This is a very intriguing question. A quick scan of the academic databases under “speaking in tongues” or “glossolalia” appears to not only be primarily restricted to Christianity but specifically to Pentecostalism. There are some studies related to the neuroscience behind glossolalia. One example:

Temporal lobe discharges and glossolalia.

Reeves RR, Kose S, Abubakr A.

Neurocase. 2014 Apr;20(2):236-40. doi: 10.1080/13554794.2013.770874. Epub 2013 Apr 3.

My interest is in how this might correspond with spirit possession in other cultures. Speaking in tongues is typically thought of as being possessed by the Holy Spirit. How does that correspond to being possessed or “ridden” by the lwa in Vodoun rituals? There are many religious traditions where spirit possession is not only accepted but seen as a privilege or sign of great power and favor with god(s) - shamanistic traditions for example. Many Latin American and Caribbean traditions like Yorubu and Santeria. Spiritism might be an example as well. Does it matter if one understands what is being spoken even if the person speaking does not have control over it or understand it him-/herself?

There is certainly religious trainings, generally as an apprenticeship or initiation, that teach ecstatic states including calling spirits and handling possession. I would say that the benefit is a perceived closeness with divinity.

Dear Alexandria,

Thank you for your insightful reply. You have provided a good way and start fo others to contribute. Thank you for those examples and reference of that work, I will trace them.

Something more, May you clarify more how can such kind of possession e.g. by the Holy Spirit being objectively measured? If the case is being possessed, people can be possessed by other spirits or by mental delusion and claim is the Holy Spirit. Sincerely, i am not objecting the doctrine but I wish to find the better way of explaining the assurance and veracity of the doctrine.

You might be able to measure physical changes at the time of possession but not actually the possession itself. I suggest looking at research on the brain activity of faith healers or monks while meditating (sorry don’t have the citations handy but look up Jeanne Achterberg). I think there are some things that cannot be quantified. If I were researching the subject I would use a phenomenological method.

I would note that supposedly the symptoms of possession by an evil spirit duplicate various known physical or mental problems. The diagnosis of spirit possession is then obtained by determining that no other known problem could be causing the symptoms. That the symptoms duplicate other known causes is a reason that some (probably most medical or mental health professional) people dismiss the concept of spirit possession. I am not certain what symptoms are universally considered associated with the possession by a good spirit.

Dear Alexandria and William,

I am very grateful for your thoughtful answers. I really accept that some issues, events or facts can not certainly be quantified or measured objectively. Sometimes also it is so difficult to prove other causes from psychiatrists, medical practitioners or psychologists what is going in within the possessed one.

Taking the discussion further more, I have heard some people claiming to speak in 'new' tongues which later others discovered that they are their languages; but the speaker after coming back to his/her normal condition he/she is not able completely to speak it. Should this be taken as an evidence of being possessed by the spirit? what things should we consider as criterion of being possessed by good spirit/Holy Spirit?

This discussion is intriguing, indeed. The Christian tradition has from the start been concerned with identifying spirits (see Paul's controversy withe the Corinthians). The way they generally tried to distinguish good from bad, evil from wholesome spirit experience has been a focus on its supposed usefulness for the community. The experience as such and its content was not, it seems, seen as of primary importance. Interestingly enough William James, the psychologist-philosopher, used a similar approach to appraise spiritual experience not that long ago..

Dear Thomas,

Indeed thank you for your healthy discussion. Something healthy is how we can determine the good spirit/Spirit from God that may posses believers from those evil one which may be revealing as the spirit of truth/light through speaking in tongues. Uncontrollable and undetermined speaking in tongues may be a hole to destruction or a window to the situation of allowing people being controllable by the evil one.

I propose that Christians must properly extract from the Scriptures the criteria that assure for their safety of being under the influence of Holy Spirit and not the evil one.

Thomas,

If we are talking about a single spontaneous event, I think that James (in Varieties) put more focus on the qualities of the experience than the usefulness or application of the experience. He defined a mystical experience as being ineffable, noetic, transient, and beyond the control of the subject. On the other hand, he did make an argument for the usefulness of religious experience, within a greater more general/transformative sense, in the form of conversion or saintliness.

I must admit not being familiar with Corinthians but I always thought that the Christian criteria for good versus evil relied more on the content of the experience. Although trying to think of examples I see your point. Speaking in languages unknown to the speaker is a sign of demonic possession and yet “speaking in tongues” in another context is seen as being the word of the Holy Spirit. If both are unintelligible, and therefore cannot deliver any real value to the listener, how is the distinction made? This perhaps presents a third aspect: quality, content, and now context.

Stanley Krippner writes, in regard to altered states of consciousness, that there is a consciousness/content fallacy at work. Basically he says that the phenomena of consciousness exhibit certain qualities, or “phenomenal properties”, unrelated to the mental content of the consciousness while in that state. It seems to me very similar to the Jamesian approach of qualities over content/context. Krippner was writing specifically of shamanic states of consciousness (or “patterns of phenomenal properties”) though, which are often associated with spirit communication (as opposed to possession) and the value that communication brings to the community.

The interdisciplinary similarities (and differences) on this topic are quite fascinating.

Hello Brother Emmanuel, the speaking in biblical tongues is not uncontrollable, nor is it through "possession." The one who speaks in a tongue has full control of whether or not to do so, even if the content is not understood to the speaker: "1 Corinthians 14:27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God." Also, the Holy Spirit cannot be compared to demons and evil spirits, since they are created beings, but the Holy Spirit is God. As God, the Holy Spirit participated in the creation of all spirits, who were created good before they fell. All born again Christian believers in Christ contain the Holy Spirit--receiving him constitutes the biblical "new birth" (John 3:3-8). God is all goodness and love. If a person does evil, it is never the Holy Spirit within him causing this evil. The Bible speaks of Christians "obeying" the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:27, 1Peter 1:2). The Bible never speaks of being "possessed" in an uncontrollable way by the Holy Spirit of God, who is God. In terms of recognizing the Spirit of God and the spirit of evil, Jesus said to judge by the fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit; neither can a bad tree bring forth good fruit. Galatians 5:16-25 explains a great deal about the Spirit, including the fruit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Those possessed by a wicked spirit do not produce this kind of fruit. They produce confusion, evil, selfishness, and so forth. Concerning tongues, Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 teaches that these are a prayer language to God. Paul further writes that when he uses a tongue, he is in full control of it, even though he may not understand what he is saying. Thank-you.

What a powerful discussion and yes this question warrants deep consideration.

Within Pentecostalism, speaking in tongues, as has already been discussed is the evidence for being filled with the "Holy Spirit." But the question that must be asked again and again is which spirit is doing the filling? This is the first issue that can be a stumbling block to Christians when dealing with speaking in tongues. I will add my two cents worth to that discussion by referring you to a thought provoking book by Christopher Morse, a past Professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York.

