Fostering this kind of immoral behavior, potential tongue-speakers are told to empty themselves of any personal inhibitions so as to allow the Spirit to manifest itself. One study noted the following incident:

" In Jalisco, Mexico, the Holy Spirit possessed three men and women, and they began to tear the clothes from their bodies there in front of the congregation. What a situation for the pastor. He began beating them with his belt and suddenly they knew where they were and started grabbing for their clothes, and their relatives in the church began dressing them" (Goodman, p. 65).

In spite of these social anomalies, modern adherents to the tongues movement claim that they are following a totally different world view than traditional western Christianity. It is claimed that western Christianity bases its knowledge of God and reality on sense experience, which means that men of such mentality have no direct contact with the spiritual realities lying behind the material world, a world view associated with Aristotelean modes of thought. The correct view, claim the tongue-speakers, is that man can know God directly. It maintains that man has knowledge of God and reality not only through sense experience and reason but also through direct experience of the non-physical world, which is associated with the Platonic mode of thought (Kelsey, p. 170). Not surprisingly, many modern tongue-speakers look back to the teachings of Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 - 1834) who was himself an advocate of Platonic philosophy and translated many of Plato's works. To Schleiermacher, religion is at its best an intuitive grasp of dialectical thought, and an emotional response to its insights. Doctrine is dependent on religious experience, not experience on belief in dogma (Ferm, p. 693-694).

Opponents of the modern tongues movement retort that such distinctions in philosophies do not really strike at the essential differences or controversy surrounding the issue. Although it is true that western Christianity has been influenced by Aristotelianism, there has also been a substantial influence from Platonism. Both of these Greek modes of thinking, which were expressed in Neo-Platonism, were used by Augustine as he set the mold for western Christianity in the Middle Ages. Augustine had understood the interplay between the physical and non-physical worlds, but for other reasons he was adamant against speaking in tongues. Following Augustine, other theologians such as Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Siger of Brabant were, on the one hand, practical and logical about the Christian faith, but, on the other hand, did not deny the immanence of the supernatural (Ibid., p. 695).

As the philosophy of Platonism was used to give credibility to tongue-speaking, movements in the field of psychology also gave impetus to its advancement. With their stress on the subconscious - the very source from which various forms of modern glossolalia have been attributed - Sigmund Freud (1865 - 1939) and Karl Jung (1875 - 1960) gave scientific credence to speculative theories of the non-physical world. Freud taught that there were non-physical forces which influenced human actions, while Jung's psychoanalytic theories went so far as to dabble in the occult (Kelsey, p. 184). Prior to this, William James (1842 - 1910) had already set the stage for modern psychological theories, postulating that man's religious response was a product of the subconscious mind. Theologians such as Rudolph Otto (1869 - 1937) followed this line of thinking and attributed man's spiritual emotions to the subconscious.

Jung pursued his theories more vigorously than all the others, however. He maintained that man not only had a psyche "below" consciousness, but also a psyche "above" consciousness (Jung, Collected Works, 1953, v. 12). He had frequently expressed, in connection with various kinds of experiences, that men are in contact with a realm of being which is not material. He writes:

" The tremendous power of the objective psyche has been named "demon" or "God" in all epochs with the sole exception of the recent past. We have become so bashful in matters of religion that we correctly say "subconscious" because God has in fact become subconscious to us" (Kelsey, p. 197).

Jung postulated that the psyche which he saw in his patients and in himself is in contact with a psychic world containing elements which are superior to human consciousness. Not surprisingly, tongue-speakers find great support in the references to glossolalia that Jung recorded in some of his works. The following is part of a letter, dated February 23, 1955, to Theodore Flournoy, a colleague of his:

"Speaking with glossolalia is observed in cases of ekstasis (predominance of the subconscious). It is probably that the strangeness of the subconscious contents not yet integrated in consciousness demands an equally strange language" (Ibid.).

Jung's theories, of course, created quite a stir. More and more psychologists, psychoanalysts, and eventually theologians became interested in his theories. A meeting concerning tongue-speaking was held with various clergy members in New York city in 1962. Sargant, an English psychologist, after observing a few revivals in which such things as snake-handling and tongues-speaking were practiced, concluded that such experiences were similar to reactions from electric-shock therapy. It was postulated that both tongues-speaking and shock therapy exhibit a cortical excitement which breaks up the individual's prior conditioning and frees him to develop new patterns of thought and behavior. Some have concluded that this phenomenon might explain the sense of freedom which so often occurs in the experience of glossolalia, as well as the change which so often occurs in the lives of the subjects. Yet other psychiatrists have theorized that tongue-speaking is a form of dissociation resembling that of schizophrenia. Although some tongue-speakers have been clinically classified with a neurosis, there are many who show no signs of abnormality. Some of these in the normal category compare the mental dissociation experienced in tongue-speaking to that of nocturnal dreams. Support for this theory is drawn from the fact, as even Jung himself suggested, that Scripture records God using dreams as a means to contact men directly (Kelsey, p. 211).

