30 Fun Facts About Tongues
Here are 30 fun facts about tongues, as individually shown in scripture, that I tied together from a few different sources. The word "fact" may be a bit of a misnomer, as the word "fun" may be. :) Hopefully my conclusion helps clarify my intentions. As a reference, you may want to review my Bible verses via biblegateway.com.
Fun Fact #1
There are two types of tongues: public and personal. (1 Corinthians 14)
Public Tongues
Public tongues are intended as a prophetic message to the church. (1 Corinthians 14:5)
Public tongues always require an interpretation for the listeners, with one exception. (1 Corinthians 6-13)
The only time that public tongues do not require interpretation is if the audience knows the language directly, in which case the message can be translated like any normal language. (Acts 2:5-11) I have second-hand accounts like this, like Robert Hewing speaking in Hungarian and Allan Thorner speaking Egyptian.
Speaking in public tongues and the interpretation of tongues are considered two separate gifts of the Spirit, though one person may do both. (1 Corinthians 12:10)
Public tongues are a sign to the unbeliever. (1 Corinthians 14:22)
Personal Tongues
Personal tongues are the outward sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 10:44-46)
Personal tongues are for our personal edification. It builds us up, like erecting a house builds on a foundation. (1 Corinthians 14:4) If we consider that we are composed of spirit, soul and body then tongues are a tangible way for our spirits to effect our souls through our bodies.
Personal tongues are the only spiritual gift that we can operate by choice. (1 Corinthians 14:15)
Tongues Enable Us
Tongues can be used to glorify God. (Acts 10:46)
Tongues allow us to "utter mysteries" without spirits. We can pray about things that we don't know or understand consciously. (1 Corinthians 14:2)
Tongues allow us to pray when we don't know what to pray. (Romans 8:26-27)
Tongues give us rest and refresh us. (Isaiah 28:11-12, quoted in 1 Corinthians 14:21)
Tongues allow us to pray in two different ways at the same time. We can pray with our physical tongues, as controlled by our spirits and the Holy Spirit, and we can pray in our minds in our native language at the same time. (1 Corinthians 14:15)
Similarly, tongues allow us to sing in two different ways at the same time. That's right, there are singing tongues. (1 Corinthians 14:15)
Tongues help us to "pray without ceasing." (1 Thessalonians 5:17)
Gear Up
Tongues fall into two general categories: regular earthly languages or heavenly languages. (1 Corinthians 13:1)
Tongues, as a prayer language, should be considered part of armour of God. (Ephesians 6:18, Mark 16:17)
Tongues can help us grow in the gifts of the Spirit. We should "eagerly desire spiritual gifts." (1 Corinthians 14:1)
Tongues as a Sign
Tongues are a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. (1 Corinthians 14:21, quoting Isaiah 28:11-12)
Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy and evidence of his ressurection. (John 7:38-39, John 16:7)
Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a sign of unity through Christ. (Acts 11) Tongues are like the opposite of what happened at the Tower of Babel.
Baptism of the Holy Spirit reminds us that we are saved by grace and not by works. (Galatians 3:1-5)
Baptism of the Holy Spirit reminds us that God is with us. (1 John 4:13)
Tongues are a sign that God uses the foolish things to "confound the wise." (1 Corinthians 1:27, 1 Corinthians 14:23)
Tongues show that God can be in control of our lives, even the tongue that "no man can tame." (James 3:5-10)
Three Levels of Intensity
Paul tells us not to forbid speaking in tongues. (1 Corinthians 14:39)
Paul wanted everyone to speak in tongues. (1 Corinthians 14:5)
Paul counted it a privilage to speak in tongues. (1 Corinthians 14:18)
Love
Tongues and other spiritual gifts are meaningless without love. Love is supreme. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3)
Conclusion
The last comment about love and Paul's emphasis on it in 1 Corinthians 13 puts the importance of tongues and spiritual gifts in perspective. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a goal in and of itself and it is not the mark of spiritual maturity. Neither are tongues. We should pursue both, as directed in scripture, but we should recognize that this is God's grace to us to help us grow in Him. It's nothing more and it's nothing less but that's a lot by itself.