In the book entitled "Not Every Spirit: A Dogmatics of Christian Disbelief" Morse, calls "Christians to examine not only what they believe but also to give attention to what they are called to disbelieve." It is important to recognize the different spirits, a challenging exercise at best, but not without scriptural guidance. As Christina Wilson points out the Bible does give us direction on how we can discern different spirits. So in Galatians 5:16-25 for example the gifts of the spirit are laid out. Likewise in 1 Corinthians 12:3, Paul teaches that the spirit of God will never say "Let Jesus be cursed! and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except the Holy Spirit. Important criteria for discernment of which spirit is speaking.

To your specific question tongues in other religions, I will say that this is not limited to any one faith tradition, such as Christianity. That would actually ask us to call into question the day of Pentecost experience of Acts 2:1-5. This initial reception of the Holy Spirit was laid upon the 12 apostles, representing a reversal of the experience of Babel (Gen 11:1-9). At Babel, you will recall that the Lord confused the language, but in Acts 2, a new universal language of God was given, which everyone could understand. I think the operative word here is "everyone." This is inclusive language for other faith traditions.

James C. Hanges, in Chapter 10 of Comparing Religions : Possibilities and Perils?

(Author: Idinopulos, Thomas Athanasius Wilson, Brian C. Hanges, James Constantine), did a comparative interpretation of the glossolial experience in Early Christianity, Judaism and Greco-Roman worship. So at least for these three religious traditions there is scholarship present for speaking in tongues.

I might also add that, in Pauline scripture, the problem of speaking in tongues for those early Christians was that it created an air of superiority, contrary to what Jesus' teachings were about. So for example, in 1 Corinthians 12:27-13:3, Paul devalues speaking in tongues, along with other gifts of the spirit, instead focusing on the more excellent gift, that of love.

I have seen so many instances where the very same gift of speaking in tongues is used to exalt one Christian over another. The problem is not the gift or for that matter, the experience, it is how that gift and experience transforms us, either to deeper Christian love and fellowship or to non-Christian self interest.

In my travels through Brazil, I was exposed to several spiritist (non-Christian) traditions, usually based on African tribal religions. What I observed in Umbanda,Candomblé, Voudou, and Santo Daime would have to be considered speaking in tongues, even when more 'formalized'. The good spirits (Orixás, caboclos, etc.) are called with special sounds and movements, and dark spirits, who are attracted to the light, are dispelled with the assistance of the benign spirits (benign when properly respected). Much of Brazilian spiritism conforms to the work of Alan Kardec, but the natives, of course, favor their own traditions.

Dear Barry,

Thank you indeed for your observation. Probably, that speaking may be of calling or dispelling spirits. Through your experience, do they, at certain times, have to change their normal languages to new ones/'speaking in tongues' as super means of communicating with spirits or something like god? Do they attribute anything good for using that new language?

They would say, "You're thinking too much." What they call out are releases of emotional fervor, so they don't really mean anything cognitively. However, they do seem to have "vocabularies" of these expressions: e.g., "currupipipiragua" and "babaluaé" (as Ricky Ricardo used to sing), and "okê", "laroiê" and "atotô!" etc. The spirits communicate on their own terms, sometimes sounding like chirps, whistles or whirling fans -- these actually may have meaning on some level, just not rationally.

Hello Buganga, I think this is rot, people whom have been brainwashed and bullied such that they lose their marbles. It is almost as stupid as people in the local group here praying for me, while most of them won't exercise so have terrible weight problems, I think it is lunacy when you are worried about others, but can't look after your own health. I think this tongue rubbish, is what causes people to end up in mental units in hospitals. I'm not an expert, just someone whom is sick of what goes on in churches. I have no knowledge of any books etc. Good luck with your research. Thanks Debbie

Dear Gregory, Barry and Deborah,

I sincerely appreciate your deep concern on this topic. Your contributions have added much value to the discussion.

Dear Gregory, thanks indeed. I agree with you in almost everything. I agree also with the biblical criteria for determining the Spirit of God. If you look carefully, you will see that the Bible demands our fruits (deeds) to much with our biblical faith in a sense that our deeds must be the fruits of biblical faith. This needs a time test. The problem of speaking in new tongues is that the time demanded is almost too short. Unless we stay for a long time with a person. Does the Bible provide an immediate practical criterion on this matter? Since the Bible is not against reason, how can we discern those spirits reasonably?

Dear Barry, thank you again for your more elaboration. it is very helpful. If you will have any contribution please drop again your insights.

Dear Debbie, thank you very much for your perspective. I personally, am a mature Christian. With my experience, I have met many people who insisted so much in 'speaking in new tongues' without clear reason and extremely than what the Bible says; their end has been terrible! Without proper approach in this matter, we are in danger of allowing people to fall into mental disorders' trap due to our excessive will without control.

Waiting to hearing more from you all and others.

Emmanuel, I would suggest that if you wish to discern the spirits via a reasonable manner it is possible, but not easy. I strongly suspect, but cannot yet prove conclusively that negative spirits would most often present with a strong static magnetic presence. The problem is that for them to actually do anything, they must shift from a magnetic field presentation to an active field presentation. This would imply that any measurements must be done either prior to manifestations or following manifestation, not during.

Deborah, I agree that there is a risk of mind control with cultish practices. However, I have found many spiritist practices to be very freeing and transformative when done with knowledge and safety. Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

William, that's interesting about the magnetic fields, and I'd like to see some more information about it. In the meantime, we have been relying on smudging, water traps, and on calling in the protective spirits. Also see Alan Kardec's spiritism books.

Dear William,

What do you think might be the reasonable pre- and/or post measurement of the spirits especially in speaking in tongues? I would also, like Barry, want to hear more about magnetic fields n relation to spirits.

Dear Barry and others,

What are the conditions necessary for a man speaking in tongue in other religions? Can we try to compare them with what some Christians prefer to practice/learn so that they may speak in those new languages?

Dear Christians,

Since the Bible is not against reason, can we reasonably have immediate measurement of the 'spirit' that is involved in speaking in tongue? What about those who are taught to speak in tongues, is it according to the Bible?

Let me begin talking about static magnetic fields and negative spirits by stating that the evidence is currently circumstantial. I cannot, to my satisfaction, develop it to academic levels. I am personally convinced, but I cannot elevate my personal experiences to an objective level.

My interest began when I had the experience of being close to an MRI in use. My wife told me that I had to experience what she did to understand her extreme reluctance to undergo the procedure. The impressions I received, weight on the chest, feelings of nausea and others made me think of what I have heard described as associated with the demonic.

I then began a theoretical study of static magnetic fields. These are known to produce the symptoms that both my wife and I experienced in some people. However, given that light is an active field, a pure static field would involve the total absence of light. Many, if not most religions associated the god and/or good with light and evil with darkness beyond night. I would note that NDE experiences might be relevant as they associate the positive destination with light that surpasses anything known on earth as well as with a comfortable warmth and love. However, the most common darkness is associated with cold and a sense of isolation, and is often something that is experienced on the way to the light, such as purgatory in some Christian circles, as well as what is suggested by the Egyptian Book of the Dead among other non-Christian mythologies. This is not necessarily evil, but it is tending more in that direction. There are many other aspects and factors that entered into my research also, but as I observed, I cannot justify my association based off of my research.

