by Hal Eaton » Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:58 am
I have stated these things before, but, as I recall, there was no response--heated, cool, supportive, or otherwise.
Some musings on the issue:
(1) The event at Pentecost was participated in by the close disciples of Jesus; neither of the Gospel authors saw fit to include it, although they wrote their missives long after the occurrence.
(2) Luke's account was based on the re-telling of the event by some who were evidently witnesses. Such stories, told and re-told years after the incident, tend to magnify the supposed miraculous factors. Think Lourdes, Mejagorje (sp?), the sun standing still, Mel Gibson's "Passion of Christ" (and its 40-minute depiction of a 30-second reading of the Gospel account), haunted houses, the image of Jesus on Veronica's veil, the shroud of Turin (and on countless other venues--tortillas, clouds, etc.), and any of a thousand other eye-witness accounts of such far-fetched, and routinely discounted, affairs. All of the afore-mentioned incidents are routinely vindicated by those who want to believe.
(3) Modern-day emulators of the event try to repeat the elements which make it spititual, mysterious, miraculous, and/or efficacious. (Old French proverb: Nobody ever falls in love until he hears about it.) Paul indicated his own distrust of the attitudes of many of the practitioners in his day. Perhaps we should emulate his example. His off-handed acceptance of the practice may have been an atempt to ameliorate his denial of its probity.
(4) One of the criticisms of tongues-speaking is that it occurs only in those locales where it is endorsed, expected, and routinely practiced. The relatively recent appearance of the private version is perhaps a reaction to that particular critique. Questions as to the value of such private involvement deserve consideration.
(5) As others have admonished, no criticism is valid if the private nature of the practice is adhered to. (If you talk non-sensically in public, the police will lock you up; the doctor will medicate you; your church may praise you--or not; your mother-in-law will have her worst fears realized.)
(6) All the psychological aspects of the practice must be examined--and they are many.
I'm sure some will respond to my post by the numbers. Forgive me if my words are inadequate to fully expound my reactions and theories applicable to the ideas. Food for thought sometimes results in indigestion. (Mine, for sure . . .)