The readers of this blog come from a variety of different backgrounds and beliefs. You may disagree with some of the points above for logical, empirical or theological reasons. That's fine. You can take this or leave it as you will. I just hope and pray that you will pursue God and that you will pursue everything that he has waiting for you. God loves you.
Acknowledgements:
Howard Katz and his notes for "33 Reasons Why We Should Speak in Tongues." My dad for his usual input. Richard Phillips for the Bible study that we did on this topic together back in January 2003. (Oy, this post took me almost than two and a half hours to write. I hope that it's not easily torn apart in less than thirty seconds. Heh.)
37 comments:
i love the word empirical. i'm glad you used it. good job.
good point about the love thing. kathy troccoli wrote once about an experience meeting new peeps from a church where they loved their tongues. when she went out for dinner with them, the pastor asked her if she could speak in tongues (which in itself is not a bad question, but at the time was said in a "are *you* in our club" type way). she was taken aback and simply responded: "are you asking me if i love well?" she kinda got them there
Gah. You beat me to it. I'm still working on mine.
Further thought - I'd like to get a copy of that 33 note thing.
Thanks for this synopsis, very thorough and very enjoyable. I want to preface my next comment with saying that I imagine I would agree 99% with you. However, that said, I still wanted to offer up a warning with regards to my previous comment regarding two types of tongues. You reference 1 Cor 13:1 "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." (KJV) to defend this point. However, this verse could be read in many ways other than saying that there are two types of tongues. Firstly, there is no sign that this is even refering to 'tongues' as you are talking about in this post, ie. the spiritual gift. It may instead be referring to something else. Secondly, if it is refering to 'tongues' the gift, it could be read that the tongues of men and angels is the same thing, rather than two separate ones. I'm not saying it's one way or another, I thought I should just offer a warning about being too dogmatic about these things we hardly understand.
Wait a minute, I missed the most important point here: tongues, and other spiritual gifts, are the conclusion of a long line of variables. That is, there are implications of both individuals and churches aligned with the will of God and filled with an out-poring of his Spirit. If these aren't in place, then the gifts don't come. This means that if we just focus on making sure we've got the gifts down properly without looking at the bigger issues, it's like making room on your shelf for an olympic medal the day your decide to take up skiing...it's good to plan, but you can't be assured. There's also a risk that because the gifts are a result of people/churches in tune with God, then people and pastors will want the gifts to show that things are 'going well'. First we need to figure out of the church body is truly representing the people of God.
I agree with your assessment of that one point, Abe. I had the exact same questions when I wrote that part but I decided not to extend an overly long post with contradictions. That does match my personal observations, though, so that's why I included it. If there's one part I'm not keen on defending, it's that one.
Similar arguments can be made about many of the other references I included. In fact, I once had a debate with a Baptist by snail-mail back in the day and that person disagreed with pretty much every item I just said. So no, I don't want to be too dogmatic about any of this.
Joel, I included a lot of the "33 Reasons" in this post. Apparently there is an audio recording of the full teaching that Howard Katz did and I'm trying to get a hold of that. I'll get you a copy of that CD if I can.
I don't have time to get into it right now but, for the record, I'll say that I see a few major problems with your approach to tongues. The distinction that is created between personal and private tongues is exegetically problematic, the assertion that personal tongues are the only spiritual gift that can be operated by choice is just plain wrong, and (worst of all) is the notion that the baptism of the holy spirit must be accompanied by the gift of tongues. This notion more than the others, must be refuted.
Maybe when I'm done my crap-load of assignments, I'll say more about this. After all, tongues are all well and good but people tend to do a lot of things with them that are... well... not so well and good.
Peace,
Dan
"the gifts are a result of people/churches in tune with God" - abe
... unless someone is just making up a prophecy.
"The distinction that is created between personal and private tongues is exegetically problematic" - dan
... i'm looking forward to your being able to expand on this too because to me it seems totally right on with what i have learned and experienced, in my mind, I cannot even see it any other way!