Now as I was wrapping up my research, a project that I had basically kept to myself, my wife knew I was studying something that touched upon electro-magnetism but not what, a friend who is a very experience ghost hunter (as are both my wife and I) with at that time some 20-25+ years of experience (since well before it became popular) dating back to the 1980’s contacted us to see if we had any idea of what he had run into.

His account was basically that he had gone out to do a preliminary investigation, prior to bringing in a full crew, of a house that the owner felt was haunted. From the request, he stated that he suspected an easily explained cause, and when he arrived he rapidly detected a strong static magnetic field. He then explained to the homeowner about the various symptoms that could be caused by such a field, and that it was an indication of a flaw in the home’s wiring and would require an electrician to resolve. To prove his point, he went outside and turned off the home’s electricity at the meter. However, to his dismay the static field remained, indicating a cause other than flawed wiring. He stated that he then explored the house, quite literally from the attic to the basement without success at finding a plausible cause. Following this investigation, he stated that he and the homeowner were sitting in the kitchen discussing things, and he just happened to be looking at his meter which was set to record electrical fields, when the homeowner stated something to the effect that he did not care what the cause was but he wanted it gone. My friend said that he noted the meter record a sudden burst of electrical activity, as his chair was being tipped over and he ended up on the floor. He then got up and resumed his seat, although puzzled about what had occurred. The conversation continued and again he was glancing at the meter when it recorded a stronger spike when the homeowner repeated his statement about wanting the cause gone, and this time the chair shot back 4-5 feet before tipping over.

I would note that he was not pleased when I was excited about his account, until after hearing that I had been engaging in a study about whether or not there was a link between static magnetic fields and evil entities. He then promised to keep me advised on his experiences with such occurrences. One of these subsequent occurrences happened when he returned to the same house, anticipating a possible encounter with an evil entity. He stated that in the basement he encountered a “darker than dark” shadow in one corner, that had no obvious cause, and that this shadow gradually faded back into the wall when he engaged in actions he felt would drive off evil.

Further confirmation for me came from awareness of a church that proclaimed that the Holy Spirit descended on the church every week on this particular day at this particular time, and blessed all present with manifestations of the spirit. Members and followers of this church, pastored by a graduate of a highly regarded conservative-evangelical seminary, argued that the biblical injunction that no one knows the place or the hour when the Holy Spirit will appear were overridden by direct revelation to the church. However, I found that just driving past the church, which was not set that far off the road, I could detect a strong static magnetic field. I have also found that I detect such a field surrounding many, but by no means all, churches that have a strong Pentecostal orientation, usually, but again not always, those not affiliated with a major denomination. However, I will also note that the specific church I referenced did close, due in large part to escalating fighting among its members.

I hope that this minimal account offers sufficient data to satisfy people’s curiosity as to why I suspect a connection to static magnetic fields and the evil side of the spirit realms.

Thank you indeed Dear William,

Thank you for sincere and precise description of these matters. Yes indeed, it is very personal and subjective; but it has helped me and, I think, others to understand what you referred earlier. This is another wonderful contribution.

Personally, I am a sincere Christian. But my doubts that led me to this research comes from some experiences I met with some people who were very good Christians, and strong in 'speaking in tongues' but ended in mess. One got mental problem and has been using medicine from a referral hospital. One has ended up in very cumbersome life. I know many, but Why this, if it is indeed the Spirit of God? Does not Satan use this method to exercise his evil powers to human beings?

Emmanuel, I noticed the same negative symptoms from people who chanted too much or did certain meditational techniques too much. Some of them developed tics or weird speech patterns, so it doesn't seem to have much to do with christianity or any particular religious belief, but just how they are practiced. This also goes to Deborah's complaint -- an otherwise fine practice can be abused.

Dear Barry,

Thanks for such an observation. I think misapplication/abuse or even not being sure and certain of what is done may result people fall into troubles. Let us continue contribute and also wait for others contribution. I am still thinking there is a need for objective measure and use of 'the use of tongues' in religions.

I think you'd have to run a few qualitative studies to even define what you're going to be measuring, like "What's the cutoff between what christians pretend to do and what they do spontaneously in ecstatic rituals like Voudou, Condomblé, Santeria, Umbanda, etc., and how spontaneous does it have to be?"

About speaking in tongues I would like to give you the following suggestion. I fear that spiritists will not like it, but they might still consider it. A “tongue”, “lingua”, originally is a tribal language, spoken with in that one particular group. Of course, at the exclusion of others! The tribes of antiquity did not recognize each other’s humanity. Others, who would talk a different tongue were considered “barbaroi”, ununderstandable, and not belonging to the moral community. Now the event at Pentecost creates a community in which the word of God, which of course has universal meaning, is translated into each particular “tongue” of the different “ethnoi” (a word used for tribes), so that they all understand it. So Pentecost is the great act of unification and translation, and healing from particularistic and tribal in group behavior, therefore the name “Holy Spirit”, which means as much as “healing spirit”, the spirit of unification. Of course, people keep talking in “tongues”, that is they keep using their own particularistic language to express the great event of the gospel, but Paul claims, that those who can very well do so, should still translate what they mean to the others as well. Sorry folks, no magnetism or spiritism involved... See for further insights into unifying function of Christianity the sociological work of Rosenstock-Huessy, for instance in his book on “The Christian Future” and other works.

Thanks a lot Otto.

I indeed appreciate your insightful comments. But, what can we say about the measure that can help us to practically discern the tongue which is of the Holy Spirit and that which is not?(especially during the speaking process).

Otto, your response has merit, as far as it goes, but I do not believe it addresses the issue of the ecstatic practice of releasing control of the verbal apparatus and allowing whatever utterances emerge, be it "holy ghost" or spiritist babbling, rather than "something that means something in some other language," if I understood you correctly. The "purpose" of the uncontrolled babbling is to "incorporate" spirits and gain their power or wisdom.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t babble and I do not think that the phenomenon of losing control of the verbal apparatus and being in ecstasy is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The ethnic understanding of language implies limitation of the language to the in-group. Speaking in tongues is speaking in-group language. Tongues in the original sense of the word for that reason run contrary to the language of the Holy Spirit and that also gives a measure. You might say that any group language is “split off” from the inclusive language of the Holy Spirit. We use such languages as professionals, as people from different traditions etc. but the mark of the language of the Holy Spirit is inclusiveness and unification of a plurality of voices. They are converted to each other by the suffering of the perfect man.

Clearly, we are each speaking from a distinct perspective on this matter. I have my bases, as I am sure that you have yours, so we should make those clear when we post rather than presume the position of prophets for each our God-being, OK?

