Speaking In Tongues Into The Microphone

[unfinishedclay]

As a Spirit-filled believer, who I believe in praying in tongues privately - whether done behind closed doors or within a group where tongues are prayed within personal space in agreement with others praying. But I've never understood the point of tongues being spoken at the microphone.

Does anybody have any answers?

 

[jiminpa]

Maybe. We've become so trained to be afraid of people seeing God's Spirit in us that we have to be retrained to understand that having God's Spirit is nothing to be ashamed of. They have to speak in tongues publicly to help us to realize that it is okay.

 

[tturt]

Some stress I Cor 14:19, Paul says in church speak in a language that's understood. Yet he also said tongues are a sign TO unbelievers (I Cor 14:22).

Then there's tongues with interpretation (I Cor 12:10). Some say ok to speak in tongues because there's an interpretation. Yet all tongues can be interpreted per "Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret." (I Cor 14:13).

 

[unfinishedclay]

According to Acts (speaking in tongues supernaturally in the spoken languages of various nationalities) and I Corinthians (speaking in tongues supernaturally in a private unknown language), I believe we can speak in tongues in each other's presence as we pray corporately. But as Paul mentioned in I Corinthians 14, what is the point in praying outwardly on a platform in tongues without interpretation? It's a sign at the mic and off the mic for unbelievers. But it doesn't edify any believer or unbeliever - only the one speaking.

Isn't a platform meant to distribute the Word and praise - in the form of speaking naturally or singing - in order that the entire assembly is edified?

I'm interested examining whether the topic is Biblical like I once felt it was at one time in my life because I'm re-reading books and watching videos of Kenneth Hagin and John Osteen (Joel's dad) - who were teachers I used to hold dear to my heart.

Now, after years of reading the Word in private devotion and listening to different teachers like Zac Poonen/his sons (who believe in gifts of the Spirit) and Paul Washer (who does also but in a non-charismatic way), I have a hard time agreeing with what I used to identify as "spiritual" just because tongues are publicly spoken - which is what Pastors Hagin and Osteen did.

 

[jiminpa]

According to Acts (speaking in tongues supernaturally in the spoken languages of various nationalities) and I Corinthians (speaking in tongues supernaturally in a private unknown language), I believe we can speak in tongues in each other's presence as we pray corporately. But as Paul mentioned in I Corinthians 14, what is the point in praying outwardly on a platform in tongues without interpretation? It's a sign at the mic and off the mic for unbelievers. But it doesn't edify any believer or unbeliever - only the one speaking.

Isn't a platform meant to distribute the Word and praise - in the form of speaking naturally or singing - in order that the entire assembly is edified?

I'm interested examining whether the topic is Biblical like I once felt it was at one time in my life because I'm re-reading books and watching videos of Kenneth Hagin and John Osteen (Joel's dad) - who were teachers I used to hold dear to my heart.

Now, after years of reading the Word in private devotion and listening to different teachers like Zac Poonen/his sons (who believe in gifts of the Spirit) and Paul Washer (who does also but in a non-charismatic way), I have a hard time agreeing with what I used to identify as "spiritual" just because tongues are publicly spoken - which is what Pastors Hagin and Osteen did.

Um, Acts doesn't say anything about the tongues spoken being in known languages. That is assumption, (granted, the logical assumption), and you can't build doctrine on assumption. It says that those present heard in their own dialect, but that does not require what was spoken to be in those languages.

 

[unfinishedclay]

Um, Acts doesn't say anything about the tongues spoken being in known languages. That is assumption, (granted, the logical assumption), and you can't build doctrine on assumption. It says that those present heard in their own dialect, but that does not require what was spoken to be in those languages.

Not building doctrine around it. That's the way I read it and studied it. Yes, those present had heard the languages in their own tongues. it was all supernatural. That's what I pointed out. I pointed out how tongues were spoken/heard in different ways in Acts and as described by Paul in I Corinthians.

 

[Alithis]

Not building doctrine around it. That's the way I read it and studied it. Yes, those present had heard the languages in their own tongues. it was all supernatural. That's what I pointed out. I pointed out how tongues were spoken/heard in different ways in Acts and as described by Paul in I Corinthians.

So basically your asking what the point of praying in tongues from the pulpit..with amplified volume.. if there is no interpretation tobenifit the hearer ?.. Right ?

Answer... No point.
Take the mic away from your mouth and do it. The lord doesnt need to hear it through the sound system for it to be effective

 

[tturt]

There's nothing to indicate tongues as a known language from the Acts 10 account.
"24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends."
Peter gospel message v 34-43
"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
"For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. ..v44-46

 

[Alithis]

So either way... If there is no intepretation..why do it through a microphone?
Isnt that the question ?