"the assertion that personal tongues are the only spiritual gift that can be operated by choice is just plain wrong" - dan
... i agree! if you refuse to open your mouth, it's kind of hard to do many of them.
"when i pray in tongues, i feel like i am being built up inside. i like it." - me
fun fun fun
regarding Abe's comment about 1 Cor 13:1 " "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." "Firstly, there is no sign that this is even refering to 'tongues' as you are talking about in this post, ie. the spiritual gift. It may instead be referring to something else." " If we care to look at context, let's look at the chapers 12, 13, 14. (In a recent comment on Jamie's last post, I quoted all the first and last verses from these chapters in a row, trying, probably, to justify the same point I'm about to reiterate) Chapter 12 gives really really basic information on all the 9 spiritual gifts. Chapter 13 reminds of that even though we have spiritual gifts love, faith and hope, esp. love, are far more important. Chapter 14 then goes into more detail on two of the gifts: tongues and prophecy. this sequence indicates very clearly to me that the sandwiched chapter on love is juxtaposing love directly and emphatically with the spiritual gifts. -ie, it is clearly not referring to anything else.
abe : "I'm not saying it's one way or another, I thought I should just offer a warning about being too dogmatic about these things we hardly understand." Well I disagree, i think that we should be dogmatic about things that we do understand. To me scripture in these chapters is clear, perhaps it's years of exposure, perhaps it's lots of teaching I've received and believe, but if we are hardly understanding then let's start understanding and more than that, practicing!
my last point (i'm sorry i'm in such a disagreeable mood) is also addressing Abe (hey, we should meet some time) "the gifts are a result of people/churches in tune with God, " this is true to a small degree. but consider the corinthian church. Paul is addressing these believers in particular about the spiritual gifts -no other church gets this lengthy explanation from him on this topic. so obviously their church practiced the gifts extensively -note that he restricted their prophecying to only 2 or 3 at a time. however, in the same letter, he tells them to get their hearts right during the Lord's supper (or face judgement), to stop accepting crude immorality in the church body (a man in sexual relationship with his step-mother), he explain the basics of heavenly rewards and judgement, and commands them to stop judging one another. This was not a mature spiritual church, the corinthians were in spiritual trouble and immaturity.
My conclusion of that is, man! I want to walk in all the gifts that the Holy Spirit has for me -cause I want to be personally edified, and I want to edify the church. and if the corithians can have it in their sad state, then I certainly can too.
Abe, I was writing my comments from 10:26 am while you were writing your comments from 10:25 am. Funny. I agree that love is greater than gifts. However, I think that Acts 19:4-7 addresses your point about a "long line of variables."
Dan, thanks for your quick response with the time you had. You probably devoted enough time in merely reading my long post. :)
You can feel free to post your thoughts when you get the chance. I'm sure one more view point will add some insight, since we already have many represented in this audience. I have no desire to slam any differing interpretations or ideas, as I've mentioned before regarding regarding tongues as a required sign of baptism. You're as welcome as anyone to post your comments.
(Sorry, I'm going to requote a lot of stuff here, but just so it's clear in this long discussion what exactly I'm referring to)
Andrea - "This sequence indicates very clearly to me that the sandwiched chapter on love is juxtaposing love directly and emphatically with the spiritual gifts. -ie, it is clearly not referring to anything else."
I just can't agree with you that we can be that sure. In Chapter 13 you're right that it is comparing love to other things, but these are by no means all 'spiritual gifts' as identified in chapter 12. In verses 1-3 although prophecy is there, so are knowing all mysteries and knowledge, having faith to move mountains, giving away all ones possesions and sacrifcing ones body. As well, the Greek word used (glossa) simply means "the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations", which doesn't narrow this down to a spiritual gift at all.
Andrea - "i think that we should be dogmatic about things that we do understand. To me scripture in these chapters is clear, perhaps it's years of exposure, perhaps it's lots of teaching I've received and believe, but if we are hardly understanding then let's start understanding and more than that, practicing!"