Every religion has tendency and somehow accentuated to the idea of speaking in tongue. Neuro-religious experts know that speaking in tongue is one of religious phenomena that is experienced virtually in all religions. All the religions that practice speaking in tongue do it based on modus operandi of that religion. In African traditional religion, for example, there are instances where a person who performs a specify function speaks in tongue because at that instance the spirit involves in that function gives him or her that enablement to do so. But one thing is true on issue of tongue based on religious phenomenon, there is no religion where tongue speaking supposedly to be taught to the members. If teaching one to speak in tongue has become a practice, it means that religion is not a genuine one and should be shunned by humanity. In Christianity, it is the Holy Spirit that enables the participant to speak in tongue; if the person has the gift. This calls for more commitment on the part of the participant to be devoted to the thing of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the Bible that the people who experienced speaking in tongue were taught to do so.If such is practiced today, it means those people are fake Christians and they should find their way out of Christianity.

Dear Godwin,

from within my heart I sincerely appreciate your great insights on the matter. Since most Christian believers who come from these traditional religions may have experience or know something about speaking in tongue or language of the spirits, how can Christians be sure that what they speak comes from the Holy Spirit and not from their 'disguised' spirits of their former religions? Actually, my question is on establishing objective criterion on distinguishing other spirits and the Holy Spirit in the Christian church. can you say something brother?

The line between the "fake" and the "authentic" is quite blurry. Adherents of Abrahamic or shamanic religions mostly first see an exemplar of a practice and then, sooner or later, either attempt it or perform it spontaneously. The attempt is neither fake nor authentic, and the spontaneous manifestation is not necessarily from the highest source, although it could be. The priests and other participants simply allow the manifestation to take place, supporting it if it seems to be lifting the general spirit, and healing it if it seems to be coming from darkness or whatever. These are my own observations from hundreds of ritual experiences.

Dear Barry,

I again thank you for your sincerity. Most of us superficially think we can simply distinguish the two, fake and genuine Spirit of God. Unfortunately, we can not simply do that, and it seems to many of us we should wait for the flow and effect of the action in order to make decision if the spirit was of God or some evil one. If this is the only way of distinguishing them, we are always in danger of falling away into mistakes.

I would note that in my experience, the demonic, which would be one source of possible false spirits causing tongues, but by no means the only possible false source, tends to betray itself by the presence of inexplicable static magnetic fields. These fields, when strong enough, can cause sensations of pressure on the chest, mild feelings of nausea and hallucinations. The sensations would not be present during the actual experience of tongues as promoting the experience would require active energy, not potential or static, but would likely be present both before and after if the demonic is present.

That is interesting, William, although I would not rely on that distinction. I have experienced and observed such magnetic fields in perfectly positive contexts. Also, the "demons" are attracted to those who look for them too much.

Dear Emmanuel

Thank you for your response. May I say that what we are discussing in this forum may be somehow strange to non-African Christians or scholars and even some Africans who do not have direct contact with what we are saying here. I believe being an African christian and a bible student, that there is always a struggle between old and new. Also between the old spirit and the new spirit, and if one is not careful enough one might tend to bring into the new a-spilt-over spirit from African setting or religion. I personally witnessed a situation where ancestral spirit was functioning as if such spirit came directly from Jesus Christ. This is witnessed in some 'white garment' churches or a group of 'Christians' who emphasis spirituality without holy living. In fact sometimes it is hard to demarcate the two unless you have a discernment spirit. It is pertinent that one upholds the integrity of the scripture by testing all the spirit in order to know which one is of God. Or I will love to say "which one is genuine".

While I strongly believe in speaking in tongue as a gift, we must use a criterion of the Scripture. What does NT say about this? Does anybody in the congregation understand the speaker? Does the speaker speak intelligibly? Does he or she have a trace of demonic influence in his family? Does the speaker have the Holy Spirit within him or her? Is the speaker a christian of church goer who uses the name 'christian' to promote his influence within the church and society. Does the person do it in love? I believe that a careful exegesis of 1 Corinthians 14:1-19 will help in establishing this criterion as working apparatus regarding this issue.

May I add another criterion in distinguishing these spirits. I call this criterion as "A Criterion of Common sense." This may sound so funny to many, but its application is very crucial here. Use a common sense also and you would know the truth.

Studying deeper into this issue will unravel one fact that would surprise you. Perhaps you would be surprised to discovered that many so called "men of God" are being possessed by spirits that do not have anything to do with the Spirit of Christ. May I say above all pray that God will endow one with the Spirit of Discernment so that one would not be led astray (Matthew 24:24-25). I appreciate interacting with you brother.

Dear Godwin,

Wonderful contribution!

Personally, I very knowledgeable in theology and in biblical studies. I know how well 1 Cor. 14 speaks about spiritual gifts. Unfortunately, many of those who apply strongly the gift of speaking in tongues despise the biblical teachings on the matter. I know the 'time criterion' and 'fruit criterion' are very significant biblically. What I am trying to find is how this time criterion can be applied within a very short time esp. during the time of the event. I do not want to believe that the time criterion means somehow long time. If this is the case, we are in a very great danger always of accepting tongues that are not coming from the Holy Spirit.

I appreciate your 'common sense criterion' but this common sense must be according to biblical teachings since human common sense is not common to all and without doubt limited and fallen.

I think, speaking in tongues is one of the subjects that need new perspective of consideration in theology.

Dear Fernando,

Thank you so much for your great contribution. Your cases have been of great interest. Thanks.

Hi Guys,

I had a chat with Harvey Cox about this at Harvard Diviinty years ago - he thought that it represented a way to escape the norms of normal communication that had inherent social limitations even in words and speech. Most people who study theology come to use it to add to their belief structures, and Harvey was big into social change and social justice/ I'm into consciousness and how we do it ....

I said it's a lot simpler. If you pump up the intensity enough, the andrenergic hormonal overload will effectively create a short-circuit - effectively driving the speech cortext directly from the hippocampus, the emotional and memory area, and the result is glossolalia - because it has all the speech "parts" - but they've never found a language - eg - the lego blocks of language naked and unconnected. Pure emotions run through the speech cortex - halleluja! And of course they have it in lots of formal and shamanistic practices. Nobody's ever translated any of it.

But really, there's enough evidence that the who thing was dreamed up by the writer of Luke-Acts (who, unlike the other gospel authors was elegant trained in Greek-style narration but sadly deficient in matters theological and historical) as a sort of First Act Closer of his two part series (1) The Birth of Christianity and (2) The spread of Christianity - Luke and Acts. It transfers the job from Jesus to his followers. This writer is great, one my professors was George McRae who noted "Paul, he" is used throughout Acts except when Paul is on a boat, which becomes "Paul-we" - which confused people for centuries into thinking someone was accompanying him. Nope. That's a Greek Literary trick - sea voyages were the most exciting part of any story so the author slips into the plural to "take the reader along" . This writer also loves a happy ending with Peter and Paul establishing the church in Rome when in fact it was already started when they got there and both got clapped into prison and martyred. A bit of a downer. The beginning "In the reign of Caesar Augusts ..etc .. Greek writers always set the scene - and note on the "Give unto Go that which is God's" drama, the writer of Luke doesn't even known the difference between the Pharasees and the Sadducees. Check Mark. the earlier version. Jesus never loses his temper, never gets questioned in his home town. Tongue? He's the only source. Want to believe him?

