Singing in tongues en masse

apmercer said:

My opinion: The public tongue must be interpreted, otherwise you will properly confuse non-believers as they will think that you are crazy.

Click to expand...

Non-believers think we're crazy anyway. I rejoice when someone tells me I'm nuts. I love being so close to God that people need to make fun of me to hide their insecurity.

stormdancer0 said:

Non-believers think we're crazy anyway. I rejoice when someone tells me I'm nuts. I love being so close to God that people need to make fun of me to hide their insecurity.

Click to expand...

Maybe some people enjoy feeling that they are a ‘bit different’ but you will have to ask yourself why Paul so strongly stood against the selfishness of the Corinthians, to the point where he said that unbeliever would be justified in saying that ‘they are mad’ when they (we) all speak in tongues at once.

It seems to me that we would be better off displaying an attitude of love toward the unsaved instead of one that says, "I don’t care what you think as what I’m doing makes me feel good”. Maybe if they were to evidence the congregation worshiping in an attitude of love and not within a mindset of individual selfishness then they might begin to see Gods love in action.

They can't be a sign, if they're not spoken. All tongues can be interpreted I Cor 14:13

On the day of Pentecost, not in the Upper Room, they heard tongues then the gospel.

If you're saying - if a congregation is singing in the Spirit, they're not worshiping in love - that's the opposite of what I believe.

I know some say there will never be a message in tongues and interpretation during the sermon portion of a service. But in the 8 years or so, I've seen it happen 3 times. Each time was to caution us to pay attention to the message b/c it was from Yahweh. In one case, a baby was in the church and I have to admit we were paying a lot of attention to him. But after that message and interpretation, we quickly changed our focus. Another time the Scripture was one we had heard preached a lot. Yahweh let us know it was His purpose for us to hear it again. If we had followed man's rule about not interrupting the sermon with tongues, we have missed the purpose of those messages. Different believers were involved in each case including the ministers.

But I'm not advocating that tongues be spoken out loud at anytime either.

tturt said:

They can't be a sign, if they're not spoken. All tongues can be interpreted I Cor 14:13

Click to expand...

Here’s the grind; all too often we do encounter tongues not being interpreted within the congregational setting and this always applies to the situation where everyone speaks or sings in tongues all at once – without exception!

If you're saying - if a congregation is singing in the Spirit, they're not worshiping in love - that's the opposite of what I believe.

Click to expand...

I guess that all I need to do here is to point out Pauls strong demands that we do not do so.

I know some say there will never be a message in tongues and interpretation during the sermon portion of a service. But in the 8 years or so, I've seen it happen 3 times. Each time was to caution us to pay attention to the message b/c it was from Yahweh. In one case, a baby was in the church and I have to admit we were paying a lot of attention to him. But after that message and interpretation, we quickly changed our focus. Another time the Scripture was one we had heard preached a lot. Yahweh let us know it was His purpose for us to hear it again. If we had followed man's rule about not interrupting the sermon with tongues, we have missed the purpose of those messages. Different believers were involved in each case including the ministers.

Click to expand...

The problem with the two situations that you have mentioned is that the Spirit will never provide a word/message to a congregation in tongues – it simply does not happen, though of course many Pentecostals and Charismatics are under the mistaken understanding that he does. With the two examples that you provided, it is more than evident that some individuals spoke up trying to pretend that they were speaking under the power of the Spirit. When the Lord wants to speak to an individual or to a congregation he will always do so with prophecy.

Biblicist said:

Here’s the grind; all too often we do encounter tongues not being interpreted within the congregational setting and this always applies to the situation where everyone speaks or sings in tongues all at once – without exception!

I guess that all I need to do here is to point out Pauls strong demands that we do not do so.

The problem with the two situations that you have mentioned is that the Spirit will never provide a word/message to a congregation in tongues – it simply does not happen, though of course many Pentecostals and Charismatics are under the mistaken understanding that he does. With the two examples that you provided, it is more than evident that some individuals spoke up trying to pretend that they were speaking under the power of the Spirit. When the Lord wants to speak to an individual or to a congregation he will always do so with prophecy.

Click to expand...

There's an awful lot of judgment going on here. A lot of Pharisee talk - it HAS to be this way, God NEVER does this or that. How can you say that "some individuals spoke up trying to pretend that they were speaking under the power of the Spirit"?? Were you there? Did you hear it? Paul was talking to an immature, out-of-control congregation that was abusing the gifts.

I will never limit God, saying something "simply does not happen."

What about Paul's declaration that tongues + interpretation is equivalent to prophecy?

This scripture says clearly that tongues, when interpreted, edifies the church. How can you say that tongues and interpretation never happens?

Here’s the grind; all too often we do encounter tongues not being interpreted within the congregational setting and this always applies to the situation where everyone speaks or sings in tongues all at once – without exception!

Click to expand...

BTW, I have experienced this - several people speaking in tongues, and an interpretation given. I have no doubt it was genuine.

Biblicist said:

Maybe some people enjoy feeling that they are a ‘bit different’ but you will have to ask yourself why Paul so strongly stood against the selfishness of the Corinthians, to the point where he said that unbeliever would be justified in saying that ‘they are mad’ when they (we) all speak in tongues at once.

It seems to me that we would be better off displaying an attitude of love toward the unsaved instead of one that says, "I don’t care what you think as what I’m doing makes me feel good”. Maybe if they were to evidence the congregation worshiping in an attitude of love and not within a mindset of individual selfishness then they might begin to see Gods love in action.