Sure, let's be dogmatic about the things we understand. I'm just suggesting that Jamie's interpretation of the verse is by no means sure enough to then create an understanding of tongues (ie. two types) that we can be dogmatic about. It's when we're dogmatic about grey areas that Christians make the most foolish of mistakes. And, your appeal to experience only serves to cement my warning. It's often that which has been established over time that we're most resitant to correcting. I'm all for understanding, though I've got a sneaking suspicion that Dan's response will be closer to getting us there. Lastly, I hope by 'practicing' you mean performing the act rather than repeating until acheiving perfection.
Andrea - Yeah, my second point wasn't (and still isn't) as well formulated in my head or in text as I would like it to be. I agree with you that the Corinthians were pretty new at the whole Christianity thing, still diving in head first (or feet, as the case may be). And, like any other human institution, they were by no means free of error. However, what I was trying to suggest that the gifts are a result of a people of God being the church and declaring the Kingdom. Subsequently, they are filled with the Spirit and out come the gifts. I'm just not sure that the present church (whatever the heck that even is) is quite like the church of that time. Therefore, I'm wondering if the same formula can be used today. I'm not saying it can't, I'm just saying I'm not sure (and I know, as suggested above you don't like ambiguity).
Which brings me to Jamie - Acts 19:4-7 in no way refutes what I was suggesting, I just don't think I was suggesting it clearly. The long line of variables don't imply a long timeline, they just imply a number of factors required. Clearly the factors were there in Acts, that can't be debated, what I'm questioning is if the factors are here today.
Oh, one more thing, Andrea you're great. I've never met you but you seem nice. I just thought I should say that because when debates get complicated people tend to take it personally and then it all gets ugly. My responses are met to be intellectual rather than personal. (I wait to offend people personally till after I've met them)
A bit of advice? The way one writes - style, layout, everything about your method - is intertwined with one's conclusions.
What I mean to say is, a series of bullet points is very different from, say, an essay. For example, the style of this particular post is a bit more prone to pure assertion, rather than argumentation.
Such as:
Tongues, as a prayer language, should be considered part of armour of God. (Ephesians 6:18, Mark 16:17)
The Ephesians text:
And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
I don't see anything about tongues there.
The Mark verse:
... these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues...
Nada on the armour of God. And the paragraph that verse is in only mentions one piece of the armour of God, salvation. None of the others. You can't connect the two ideas.
To reiterate, it's not the exeges I'm arguing against, but rather the style of writing. Too many possible holes. But I guess it may indeed be "fun."
It's all fun and games until Wittgenstein or Lyotard get hurt.
All joking aside, Mike does make a good point about the format of this post. Although, I would push his thoughts further, as I mentioned earlier, and I do find JAG's use of many of these passages as exegetically problematic. Most of these passages are being employed as "proof-texts". "Proof-texting" is pulling various passages out of context and using them to make a point that the text does not make. This is okay to a certain extent (i.e. as long as that point is affirmed by the rest of the canon/biblical narrative which acts as a co-text) but is quite problematic when the point being made is not affirmed by the rest of the canon. Unfortunately, I think a lot of what JAG is doing in this post falls into the latter category.
Anyway, study break is over... back to Umberto Eco.
Peace.
Oh no! The university kids and theologians are beating up on my writing style. I bet I would fail with something like this in university...um, obviously. I can hardly defend my writing style and "exeges." So I won't. Point taken, it's not a valid essay or cohesive theological argument.
Of course, my alternative would seem to be the style that both of you use on your blogs, Mike and Dan. That would hurt me physically, I think. (Heh.)
Mike, I like how you said that I was making assertions rather than arguments. I quite agree. One sentence and one verse per point is hardly thorough or even accurate. And my "conclusion" should probably be renamed "closing comments" instead.
My last post on tongues was about my personal experience with it recently. This post clarified my position and hopefully gave people the option to research this better for themselves. In the end, I hope that people pray, use tongues more if they have 'em and seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit if they haven't had it.