Especially when you consider the entire element sort of lay unnoticed until that watch night service literally 1899/1900 in Topeka Kansas, for goodness sake, when we had the first recorded event .. it speads to Azusa in the 1920's and sort of like Anerican music, the rock 'n roll of Christianity, it has spread throughout the globe. My favorite example is Richard Penniman, otherwise known as Little Richared, who distributes a religious paperback to everyone who comes to his concerts, and then does the Get Down Glossolalia "Bop bop a lu bop, a bop bam boom!" Praise God !

Winell (a former Pentecostal who de-converted from her Christian faith) says that she still can speak in tongues even after her de-conversion.

http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Fold-Marlene-Winell/dp/1933993235/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402006567&sr=8-1&keywords=Leaving+the+Fold

Dears,

Thanks for your contributions. So, Lawrence, do you think glossolalia is just a biological mechanism after emotional pumping- up and hormonal effect? By this also you mean it has no meaning. I do not want to engage against your deconstruction of Christian faith but your contribution is valued.

Dear Bradley, thanks for that example.

I would have to say that I am aware of at least three instances where an individual did speak in a language they had not learned. Two times at least one individual present had intellectual knowledge sufficient to recognize the language and translate it. One time there was actually an old man present who had learned the almost totally lost language as a his first language. His observation was that the speaker had a terrible accent, but that he had the language correct.

Hi

It's chicken-or-egg of course for any believer - eg: does the expectation and excitement of a group of co-worshipers help, and once triggered one repeats the buildup alone - or is the experience of connection to the divine so exciting that it causes the chain of events that ends up with golossolalia? William, can you cite the circumatances. the languages, and what was said? I'm all for anecdotal reporting but I've not only had a real vision or two and once blasted myself quite out of my body in a intense experience - my reaction was "good grief - a total vision transform in the waking state" I could see myself below me but no I wasn't floating over me, I'd wrecked my visual cortex and I think the fail-safe body image is a version of youself below yourself because that's always where they say they are - not sitting on the ground or peering over someone;'s shoulder from the side. I'm all for ecstatic experiences; they enchant me with the possibilities avilable in a consciousnes such as ours.

Dear Mayor, I would be pleased to know where and in what environment those activities happened, religious or just normal environment?

Two of the three times were in specific religious settings, the third was not specifically religious. When the individual was asked about the time in a nonreligious setting, he admitted he was not certain why he had said what he said. He claimed that the sounds made no sense to him, but they just seemed to come out and feel right when they did.

Thanks Mayor.

Details, details - what religion, what language, what was said - if these are missing we could be looking at anything or everything - if it was koine Greek and he said "Go to the plaka and hurl dishes" or maybe Sanskrit and it was "gate, gate, paragate .." was it in a group, a service, a catherdral. For a subject so controversial there seems little interest in vetting the source. This doesn't occur elswhere; but here it's considered bad form to suggest that a little detail goes a long way. I'm often bewildered by the lack of familiarity with the cognitive sciences and a willingness to believe without checking out both the details and the well documented ability of memory to recall details that were unnoticed at the time. Who knows - but lets start with what he said. If this is a divine maifestation aren't you interested in what the inspired words were?

Hi Emmanuel, With regard to an immediate test of whether a tongue is from the Holy Spirit as it is actually being spoken, there are some biblical tests of which, as you said, you are aware. These are quick and on the spot.

NIV 1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

NIV 1 Corinthians 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

First, the verses mentioned in Corinthians above concern the context of a Christian church service. Paul is not speaking about other occasions. In a Christian church service, an interpretation in the known language should indicate immediately to other Christians present if the speaker in tongues speaks from the Holy Spirit. Two in agreement for God and Christ (the one speaking in tongues and the interpreter) indicate the presence of the Holy Spirit. Biblically, if the interpretation in the congregation's known language confesses Jesus as Lord (1John 4:2), then by that very nature it should also be a message that builds up the church (1Co 14:26). The congregation as a whole should be able to bear witness to the authenticity of the message: 1) Does the message confess Jesus as God's Son and as Lord, He who was incarnated? 2) Is the message in accordance with the gospel of Christ and as such does it build the church up? Before the New Testament was canonized, the early church operated by the Rule of Faith. That which did not conform to the accepted gospel as given through the apostles and as held by the church body as a whole was rejected. If the hearts of Christians, such as yourself, do not bear witness to the interpreted message, then reject it as not of the Holy Spirit. If no interpreter is present, then the tongue should not have been spoken aloud as part of the church service in the first place, as per 1Co 14:28. A Christian should know in one's heart immediately if that which is spoken accords with the written gospel of Christ, since there is but one Holy Spirit present in all believers. The Holy Spirit present in all believers neither contradicts Himself nor what is written in Scripture. At the very least, the Pastor and any Elders present should be able to discern if an interpreted tongue speaks in accordance with both Scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit within them. If there is disagreement, how can that be of the Lord?

Am I on the right track (is this helpful)?

Sincerely,

Christina

Very helpful, Christina. Back to the original question, those who are Christian who are filled either with the Holy Spirit ,or an andrenalin overload, or an overload caused by an indwelling of the Holy Spirit and much enthusiam (en-theos - animated by God) - makes no difference. Legitimacy is grounded in community. Christians do Christian, Tibetans do Tibetan. If the person is rattling off land grants in Aramaic, that's nothing to do with a gift of interpretation or transmission. The question is: Is it the sort of spiritual exclamations one might expect? Context has so much to do with it. I assure you if a Tibetan shaman started channeling liturgical Latin about the body and blood of Christ they wouldn't know what to make of it. Ecstatic utterances must be judged in an agreed context - accepted Church teachings in this case - and interpreted in that context. You can't pick a more elemental source than Paul. Now, since Paul never mentions the gospels we know he came first, and we also know that the. writer of Luke/Acts was gifted in good storytelling Greek. It leads one to speculate ... did the tongues episode in the upper chamber originate in these readings from Corinthians? If it was the bridge he needed to signify the transfer of the spirit from the Son to the Church for the second half of Luke/Acts, and nobody else mentions it, maybe he had Corinthians for his own in-spiration? We know he sometimes sacrficed accuracy for literature, he was writing after Paul, and Paul talks about tongues. I wonder.

I would note that if we are regarding "speaking in tongues" as a purely religious phenomena, that is one issue. However, that then raises the question of, what is a religion? However, if we are addressing the question of, can a person speak intelligently in a language which they have no known knowledge, then it is a simple question to answer in the affirmative, because it is a known (rare) psychiatric phenomena. As a psychiatric phenomena, it does occur in religions other than Christianity, and does not always address religious issues. Now to the best of my knowledge, there is no generally accepted cause for the phenomena, so the Holy Spirit is quite acceptable, at least in Christian circles.