Critics point out that, as tongue-speaking advocates rely on particular philosophic and psychoanalytic theories to gain acceptance, it is significant that there is virtually no distinction made between man's individual psyche and direct divine revelation as recorded in Scripture. This fact is evident in that most of the literature in support of tongue-speaking focuses on the mental decision one makes to speak in tongues and very little on the act of tongues-speaking being a purely untaught and spontaneous action directed by God, as even biblical dreams were, in the Scriptural record. Tongue-speakers reply that the mental preparation allows one to receive the gifts of tongues through the subconscious, yet they admit that biblical directives do not prescribe such preparatory actions before receiving direct revelation from God.

On a related front, tongue-speakers' reliance on theories in psychology for support and credibility inadvertently opens the phenomenon up to the incisive scrutiny of those same psychological theories. Altered states of consciousness and abnormal personality development are among the major headings in this area. On the physical level, testimonies of the accompanying manifestations of tongue-speaking are crying, high blood pressure, locked jaw, hot flashes, chest pressure, ballooning cheeks, head swelling and shrinking. Outside observers will usually see tightly closed eyes, rapid breathing, goose pimples, twitching, flushed face, lacrimation, salivation, perspiration, inability to swallow, rigidity of limbs, trembling, spasms, and unusual kinetic behavior (Goodman, p. 58). Salivation is sometimes so intense that afterward there are hand-sized or even larger pools of clear saliva on the floor. These kinds of symptoms are usually characteristic of altered states of consciousness. Hyper arousal in glossolalia is also similar to many hallucinatory experiences, as well as dreaming (Ibid., pp. 59-60). Hyper arousal often leads to mental dissociation. One recorded incident reveals the following:

"Very soon, Floriano goes into a trance and subsequent glossolalia. Despite his very dark complexion, his flush is quite visible. He is totally oblivious to the fact that I have the camera, and later the microphone, trained on him, the latter often very close to his face (Ibid., p. 64).

While speaking in tongues, Consuelo remembers:

"I was floating a little above the ground and one by one everybody else around me was being snatched away, upward, until I was all alone" (Ibid., p. 66).

The hypnotic trance is a learned behavior, and once learned, its repetition is assured. Although not all researchers attribute to the church leader the decisive role, most give him significance comparable to that of a hypnotist. Also important for the entrance into the trance state is the suggestive influence of other persons present who are already in the trance state (McDonald, p. 81). Due to repeated suggestion as to what is expected of one, and the repeated appeals to "yield oneself to the power," many writers have concluded that hypnotism is frequently involved in causing tongues:

"There is no doubt that both self and group suggestion play some role in this phenomenon. The fact that speaking in tongues is a contagious phenomenon is another evidence of the influence of suggestion. It is something that has to be "caught".... In this respect it resembles the barking and jerking which occurred in the Kentucky revivals in which thousands were caught up into ecstasy even against their wills" (Smith, p. 107).

As noted earlier, a consistent criticism levied against modern tongue-speaking is that it lacks the spontaneity of the tongues experienced in biblical times. Along with the abundant literature promoting tongue-speaking, most followers have to be coached, coaxed, and forced into their utterances. Adherents of tongue-speaking present formulas and instructions designed to teach interested parties how to speak in tongues. To counter this, some adherents admit that people are coached into the initial stages, but that the continuation of the experience is a gift of the Holy Spirit (Smith, p. 96). Yet various Pentecostal and Holiness ministers will grant that many of their members only pretend to receive the gift, and many who really do speak in tongues give no evidence of any genuine fruit of the Spirit in their lives. Not surprisingly, it is also admitted that demon possession may be a cause for tongue-speaking (Ibid., p. 102-103).