 

[unfinishedclay]

So either way... If there is no intepretation..why do it through a microphone?
Isnt that the question ?

That's exactly the question. I praise God for allowing us to pray and glorify Him in tongues. I just don't understand it being amplified as you worded.

 

[Alithis]

having said that .. when you (any one ) hears tongues very loudly .. does it make you edgy or irritable after a while ?
if so .. go to the one praying and ask them to pray for you and get that foul spirit kicked out of you asap..
that is a manifestation of the presence of an evil spirit effecting your life . the holy spirit is NEVER uncomfortable with some one praying in tongues soft or LOUD .
a religious spirit will do anything it can to deny its presence ..it will get all self defensive and hide and wiggle and squirm .

 

[unfinishedclay]

having said that .. when you (any one ) hears tongues very loudly .. does it make you edgy or irritable after a while ?
if so .. go to the one praying and ask them to pray for you and get that foul spirit kicked out of you asap..
that is a manifestation of the presence of an evil spirit effecting your life . the holy spirit is NEVER uncomfortable with some one praying in tongues soft or LOUD .
a religious spirit will do anything it can to deny its presence ..it will get all self defensive and hide and wiggle and squirm .

I have actually gotten concerned about it for the reason of I Corinthians 14. It has nothing to do with any foul spirit within me (where the Holy Ghost will not dwell in a temple He's cleaned and filled). When Peter dissed his Gentile brethren, Paul did not falsely accuse him of having a foul spirit for Peter's behavior. Neither did he falsely accuse James and Barnabas, even though he described their concerns as hypocrisy.

My concern goes deeper than being irritable or edgy or uncomfortable at the speaking of tongues. But what does roast my temples is a sarcastic, false accusation like the one you're sending out with that pointless wink.

Second of all, how would you have addressed Paul's letter and his point in chapter 14 concerning outward expression of tongues? He wasn't criticizing it but he was saying that it edifies only the one speaking it. In a prayer meeting, where everyone is speaking in tongues or everyone speaking in tongues while one prays in natural, that is in line with what he is teaching in Chapter 14.

But on a platform in a mic, what is the point? I'm not ashamed to ask that. And if you have Scriptural background or discerning insight to make clear what your point is, can you do it without the snide remark?

Finally, I pointed out that two teachers (John Osteen and Kenneth Hagin) have done this often in the past, and that, because I am now looking back at some of their teachings now, I want to know what the point of them doing it was. I'm looking for an effective answer that expounds on what is Biblical and led by the Spirit, not slugs (which also are pointless and too common among us in our circles).

 

[unfinishedclay]

http://www.charismamag.com/spirit/r...rongly-embrace-unbiblical-revival-experiences

 

[Alithis]

I have actually gotten concerned about it for the reason of I Corinthians 14. It has nothing to do with any foul spirit within me (where the Holy Ghost will not dwell in a temple He's cleaned and filled). When Peter dissed his Gentile brethren, Paul did not falsely accuse him of having a foul spirit for Peter's behavior. Neither did he falsely accuse James and Barnabas, even though he described their concerns as hypocrisy.

My concern goes deeper than being irritable or edgy or uncomfortable at the speaking of tongues. But what does roast my temples is a sarcastic, false accusation like the one you're sending out with that pointless wink.

Second of all, how would you have addressed Paul's letter and his point in chapter 14 concerning outward expression of tongues? He wasn't criticizing it but he was saying that it edifies only the one speaking it. In a prayer meeting, where everyone is speaking in tongues or everyone speaking in tongues while one prays in natural, that is in line with what he is teaching in Chapter 14.

But on a platform in a mic, what is the point? I'm not ashamed to ask that. And if you have Scriptural background or discerning insight to make clear what your point is, can you do it without the snide remark?

Finally, I pointed out that two teachers (John Osteen and Kenneth Hagin) have done this often in the past, and that, because I am now looking back at some of their teachings now, I want to know what the point of them doing it was. I'm looking for an effective answer that expounds on what is Biblical and led by the Spirit, not slugs (which also are pointless and too common among us in our circles).

my reply was generalized advice to all and any .that "if" you find yourself feeling agitated in the presence of tongues being prayed out loudly .. get deliverance .. and i know what i'm taking about ..just Trust God .

im not in a place to judge osteen or hagin. ,never met them .what i do know is that tongues are not an automatic badge of approval

 

[unfinishedclay]

my reply was generalized advice to all and any .that "if" you find yourself feeling agitated in the presence of tongues being prayed out loudly

No, it wasn't. It was not generalized. It was implied. It was rude. And it was blind-sighting, cheap-shot slug to make a point based on a "take-my-word-for-it" response (that you threw in for a final blow, tempting me to clarify my point before you delivered it). Oh, and the wink thrown in there to lighten the moment just in case your implication of falsely accusing me of having a foul spirit would be taken as the offense that it was.