I'll agree with that completely. Oh - by the bye, I suggest that religion is generally composed of three areas - cultural ceremonies, applied social psychology, and metaphysics. Nobody seems to mind the celebrations and the inspired lawgivers seem to agree 90% of the time although commentaries abound. Metaphysics itself breaks down into the trinity: Where did I (or it all) come from, why am I (or it all) here, and where am I (or it all) going. The divide between the eternal retirement locations(endless lifetimes, in God's grace, the Pure lands.) and the mysteries of origination aside - since they are only in memory or expecation and therefore unique and unverifiable, we have the present moment, which we can all agee on - although it means something different to each of us. As Nagarjuna aptly remarked "The past no longer exists, the future is nowhere to be found, and how can the present move from place to place?" About as close as we could get is that it's June, about 70F, light breeze, sun shining here. Everyone agrees ... "that's nice!" See? That's what I think JC meant with the term "the Kingdom of God is at hand." In fact it's right out the window and if we can escape from the over-processing....it's a miraculous place.

I appreciate you all for discussion! Be free to discuss from your understanding and experience. But remember also to work on this: How do we know objectively that this speaking in tongue is biological, psychological or religious? For those who are Christians, how do we prove this speaking is from true God or something else? I know about the interpreter matter as provided in 1 Corinthians, but mostly in Christian speaking in tongue services, we never experience the presence of interpreters!

Winell (the person I referred to before) says that speaking in tongues is tied to a certain mystical experience, which is why it can be experienced in various religions or by people with no religious faith at all. That doesn't make it meaningless. On the contrary, it makes it even more meaningful to more groups of people because it becomes a mystical experience that is more broadly available to the world (not just Christians).

Also, I don't think anyone can "prove" whether this experience is really from God or whether it's merely a human experience that is manufactured by certain psychological states---that question will be decided only once a much larger package of assumptions are being applied to the question to create the preconditions for determining what the best explanation of the phenomenon is *based on all we know.* The best one could do, then, is argue that if we know x, y, and z, then such-and-such is the best explanation for this phenomenon. This x, y, and z will look very different in the judgments of an atheologian than it will in a theologian, and therefore their conclusions will likely be very different. It's the x, y, and z that set the stage for interpretation of such phenomenon.

Dear Bradley,

Thanks a lot for your comments. They add great value in this discussion.

Glossolalia is a controversial topic within Christian circles, and I won't comment on that here. In answer to your question, glossolalia is not restricted to Chrisitianity. Please study the Sufis of the muslim faith. They are a mystic group in the muslim tradition who practice ecstatic ceremonial dancing (the original 'whirling dervishes') and glossolalia.

Once again I refer to my tome Neurotheology - you'll find it on Amazon - we say the basis of ecstatic behavior of any kind is the actt of short-circuiit the cognitive function with enough adrenalin to cause a major firestorm in the control room resulting in "thoughtless" uttrances, movements, whatever - which may be identified as the spirit of God (en-theos - enthusiastic) or whoever can break forth - until balance is restored. It's easy for one geographic group,- the variety of hallucinogens available in Central America can make anyone a mystic but the West generally gangs concentration and repetitve movement to wear down the barrier until it breaks. It's not thoughtless, it takes coordination and stength to do the dervish, but it gets enough of the brain involved that we can give it a swift kick into overload and ecstatic excess. Kenneth references Sufi dervishes, directly related to the ecastic Shaker circle dances, African dances and .... yes ... rock 'n roll. Or we can just build up a charge trying to make that goal so many times that when you do, the accumulated focus and the general exhaustion push the button and yay hooray !!! We call it joy. Just hormones, but nicely tailored, so if it's reciting and handling rosaries and malas and matras, bowing in Korea, prostrating in Tibet or a room full of Christian grace and Thank you Jesus - yes, Virginia you can speak in tongues too, You just have to learn how to put yourself into a state of acceptance and belief and ... let it rip. My own theology says that if there is a God - he really gave us a such a great pinball game in the mind - we have the stuff up there to do miracles - my rock band could make 'em roll on the floor, but is that higher thought or a jolly good time? But we can't deny some seek like the rock'n roll soul of ecsatic practice - or why do you think Korea went Evangelical in fifty years. Halleuja! Pass the old time religion.

In Flores, Indonesia, at the beginning of traditional rituals, a leader calls out in a language that is considered to be inspired. The people of Flores are Catholic Christians, but also maintain ancient indigenous practices alongside of Christianity. The question about whether these phenomena are related could have either a theological or sociological/anthropological response. Theologically, it is a question of the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Can the Spirit operate outside of the visible Church? Yes. In Acts, Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit before being initiated. Sociologically, there is a book out (1990's) entitled "Ecstatic Religion," responding to some of these questions.

I agree ... Harvey Cox made the connection that Buddhism in Kora was a very active and often dramatic and many forms flourished until the Confucian Cho San dynasty of tough Confucions took over and wiped out all the various schools except the very serious Son monastic traditions. With the Japanese invasion the Cho San folks were out, and the Japanse Buddhist missionaries tried to get purchase with Pure Land Buddhism, with the "savior" Boddhisattva Amitabha (Namida Butsu) who saves us in this sinful time. It's awfully close to Christianity - but they weren't going to take and darned Japanese practices after WW II ... and in flooded Evangelical Christianity with John Ho and others. Suddenly there was an outlet for the traditional collective and emotional traditions that had once flourished in the traditional Korean traditions and all of a sudeen ... whooops ... they're all singing Halleluja - the larges Christian church is currently in Korea,

Since my research question needs various experience from other religions concerning speaking in tongues, I will not make any unnecessary criticism to any thoughtful opinion. I really acknowledge all the quality contributions from all researchers, authors, contributors etc. Thanks indeed. I hope to hear more from you all and others.

Emmanuel, it occurs to me that, given your location in Africa, you should have relatively easy access to tribal religious traditions, especially if you approach them with respect to their own contexts and not as a "Christian minister."  This approach served me well in the Amazon.

Dear Bilbo,

Thank you very much. May I hear more from your understanding, background and experience?

Dear Barry,

Thank you very much for your advise. I know to some extent from my tribal and African context. I will work on your suggestion since it is one of the methods I use. I would be great to hear also from other continental or racial aspects.

In Kulu Valley, in the Himalayas, when the shaman there become possessed by the deity of their respective villagea, they are said to speak a language only known to the deities there and to other shaman of the valley. This is somewhat along the lines of the Christian practice of speaking in tongues.

Dear Ramdas,

Thank you for your contribution. Are there any known stages the participants must pass in order to achieve that level of speaking into other language of the deities?

From what I have seen and been told, once a person becomes a shaman, the knowledge of the "language" is automatically known, because it is the deity who is speaking thru the shaman, not the shaman himself or herself speaking. The way this is related to Christianity concept of speaking in tongues is that in both situations the language is believed to be a divine language and is used to communicate with the divine. In Kulu, when the divine is speaking thru the shaman, the two are communicating and the latter is being given special knowledge by the former to then pass on to whoever has come to the shaman for help.