All right, now for a few specific arguments...
Abe, my reference to Acts 19 shows that brand-new Christians can be filled with the Holy Spirit and have personal tongues. As I mentioned before, these two things are not the mark of spiritual maturity and do not come with a "to do" list before receiving them. You seem to be saying that spiritual maturity is required and I disagree strongly with that idea regarding those two things, especially if it persuades new Christians not to seek this baptism.
You don't need to figure out if "the church body is truly representing the people of God." You just need to ask God for baptism of the Holy Spirit. Even if you prefer to detach personal tongues as a separate thing, I hope/presume that you agree that baptism of the Holy Spirit is freely available to any Christian and we should encourage both new and old Christians accordingly.
I thik Jamie's bringing up a really good point here: we all formulate our conclusions based on varying amounts of empirical and philosophical support. That is, when it comes to Christianity, everyone decides what they believe based on the evidence they have. For some, this is 7 years of Bible college, for others, this is 6 months of going to church. It's hard to blame people for having less well constructed views if they haven't read as many hundreds of books on a topic. I would consider most people's ideas of what nursing is as very juvenille, but I can't fault them for that. Conversely, whenever I talk to Dan or read his blog I feel that there's a whole bunch about Christianity I don't know, and therefore that I may have wrong ideas about.
However, this doesn't mean those who have studied further can't offer correction. But they should just be careful that this is done in a kind way, recognizing that they are privy to more knowledge (and hence, power-Foucault).
Ok, Jamie and I are posting simultaneously...good morning Jamie. My previous comment was to Jamie's "Oh no!" comment.
As for the Act 19 thing, I still think I'm not being clear enough. You're still thinking about it as individuals, which makes sense, as our entire society (and hence our religions) are based on inviduality. I'm not talking about individual spiritual maturity, I'm talking about a people of God that's alligned with the purpose of God.
Let's give an example: Jehovah's Witnesses. These individuals identify as Christians, and the people of God. However, no matter how spiritually mature they are, I think you would have a hard time believing that they could display the gifts of the Spirit, as they are identified as being theologically wrong. This is in spite of the fact that a lot of their beliefs are 'right' and they do some wonderfult, Godly work.
Therefore, there's more to it than saying "I'm a Christian, so bring on the Spirit". There's a lot of people who identify as Christians. The challenge I was raising here is: is the current Christian church truly alligned with the will and purpose of God, or have we drifted of into false theology? I'm not saying it's one way or another, because (as per my last post) I have no where near enough knowledge to answer this. I just think it's a question worth asking in light of thinking about seeing the Spirit lived out.
Good morning to you too, Abe! Sure, so we wrote a lot to agree with each other in a confusing way. Nothing like time well spent, I guess.
All right, now for a few more specific comments...
Mike, my point about the tongues being a part of our spiritual armour was fine, just not explicite. Tongues = prayer, prayer = armour of God, therefore tongues = armour of God.
I agree, this is an assertion and not an argument. I did expect the reader to connect the purpose of my verse reference, or at least ask me for clarification. The format of my post required it, actually. And if that's not fun, I don't know what is. You and Dan seem to think it's fun, too, since you guys actually took the time to look up some of my verses. :)
In case anyone has wondered why I've been quiet on this (and other posts) recently, my thoughts are on my blog (joelevan). Finally able to read these comments!! Yaay!
So I won't. Point taken, it's not a valid essay or cohesive theological argument.
Have you ever outlined your thoughts on tongues in a "valid" or "cohesive" way?
If not, how can you really claim to know what you believe? It's one thing to have a feeling that you know what you believe; it is something else entirely to articulate what you believe.
Mike, I'm not keen to write scholar-level essays 'cause it's boring and difficult and time consuming. There are a thousand ways to express, validate and examine my beliefs besides essays. That being said, I appreciate your suggestion and encouragement to break down my beliefs in writing in a thorough way. I especially appreciate the tone with which you express this, I find it very inviting.
