the term), prophecy and so on.
For the most part, though, I feel that charismatics are building too big an edifice on insufficient evidence.
It leads to special pleading. I once pointed out to someone that studies in a particular Pentecostal congregation showed that many of the people were copying or aping the 'tongues' spoken by the pastor. They replied, 'Why shouldn't God give the same tongue to the congregation as he gave to the pastor?' Rather than concluding the obvious, that they were consciously or subconsciously replicating the behaviour of the person with power.
Sorry @Hugal, I'd love to believe that what goes on in your average charismatic congregation week by week is exactly what charismatics believe it is. But the evidence points to a different conclusion.
That isn't to say that I don't believe that the Holy Spirit is present and active in those congregations. Far from it. Just as I'm not saying that he isn't at work in some way in your average non-conformist chapel or RC or Anglican parish or anywhere else for that matter.
I've been an active and participating Christian for 43 years, more than half of that in avowedly charismatic settings and I've seen the whole gamut from traditional Pentecostal to 'new church' to the Anglican and Baptist charismatic scenes. I've also seen some of the fringe extremes. The only charismatic scene I have no direct experience of is the Catholic one.
I know what I'm talking about both as an observer and a participant.
It's fairly clear that there's also some overlap with practices of ecstatic utterance/behaviour that are seen in other religious/religious adjacent/other settings (which covers some forms of scat)
My observation is that the exercise of 'spiritual gifts' varies in inverse proportion to the amount of best practice employed, almost line the baseline is quite low but it increases due to external demand.
I just think you are underselling the situation, but am happy to agree it is not always genuine.
It didn't happen. Why would I put any faith in the stuff I can't test when the stuff I could (some of which I can't speak of on here) doesn't pass the test?
My own career path and the rôle of supposed divine guidance in that has been rehearsed here before.
Oh, and the reminders, implicit in our soteriology, that if we don't adequately evangelise our non-Christian family members they were going to Hell, although I blame the Evangelical rather than Charismatic element for that.
I run a mile just on seeing a drum kit and mike stands at the front a church now, no matter how my secular music taste more closely matches contemporary worship groups than it does organs and Hymns Ancient and Antediluvian.
I don't doubt your musical or spiritual credentials, @Hugal.
But I've got a dozen or so years extra on you ...
I would argue though, that far from 'underselling the situation' I am seeking to redress an imbalance where these things have been 'oversold' - as @KarlLB's post points out so eloquently.
I lost count of the number of 'revival' prophecies I heard where the promised break-through and blessing did not materialise.
I think @chrisstiles is right too, that there are parallels and overlaps with other practices and that the base-line is generally set quite low.
As for 'Tongues kinda came first,' whatever the 'tongues' were (or are) that we read about in Acts and in 1 Corinthians, they didn't seem to last very long. There are a few intriguing references here and there in Patristic writings but by and large - apart from some isolated 'outbreaks' such as among the Camisards in 17th century France, we don't find a great deal of it until it was popularised in the 20th century - firstly by the early Pentecostals and later by the charismatic movement from the 1960s onwards.
All very exciting of course, but I'm not sure it adds up to a great deal. I'm more than happy with the Liturgy and some form of daily Office of prayer without feeling the need to babble or make a fuss.
I'm not saying that a bit of 'oomph' and 'hwyl' is unwelcome but plenty of people seem to manage very well without 'tongues' thank you very much.
If it floats people's boats, fine. I'm just not convinced it's always what it's proponents claim it to be.
I think it's a mixed feast, but certainly have found myself feeling very bored when in churches that tend towards the simpler end of the worship repertoire (for avoidance of doubt not every contemporary song suffers from this)
I'd assume the Spirit is free to show up whenever, but as you say the historical pattern seems to be somewhat isolated outbreaks - in which category I would count the early Pentecostal movement. The subsequent expansion is largely the result of influences of New Thought combined with early mass culture, and here we are.
Why should instruments and style of song matter? Most of those I know who insist on the organ being played don’t mind a string quartet. When an organist plays in a show offy way they are not pulled up but a band is seen as showing off. What some see as keeping up a tradition, others see as keeping the church in the 19th century.
Contemporary worship music is hardly the styles you see in the charts. It can be seen as its own genre almost.
Your own wording demonstrates the difference, the organist has to 'play in a show offy way' in order to stand out, the band by contrast is already on the stage.
That's only loosely true and also somewhat beside the point.
@Hugal - Some mumble mumble, well before I was married, before I met Mrs LB, so, Some Years Ago I went to a number of sessions at Greenbelt run by a name that might be familiar to similarly hoary shipmates - one Garth Hewitt. He'd written a bunch of songs for congregational use in the contemporary (for 1990s) style.
I rather enjoyed the sessions; the songs varied a bit in quality but doesn’t everything?
Anyway, where was I going with this - ah, yes. It's not the style of music or the instruments used per se - it's rather the content* of them, and the theology which I can pretty reliably expect to be exposed to if I should stay.
*towards the end of my time in Charevo churches I found myself having to alter words for some songs on the fly. This wasn't a sustainable situation.
So whats Garth Hewitt got to do with all this - ah, yes, the point is I could absolutely get along with that music style in and of itself, no problem. Unfortunately Garth's songbook, like the Dance on Injustice songbook which preceeded it, sunk like a stone without a trace. What's left comes from a place that theologically I cannot inhabit.
No just because the band is on stage doesn’t mean it stands out. If it is usual it becomes normal. Some organists can be seen. Things become normal very quickly.
Karl LB. I see what you mean but these days contemporary worship style music is often a certain style. It doesn’t match the styles that tend to chart these days. It is not R&B or anything like that.