Dear Ramdas,

Thanks indeed.

Having participated in numerous channeling sessions over the years, I have observed that the deities may speak in unintelligible chittering of different kinds, or they may use the language of the channeler, as occurs in Afro-Brazilian spiritist rituals like those of Condomblé and Umbanda, or in North American spiritualist circles like Teachings of the Inner Christ.  Those that I witnessed satisfied me as to validity, even though not necessarily agreeing with one's preconceptions about speaking in tongues.

Dear Barry,

Thanks for great contribution of personal experience.

Yes . In African Traditional Religion they do speak in tongues.

Thanks Greciuos,

May you provide vivid examples that may help us to know more?

African Traditional Religion in Zimbabwe- This is called Mudzimu (Shona) or Amahlozi (Ndebele). When one falls in trance he/she will speak in other tongues other than his/her vernacular. This will be interpreted by am

other person called Svikiro among the Shonas in Zimbabwe

Great for this contribution. What is the main purpose of being in trance and speaking in tongues? Is it adding anything valuable to the speaker?

The value is that it bypasses the ego-training of the speaker (education, cultural experience, etc.) and rises to a level beyond personal opinions.  One can argue as to whether what comes through is actually from the spirit world, but it at least comes from a different perspective than ordinary conversation, and it calls upon the listeners to hear what is being said with more openness and respect.

Yes, Barry!

How precious is your contribution! What about person's status of the one who speaks in tongues to the society? Does it also has connection to the 'holiness' of the person?

In the tribes I've witnessed, the channeler's "holiness" is mostly predetermined -- they have usually been raised or apprenticed for this role.  In a ritual, the Spirit may bring forward a new medium who may not have expected to be given this role, and this will now be respected among the people.  In the West, it is different, and very often an unworthy person will be given adulation for a minor manifestation while an authentic medium will often be disregarded except by a very few apprentices who can understand the difference.  I would like to hear from others about their experience with this subject.

Thank you a lot for your contribution. We will be more enlightened when we get other's contribution on this matter.

I'm obviously late to this discussion, but I wish to say I admire the depth and sincerity of the contributions in this thread.

The thought I would like to offer is slightly tangential to the question of glossolalia per se, and pertains more to the issue of discernment.

One criterion listed previously for discernment is “common sense,” and in that connection Emmanuel has noted that "common sense must be according to biblical teachings." However, there can of course be biblical examples of phenomena which are rather removed from "common sense" and which are even (at least in initial appearance) transgressive of customary moral principles. A classic example is the Hebrew Testament story of “The Binding of Isaac,” in which God calls on Abraham to sacrifice his son. That sacrifice ultimately does not take place, but most interpretations of the story emphasize the pivotal importance of Abraham’s willingness in that instance to do whatever the Divine told him to do.

I know from my personal life that distinctly transformational events can sometimes befall us when we let go of our presumed and inherited conventional notions of what is proper and what is not – letting go of our common sense, in a word – and open ourselves thereby to other perspectives and other modes of experiential function. That sort of “letting go” -- or “deconstruction of views” or “self-transcendence” -- is also at play in the experience of glossolalia.

So while common sense criteria may indeed be fitting in judging the (potentially longer-term) “fruits” of an ecstatic event, it seems also the case that common sense may need to be suspended at some point in order to enter such an event and potentially allow us thereby to know an experience of “uncommon sense.”

Thanks indeed David for your contribution.

Can "uncommon sense" be verified in "common sense" (or objectively) in relation to glossolalia? In Christian and biblical context how this "uncommon sense" can be proved to be coming from God or Holy Spirit?

Although a long word, I will always retreat to neurophenomenology: eg, there is no way that anything can get into our brain in less than a tenth of a second, and nothing can come to our mind without first being immersed in personal memory to derive meaning. This means, of course, that all of us world that's already a tick behind time.  Not to be farcical, but one might direct this line of questioning to both sex and flatulence - there was a famous Victorian act by a fellow called Le Petomaine - he could speak from both sides, you could say, and did so on stage - was this an emotional outpouring?  A blessing? Only he could have told us, but we know the audience enjoyed it greatly.  We disguise a spring hormonal overload as "love is in the air" - maybe to us - but what would a bonobo think about our avoidance of the easiest way to have fun?  Also, if loss of control isn't voluntary, where's the thrill?  You can't  "almost" fall in love no matter what you call it - a blessing or an aberration, as a musician who when doing little solo follows a string of notes on an unknown journey, I do it with faith that we won't land on K minor. The joy of losing control is balanced by the surety that control will return  - eg: if someone started speaking in tongues - and couldn't stop - would that be a sign of sainthood, or madness?  Ultimately, glossolialia is a personal event and a  benediction - for instance, I'm actually translating this from the oral - which is totally unrecognizable - and it's a blessing it means something to anyone - even me!  God bless.

I have limited direct experience with glossolalia -- I have been in the presence of persons speaking in tongues a few times, and I’ve had acquaintances who spoke in tongues on repeated occasions. I do have some personal experience with ecstatic shamanic moments, including some for which I have no memory of the event, but for which those who were around me at the time and observed what I went through tell me they felt benefited and even “blessed” for having witnessed it. (I felt “washed” and deeply invigorated afterwards.) So, in that moment I was effectively “out of my mind,” given that I couldn’t even remember it afterward, and something wholesomely beneficial resulted from what could thus be considered one version of “uncommon sense.”

As far as identifying a determined criterion by which to prove such things are of God or the Holy Spirit, I don’t feel I can really say. I don’t wish to seem evasive, but I’m just not altogether sure that any humanly constructed fixed criteria—or a humanly conceived interpretation of revelation—can ever constitute a wholly adequate standpoint for such judgments.

I’m reminded in this regard of the verse from Psalms (46:10) which is a sometimes favorite of the apophatic Christian mystics: “Be still and know that I am God.” Ecstasy in the apophatics is typically a very quiet affair. It’s a “standing outside” of our habitual constructed thoughts and images and ideas. It’s a kind of release into a profoundly original honesty. It’s known and loved and participated in as a kind of naked truth. And no one can take that “un-made-up” truth away from you. It’s a sort of unconstructed sobriety, one that is allowed and uncovered, by way of a kind of grace, before our “idolatrous” conceptual constructions. Put another way, it’s something that’s literally before words and tongues, let alone proofs and propositions.

And those mystics and contemplatives will tell us that there is no question of discernment there, given that, as suggested by such Christian writers as the author of The Cloud of Unknowing and the Spanish mystical theologian John of the Cross, when you are that utterly simple and present to the unconstructed truth, “the devil can’t find you.” The devil, in these writers’ way of speaking, needs something to work with, and when we are utterly “noughted” and humbled, the devil can find nothing to distort or to misdirect. (Buddhists sometimes speak similarly about the spirits and nagas being unable to "see" someone in Nibbana.)

So, I’m tempted to speak of a kind of humble confidence resulting from such experiences when they are wholesome. We may simultaneously feel we just know that a given graced experience is valid and beautifully meaningful, and at the same time we are likely to be all the more wholesomely aware of just how much we do not know.