Still, many classical Pentecostal and Catholic charismatics would deny that tongue-speaking is a learned behavior. Not to do so would be tantamount to denying that it was a gift of the Holy Spirit. Most of the psychological research shows, however, that modern glossolalia is a learned behavior in the sense that it is something almost everyone is capable of doing. It is a natural ability such that the person uses the phonetic material already in his/her linguistic background (McDonnell, p. 84). Although some researchers do not believe tongues is a learned behavior because of many reported cases in which it occurred without the speaker having come into contact with others who also spoke in tongues, it is admitted that almost everyone has the innate ability to do so, given the proper teaching, circumstances and motivation. Moreover, it has been found that some who begin to speak in tongues privately often do so as a result of auto-hypnosis and autosuggestion, two common phenomena in psychology (Smith, p. 70).

Beside the self-induced mental disengagement that plays a large part in glossolalia, there are several other psychological factors involved. First, the expectation of speaking in tongues is set up. As cited earlier, there is a central oft-repeated tenet that achieving tongues is of utmost religious importance. If tongues does not ensue, the initiate is admonished to continue to pray, to fast, and not to resist the power. Secondly, both the laity and the clergy recognize the significance of the behavior as cementing the congregation. At times, it can be the single most powerful cohesive factor of the group (Goodman, p. 89). Yet as psychologist John Kildahl has noted, tongues also produces a divisive element. While they generally show love to the members of the group, they often exhibit a subtle disrespect for those who do not speak in tongues or do not share their views about tongues. This feeling of love and acceptance within the group but ill will toward non-tongue speakers is dependent upon the recognition that they have a common enemy composed of those who do not speak in tongues or do not consider it a work of the Spirit (Ibid., p. 68-71). Thirdly, the rewards are great for the individual. He is taught to expect the reassurance of the working of the Spirit in his life. Fourthly, there is the specific conditioning aimed at reassuring the supplicant that speaking in tongues is indeed possible. This is carried out by word of mouth and demonstrations in sermons and altar calls, respectively. In charismatic churches, the latter are part of every service and nearly always feature tongue-speaking (Ibid., p. 89).

With these inducements at the foreground, the supplicant's efforts are successful and he actually begins speaking in tongues. In some, the transition from language to dissociative vocalization is subtle. The meaningful speech slowly dissolves, as if wiped away, and the patterns of glossolalia take over. The first utterance may be a shout or a stutter. Subsequent utterances will exhibit tremendous pulse frequency. In successive trials the character of the tongues utterance will change exhibiting less energy, loudness, and intensity over a two or three year period (Ibid., 93-97).

Some peculiarities in the content of glossolalia show that the influence of the group, along with the tongue-speaker's own personality and background, are intrinsically involved in the experience. The following is a transcribed recording of a tongue-speaking experience of a man at St. Vincent Church in Mexico City:

7. hunda / handa landa

8. kala / handa landa / lo lo lo

9. kada / handa

10. anda lo lo lo / ihikada / handa lo lo / lodi

11. kada / handa

12. lulodi / ikada / handa

13. lokodu / handa

14. kadahanda

This particular case study reports that if a comparison is made of this utterance with those of his parishioners, the model orientation of the latter becomes quite evident. Two of his pulses "hunda" and "handa" keep recurring in the parishioners pulse inventory. This is an example of how the subject has salvaged sections and remnants of someone else's utterance structure and has made them part of his own performance (Goodman, p. 108).

The next example is an utterance spoken in the same Mexican church. The struggle to achieve vocalization seems very arduous. Juan claps extremely fast, then slows down, speeds up once more, prays loudly, but no tongues ensues. Finally there is a single phrase "ai / sic / sio," but the attempt aborts. His prayer becomes very long and drawn out and is at variance with his fast clapping. Then the glossolalia level is achieved but neither the volume nor intensity attain the level of the previous year he spoke in tongues. Background glossolalia among the members was of the form "sic, sic, sic," at the time Juan began to speak. The following is a transcribed recording of Juan's tongue-speaking experience of 43 seconds:

1. si : sic / syo:h

2. si : c / s

3. si / sic sic sic

4. ?c sic / so

5. A sia / sia sie so

6. si / so

7. ?si

8. c : sia / sia s

9. si syo

10. a : si sy

11. si / si sy

12. iai a / si ?

13. ?c si (coughing, lengthy pause until next utterance)

14. a / a / a / si

15. si / sye

A second utterance achieved later in the same altar-call has a markedly lower intensity and lasted 31 seconds. A third utterance of only 17 seconds, with considerable volume and intensity, gave evidence that Juan was attempting, by whatever mechanism, to push himself into a higher-level dissociation (Goodman, pp. 118-119).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7