That is TACKY to suggest that a fellow Spirit-filled believer has a demonic spirit because he/she asks whether something even as tongues is necessary based on a legitimate place in the Bible like I Corinthians. Take note on how you should respond to a questions - even if it's opposition from other believers without suggesting they have demons.

Paul never accused Barnabas in those epistles of having a demonic spirit for opposing what he believed and vice versa. Jesus, our Savior Who is God (The Son and The Word), was questioned about whether He was the one to even look for by John the Baptist and He didn't falsely accuse John of having a demonic spirit for questioning the most important being (being God Himself) walking the earth. In FACT, after telling John's disciples that the blind were seeing/lame walking/oppressed healed and "blessed are they who aren't offended in Me", He turned to listeners and uplifted John as being the greatest of all prophets before saying the least could be before John.

And I'm not asking anybody to judge two teachers I've held dear to my heart. I'm asking for really sincere reasons as I go through examining my journey - that began back in 80's and 90's listening to them. Biblical sound insight is what I need. Please understand that when somebody is seeking answers, arrogance and presumption in the form of generalized implications come across as false accusation.

 

[Alithis]

No, it wasn't. It was not generalized. It was implied. It was rude. And it was blind-sighting, cheap-shot slug to make a point based on a "take-my-word-for-it" response (that you threw in for a final blow, tempting me to clarify my point before you delivered it). Oh, and the wink thrown in there to lighten the moment just in case your implication of falsely accusing me of having a foul spirit would be taken as the offense that it was.

That is TACKY to suggest that a fellow Spirit-filled believer has a demonic spirit because he/she asks whether something even as tongues is necessary based on a legitimate place in the Bible like I Corinthians. Take note on how you should respond to a questions - even if it's opposition from other believers without suggesting they have demons.

Paul never accused Barnabas in those epistles of having a demonic spirit for opposing what he believed and vice versa. Jesus, our Savior Who is God (The Son and The Word), was questioned about whether He was the one to even look for by John the Baptist and He didn't falsely accuse John of having a demonic spirit for questioning the most important being (being God Himself) walking the earth. In FACT, after telling John's disciples that the blind were seeing/lame walking/oppressed healed and "blessed are they who aren't offended in Me", He turned to listeners and uplifted John as being the greatest of all prophets before saying the least could be before John.

And I'm not asking anybody to judge two teachers I've held dear to my heart. I'm asking for really sincere reasons as I go through examining my journey - that began back in 80's and 90's listening to them. Biblical sound insight is what I need. Please understand that when somebody is seeking answers, arrogance and presumption in the form of generalized implications come across as false accusation.

Touchy much..
Go back and read it..
I stated if you (anyone) find yourself feeling uncomfortable or irritable ..etc..
- you ..in brackets (anyone)...as in you ,refering to "anyone"reading the post...
Not you personally...

 

[tturt]

unfinishedclay,
There's self edification ( I Cor 14:4) and church edification ( I Cor 14:27-28).

Yes, Paul wrote "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." I Cor 14:19 YET he wrote in the same chapter "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:" v22 So tongues are a sign To unbelievers Of believers. (I Cor 14:22 and Mark 16:17). How can they be a sign if they're not spoken. Clearly, v 19 is emphasized while v 22 is basically ignored. Services can still be "decent and in order" with tongues spoken (Acts 10).

There is a distinctive difference from private/prayer language tongues and tongues for interpretation (diversities of tongues, I Cor 12:10).

This Scripture is referring to tongues for interpretation. The tongues portion can be spoken up to 3 times and if there's no interpretation, then the tongues are stopped."If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret." I Cor 14:27

 

[unfinishedclay]

unfinishedclay,
There's self edification ( I Cor 14:4) and church edification ( I Cor 14:27-28).

Yes, Paul wrote "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." I Cor 14:19 YET he wrote in the same chapter "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:" v22 So tongues are a sign To unbelievers Of believers. (I Cor 14:22 and Mark 16:17). How can they be a sign if they're not spoken. Clearly, v 19 is emphasized while v 22 is basically ignored. Services can still be "decent and in order" with tongues spoken (Acts 10).

There is a distinctive difference from private/prayer language tongues and tongues for interpretation (diversities of tongues, I Cor 12:10).