Another Biblical verse that might be applied in this spirit is Paul’s statement in Romans (12:2):

 “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is…”

Well put, David.  As I was reading your post, I entered into that connection and was re-minded of the bardo in which "the devil cannot find me."  There have been some such occasions when the people around me said that I disappeared in front of them for a few moments, leaving at most a fuzzy outline of where I used to be.

I always found it frustrating not to remember my experience directly but, ultimately, my lifelong disciplines have enabled me to remember a lot of them.  The best practices for this have been dreamwork (and even simple journaling helps with recall), silent meditation of course, don Juan's "not-doings," mindfulness practices, self-hypnosis, and conscious channeling.

I do not think so as it was mentioned first apostolic era and it was one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit which came upon the disciples of Christ to enable them to speak in different languages so that they could evangelize the different peoples.

Bishop Martyros, Paul indicates that the gift is for personal edification, not evangelism, and the ability is documented in religions other than Christianity.

Thanks all, I believe, though true speaking in tongues in Christianity may exclusively be considered of being of Holy Spirit; there is also such kind of phenomenon in other religions or sects of beliefs. Christianity believes in it being caused by Holy Spirit, what are the cause(s) or source in other religions? Spirits or just human psychoneurology? What are objective proofs that glossolalia in Christianity is through the Holy Spirit? What about those schools and particular Christians that  teach others how to speak in tongues?

Emmanuel, if someone ever figures out some objective way to determine that the Holy Spirit even exists (I believe it does by the way, but I have no objective proof) then maybe it will be possible to determine if the Holy Spirit operates only through Christianity.  But I would not hold my breath.

As I see it, the problem with "objective proof" for Divine phenomena is what the word "objective" implies, which is to define a subject where it does not exist, just as, in mathematics, you might wish to examine the hyperbolic behavior of 1/x at 0,0 -- it simply does not show up there.  However, those of us in psychological science must address such issues on a daily basis, as it were, so we treat the reported and observed ineffabilities somewhat as a mathematician treats imaginary numbers (n√-1) -- by graphing or analyzing them on their own axis; i.e., regarding such observations as real in their own domain and having some indirect relationship with "known" phenomena..  I just completed a dissertation on this very subject, so I am invested in where this conversation can go.

Ah yes ... but aren't you the one who occasionally disappears, leaving behind only a fuzzy outline?  That is the problem with known phenomena, since it's dependent on who is doing the knowing and we're back to phenomenology.  Did you know you can have an NDE with a little ethyl chloride and a handkerchief?  Sit down if you do this, but when you numbed higher cortex drops you into an asynchronous reality of endless love you'll be nearly certain you had a brush with heaven. The colors match too - - the colors of the bardo are interesting - from white to red as the visual cortex disinhibits and winds down - one authority is the late (I assume) Lati Rinpoche, who has written lots about it.  We all go to heaven because we get stuck in timelessness as our "reality" returns to fetal complexity during normal brain death.  Incidentally I also met Carlos Casteneda ... and The Teaching of Don Juan started as a dissertation itself ... he turned it into the book we know, but it started as a sociological study. He was a rather reclusive fellow.

Back to basics ,... our reality, every little bit of it ... is being assembled on the fly a serious amount of time after it happens - we are in the planetarium of our own brain.  So whether you actually disappear or not is going to be a mental construction, or illusion, in the minds of your friends ... who knows ... we never, ever get outside our own skulls.  But we can really play pinball wizard with the neurons and get anything we want.  Neurotheology is coming back this fall updated with a new title: " You're Going to Heaven Whether You Like It Or Not - Virtual Religion ion the 21st Century" and the beta site, still under construction,  is "goingtoheaven.org"   Enjoy,

Good points, Laurence, although you have not disproved the spiritist side of the matter. I run into the same problem when presenting to academics -- they get stuck on the mechanics of the phenomenon or on which theory to apply, but only those who have "journeyed through the Underworld and returned" understand, even without all the words. I make a point of following the neuroscience and psychopharmacological dimensions of the research, as mechanical bases, but I keep in mind what I have seen for myself.

There are some purported instances of xenoglossy in relation to non-Christian theologies (Buddhist, Daoist, etc.): https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/xenoglossy-reincarnation-cases I don't know details of entrenched practices of glossolalia or xenoglossy outside of certain Christian sects, but that is simply because I don't have a research background in the matter. I would be surprised if there was not. I'm also curious how much of speaking in tounges could actually be considered xenoglossy, even in a rudimentary/grammatically incorrect context.

Jennifer, I can assure you that I am personally aware of a few instances where the person speaking in tongues was speaking in a foreign language that no one, including the person's immediate family, had any knowledge of their having learned. They were not speaking as a current native would, but the language was recognizable by at least one person present in every situation.

Jennifer - I am coming late to this party - but you might want to consult the Garrett Seminary-Northwestern University PhD dissertation of Sr Heliadora Gonsalvez: The Theology & Psychology of Glossolalia (1978).

Heliodora's work was ground-breaking. She is referenced by Mark Cartledge in Charismatic Glossolalia: An Empirical-Theological Study (Routledge Press, 2017)

Dear Cooper and others,

Thank you very much for your contributions. The issue of glossolalia especially in Christianity looks to be as similar as to other religions or cults. I think that is why Paul the apostle wrestle with Corinth church, to make sure they are following the Holy Spirit's glossolalia. Biblical Christianity should never overlook this sociological truth because, attendants in the church can also easily be moved and possessed by other spirit through the personal want of glossolaliazing!

However, we must find an objective way that may help to distinguish the God's Spirit glossolalia and other speaking in tongues!

After reading this post, I feel that I have at least some firsthand subjective information that may be relevant to this discussion. My faith tradition is Quaker or Friends. I have mostly been a part of the evengelical branch but feel comfortable in both settings. In my faith tradition there is very little to no emphasis on “speaking in tongues”. I however do speak in tongues. I recieved this ability during a Quaker prayer meeting. I will preface this by saying that before receiving this “gift” I was very sceptical of anyone who spoke in tongues or even the ability to speak in tongues. Nether the less it happened like this. I heard a voice or a thought inside my head while praying asking me if I would like to receive the gift of tongues. Mind you the prayer meeting had no charismatic dynamic to it that I can identify. Either way, I said yes internally to that question and immediately began speaking what sounded like gibberish to my outside ear but had meaning internally.

Currently, I am able to speak this language whenever I want. However, I use it exclusively when I am praying. I have never spoke in tongues in a corporate setting. I would describe it as being able to express myself without the limitations of language. It is a direct connection of my emotion to the divine. It is extremly beneficial to me personally. However, as far as being beneficially to the building up of the body of Christ I cannot see the direct connection. Though I have never felt led to speak tongues in public.

When speaking it does seem like I use repetitive phrases which leads me to think that this is not an actual language. I am totally aware and have some control when I focuse. Which leads me to believe that the gift of tongues spoke of by Paul may be a different experience.