The benefit of following through on Mike's advice goes beyond 'pure academics'. By engaging in a more sustained study of the texts -- and I mean more sustained than what this post, or Joel's post reflect -- you may discover that you are saying something quite different than the bible is saying.
The bible a big and difficult collection of documents and we've seen time after time what can happen when texts are applied indiscriminately without regard for their context(s). Post-WWII we are all aware of how the Christian canon had been manipulated to support an anti-Jewish sentiment not actually present in the text. Similarly, serious New Testament scholarship is becoming increasingly aware of a radical political agenda in both Jesus and Paul. And we have also come to see that other things (like patriarchy) are actually not pratices of the New Testament Church. However, hasty readings of the bible could lead one to think otherwise.
Our "feelings" are quite often wrong and are guided just as much by the general attitude of our (sub)cultures as they are guided by true spiritual discernment.
I agree, Dan. Writing an essay can have practical results. Poor interpretation of the Bible can lead to all kinds of problems. Feelings are not a solid foundation for Christian faith.
Um, and my previous comments still stand.
Wow. All these comments have caused my brain to spin.
There are a thousand ways to express, validate and examine my beliefs besides essays.
I'd be very interested to learn about a few of these ways.
Oh please, enough already with this "validating" nonsense. JAG did a fine job explaining himself. Quit harping already.
Really I'm just looking for somebody to validate me! ;)
As for "harping on JAG", well, the question being raised is not one of whether or not he expressed himself well. The question is what makes that expression legitimate.
Of course, these questions are not being raised cause we think shitty thoughts about JAG. They're being raised cause we think he's the shiznit. Word.
Oh please, enough already with this "validating" nonsense. JAG did a fine job explaining himself. Quit harping already.
Haha. Anonymous, you're walking in on a long history here. Harping and validating is what we do. :)
That being said, all the questions posed here have been phrased in a late-night bull session type way. One person says something, another person says "ah-ha, but have you thought about this?" It's not harping, it's just talking.
The best thing about blogs: every post has the potential to become a true living document. The comments are part of it too. Why not explore as many ideas as possible?
Jesus spoke in parables, Paul said he didn't have elequent speech but fear and trembling. Billy Graham is widely known early on as shy and not a natural speaker(or a super essay articulating machine).
"There are a thousand ways to express, validate and examine my beliefs besides essays."
this point intrigued me... here are some i came up with: acting out your beliefs (living your faith, walking out your convictions, seeing where your beliefs really lie, by what you feel comfortable doing), painting a picture or two or three illustrating the many facets of your beliefs, poetry, dance, construction of a model of your beliefs (like physically building an analogy), going out for coffee with a friend and talking about it, put yourself in uncomfortable or unfamiliar situations and see what happens...
I've got another one! (It worked for me today...)
Write down each point that somehow fits into your POV on a cue card... colour coordinate the ones you think go together (different shades of the same colour)... Lay them all out on the floor and move them around until they fit in the right places - till they are in proper position/relation relative to the other points. Like making a puzzle. You could them stick them on the wall and draw arrows and explanations of how they relate to each other... :)
Haha... my little essay exam tomorrow morning may not be that great, but I sure understand now how everything relates!
Jesus spoke in parables
Parables & allagories, by nature, aren't clear articulations. There are vast differances between something like Narnia and The Summa Theologica in style, intent and content. And, let me remind you, Jesus repeatedly needed to rephrase and clarify what he had been saying.
Paul said he didn't have elequent speech but fear and trembling.
Paul, at times, was a serious drama queen. Anyone that writes the Corinthians love passage and then says they aren't eloquent is being falsely humble.
More likey, Paul just got his butt kicked by some Stoic and was having a pity party.
Billy Graham is widely known early on as shy and not a natural speaker(or a super essay articulating machine).
Widely known through anecdotes told by him and others. Billy Graham claiming to be shy and a bad speaker is like some 100 pound girl thinking she's fat. It's either dillusion or, again, false humility.