This Scripture is referring to tongues for interpretation. The tongues portion that can be spoken up to 3 times and if there's no interpretation, then the tongues is stopped."If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret." I Cor 14:27

Thank you for clarifying. A breakdown really is what I've been needing.

I was filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues after having read a book by Kenneth Hagin and from there had begun to read/listen more from him till I stopped a little time before he had passed. And listening to other teachers in the Word, being placed in new ministries, and going through a serious series of storms (while also seeing some sisters in Christ go through some storms), I had begun to wonder about how we had been going about speaking openly on platform during fellowships based on these passages and wondering if the order by which we had been going was ever a hindrance to unbelievers (like our offspring and even some wayward spouses) among us.

I appreciate you breaking it down and plan to look at the passages again.

Is it the interpretive tongue that is the sign to unbelievers or is the unknown tongue that's for self-edification also a sign?

Although I expect to be persecuted as a believer for everything we do in the Name of Jesus and have gone through persecution, I've wondered in the past - and again recently - if I'm causing myself unnecessary persecution while at the same time causing any unbelievers to stumble with confusion (thinking I'm crazy, like Paul pointed out) and then as a result causing them to shut down from hearing the Word because they would relate on-fire faith in Christ to being strange. I've faced that before with loved ones who got turned off from hearing any Word I had to minister to them as a result of me breaking out speaking in tongues around them and so I felt I had to tone down speaking around them (unless praying for something that requires me to pray in spirit) to those loved ones and focus more on breaking down the simplicity of the gospel in order that they could hear it and believe and be saved. Then, from there, I've been trying to minister to a couple of them about being filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues now that they have believed.

And, there is spiritual warfare going on - casting out devils, some of whom return when those bodily temples aren't filled.

But among some circles I've been involved with on and off for years (within close range and also from a distance), we've been up against the following who have been among us with no expounded teaching of the Word but full exposure to tongues being spoken on platform:

1. adulterers in leadership (some of whom love to hear tongues and see manifestations, as long as no one bothers them with convicting Scriptures about their adultery)
2. drug dealers listening in fellowship and leave church unchanged and return the following Sunday for the sake of routine
3. strikers (wife beaters) in leadership who, again, love hearing tongues spoken and seeing manifestations as long as no one challenges their evil
4. ghettos surrounding our fellowships with people who really are hungry for the Word that is not being broken down in teaching

Do I have a burden for my community and for relationships? More now than ever. And it makes me question my approach - past and present. These are concerns that have made me wonder, "have we been in the order the Lord wants us to be in in order to be effective?" Also, thanks for Acts 10 which sheds light on my concerns. I do love that part of Acts and love prayer meetings like what Peter had with Cornelius and his circle after ministering to them and prayed they be filled with the Spirit. Thanks again.

 

[unfinishedclay]

Touchy much..

Yes, I am touchy as many within the Body of Christ would be if another believer insinuates demonic spirits for raising a concern that is based on what's in the Bible - with correct or incorrect interpretation. That's where we build one another up in correcting with the Word.

Brother, you've got to understand that there is a term called "spiritual abuse". And it's a major issue for a reason. Christians at every growth level have raised their hands with questions or concerns and have gotten falsely accused of having evil spirits for doing so. Read up on it.

Jesus gave us 4 gospels and epistles that are full of examples on how to distribute God's Word where correction and education are needed. Follow His example, Brother. You'll be a whole lot more effective. Deliverance is due to many of us within the Body of Christ. But hit and misses occur too often when there are (sadly) blatant sins and bona fide spiritual battles that truly do need to be addressed head-on. False accusations = hit/miss diagnosis. It's not discernment.

 

[jiminpa]

Yes, I am touchy as many within the Body of Christ would be if another believer insinuates demonic spirits for raising a concern that is based on what's in the Bible - with correct or incorrect interpretation. That's where we build one another up in correcting with the Word.

Brother, you've got to understand that there is a term called "spiritual abuse". And it's a major issue for a reason. Christians at every growth level have raised their hands with questions or concerns and have gotten falsely accused of having evil spirits for doing so. Read up on it.

Jesus gave us 4 gospels and epistles that are full of examples on how to distribute God's Word where correction and education are needed. Follow His example, Brother. You'll be a whole lot more effective. Deliverance is due to many of us within the Body of Christ. But hit and misses occur too often when there are (sadly) blatant sins and bona fide spiritual battles that truly do need to be addressed head-on. False accusations = hit/miss diagnosis. It's not discernment.

Alithis has been on this forum for years and is not known for what you are accusing him of. If he says he was not accusing you, I am confident that he wasn't. It really isn't his style.