Mike, Clear articulations are fine but not the nirvana of conversation. I think trying really hard to listen and contemplate what someone is saying is best. I think Jesus needing to rephrase didn't mean he needed to articulate better but help the disciples to understand what their spirit was not connecting. He switched from speaking in parables to speaking plainly because they weren't getting the content of what he was saying, whether it was articulated or not.
Paul, a drama queen? He wrote what the Spirit of God put into him. Paul is a man and through his spirit connected to God. In himself he had fear and trembling but when the time came God spoke for him. Pity party? Maybe you should read Paul's defense of his ministry sometime. (I'm sure you can find it)
I said Billy Graham was not a natural speaker, not a bad speaker. I don't think you should equate unnatural with bad but instead natural and supernatural. The Lord can use anyone he wants and turn the worst speaker into an effective one. Articulation or not. If you have a problem with that than you are putting limits on God. Secondly, people have asked Graham how is it that someone as shy and an unnatural speaker as him can portray what God is saying.
Maybe there is more to a person articulating. When our spirit has a true connection with God it doesn't matter if they can speak well or not. When God puts his word in someone they could be the worst speaker and yet still sound like the best speaker. With all that being said there is nothing wrong with articulating but isn't the only way. God said that man's greatest wisdom is His foolishness.
Please consider objectively what I am going to say next and don't take it so personal that you won't change your heart.
As an outsider it is hard to comment how someone is but I can't let it rest. You come off "holier than thou", again, I don' know you and I don't know if that pisses you off but I am being serious. You said it's not harping but talking but it does sound like idle talk.
I just moved, and alas, I don't have an internet connection in my place yet. So I'm sitting here in a PC Room, surrounded by 30 somethings playing Starcraft.
Oh masked commenter, I don't think we're going to be able to connect much here. We're kind of on different wavelengths, and for us to understand each other, it would take an awful lot of... well, articulation. From both of us.
Between this this thread and Joel's thread on tongues, I'm wondering if there are two fundementally different pursuits that we all sometimes confuse. Maybe being religious is quite different from developing theology (for my purposes here, I don't recognize the fashionable distinction between "religion" and "relationship").
I'm getting the impression that certain commenters - Jamie and this miscellanious anonymous - do have some sort of de facto distinction between religious and theological pursuits set up.
Consider the commenters on Joel's blog; I said that anyone with the same theology at age 30 as they did at age 12 is retarded. Jamie took issue with this.
I would insist that theology is a body of knowledge that is just as tricky and robust as any other field, and no 12 year old has a grasp on it any better than they do biology.
BUT. Perhaps religious activities, in the daily life of the average person, are quite removed from theology as an intellectual pursuit. This is what I think Jamie and anonymous are implying.
So I see two options. One is that religion does not need to be done in the context of theology. This must be the conclusion of the afformentioned posters. If this is true, religion must necassarily be understood as a primarily human pursuit. That is, religion is primarily and fundementally about fulfulling human needs. And again, I must insist that I see no "religion/relationship" distinction.
The second option is that religion must be found within the context of theology. And theology shares the basic tools of literature, philosophy and indeed all the humanities: language.
There is, of course, a tension. The post that started this thread could be considered a work of theology; so Jamie, I guess you don't totally divorce religion and theology. But it does seem clear that you and anonymous do find a distinction between the two, and certainly privelege the religious (aka human needs fulfulling) aspect of your lives.
I'll do a proper blog post about this, I think.
Mike, I disagreed with your use of the word "retarded" to describe the habit of many people to simply accept what we're taught. The pen may be mightier than the sword but that doesn't mean that you should try to cut people with it. (Ooh, clever.) I agreed that this was not a desirable trait.
You have an interesting point about a perception that divorces the practice of religion and the study of theology. My only real disagreement I had with you and Dan is that I think that theology can be properly developed outside of the use of formal essays, though formal essays can still be very useful. That was mostly a question of method, not content.
By the way, haven't I mentioned before that I'm not a real fan of "late-night bull sessions" anymore? Heh. I may have been bred on them but I no longer find them very productive. Which I suppose is a comment on what I'm writing right now. (Ouch! Self-burn.)
Post a Comment