Click to expand...

I am not selfish. I don't have an attitude of "I don't care what you think, as I am doing what makes me feel good," I have one of "I'm going to worship and obey God, and if you think I'm crazy, that's fine. They thought my Lord was crazy, too."

I don't particularly care if non-believers think I'm crazy for worshiping God. I don't care if Pharisees don't like what I do. I obey God, not man. I am no friend of this world, or its people. I love mankind, and offer that love to whomever I am in contact with, as directed by God's Spirit in me. But I do not change who I am in Him, or how I worship, to suit a non-believer. We are to be a separate people, a holy nation. This will naturally alienate non-holy people, even in the church.

Biblicist said:

The problem with the two situations that you have mentioned is that the Spirit will never provide a word/message to a congregation in tongues – it simply does not happen, though of course many Pentecostals and Charismatics are under the mistaken understanding that he does. With the two examples that you provided, it is more than evident that some individuals spoke up trying to pretend that they were speaking under the power of the Spirit. When the Lord wants to speak to an individual or to a congregation he will always do so with prophecy.

Click to expand...

I interpret Biblicist's comments to refer to the two differing positions among Pentecostals and charismatics on the issue of prophetic tongues.

One position is that interpreted tongues are prophetic messages from God given to a congregation. This is based on Paul's words in 1 Cor. 14:1-5 and the experience of Pentecostals/charismatics. Paul says that 'The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up." Some Pentecostals interpret this to mean that tongues + interpretation = prophecy. I believe this is a biblical view.

Many of the gifts of the Spirit are interrelated as they express the diversity and interdependence of the members of the body. Some theologians have said the gift of (special) faith is the foundational gift for the gift of miracles and healings to take place. The gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation rely on each other in order to function properly. So it is with tongues, interpretation, and prophecy. These three gifts can work together. A person can exercise the gift of prophecy in an unknown language and another person in the congregation interprets it. It's that simple, but profound in that it is expressing how all the gifts are needed in the body, and how one strengthens the others.

However, there is another school in Pentecostal/charismatic thought that believes that speaking in tongues + interpretation is NEVER prophetic utterance. What they believe is that a message in tongues is ALWAYS directed from MAN to GOD, not the other way around. Therefore, these Pentecostals think that when someone speaks out in tongues, he is basically expressing his own heart and thoughts toward God, but sharing them with the assembly so that others can be edified through his utterance. What this school believes is that Pentecostals have misunderstood the gift of tongues confusing utterance from their own spirits with utterance from the Spirit of God.

On another note, I find it funny that some are so insistent on interpreting Paul's instructions in an extremely narrow fashion. However, this narrowness is not extended to other Pauline commands, such as 1 Cor. 14:34-35 (the same chapter which talks about tongues and interpretation) which states:

"the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

We allow women to preach and speak in church, yet Paul's statement is quite clear. The reason women are allowed to preach is that we do not understand Scripture in isolation, but within the context of the entire word of God, which we see as validating and approving of women speaking, teaching, and preaching in the church. We should do the same for tongues and interpretation. These two gifts, all the way back to Acts, are closely related to prophecy. On the day of Pentecost, those who were filled with the Spirit began to speak in tongues that could be understood by those around them. How did Peter explain what was happening? He said this was that which was prophesied by Joel---that in the last days God would pour out his Spirit on sons and daughters and they would PROPHESY!

However, there is another school in Pentecostal/charismatic thought that believes that speaking in tongues + interpretation is NEVER prophetic utterance. What they believe is that a message in tongues is ALWAYS directed from MAN to GOD, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

So what use is the interpretation? If it is always directed to God, HE certainly doesn't need an interpretation!!

Here's the Scripture I was thinking about this morning in regards to tongues and love - Jude 1:20 "But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life."

stormdancer0 said:

So what use is the interpretation? If it is always directed to God, HE certainly doesn't need an interpretation!!

Click to expand...

Presumably, the purpose is to encourage the congregation to worship God or something similar. However, I find this strict departmentalization of the gifts unnecessary. God can speak in any way he chooses. Also, encouraging is part of the gift of prophecy.

I would also say that it is a mistake to assume that Paul was saying that only 3 people could speak in tongues in one service. He speaks to us about praying with both our understanding and our spirits (which in the context of the entire passage is clearly referring to praying in tongues). If we were to accept that corporate use of tongues was forbidden, we essentially say that only 3 people in one service have the right to pray and worship in the Spirit, while everyone else can only pray and worship in the understanding. This is certainly not what Paul meant.

He simply wanted messages DIRECTED to the Church to be interpreted for the church's benefit.

And one more thing. I have a dear friend who sings in the Spirit. You have never heard such annointed music in your life. It is amazing. Even non-beleivers want to know what that is and why is it affecting their spirits so strongly. Paul said we were to sing in the spirit and in knowledge both.

stormdancer0 said:

And one more thing. I have a dear friend who sings in the Spirit. You have never heard such annointed music in your life. It is amazing. Even non-beleivers want to know what that is and why is it affecting their spirits so strongly. Paul said we were to sing in the spirit and in knowledge both.

Click to expand...

Stormdancer, have you ever heard an entire congregation singing in the Spirit? I have never seen it in person, only on youtube videos. It sounds wonderful.

I'm a history major, and I've studied alot about Pentecostal history. One thing I lament is the absence of corporate worship in tongues in Pentecostal churches today. Azusa Street, the birthplace of Pentecostalism, was known for singing in the Spirit. Even the secular press commented on how haunting and stirring it was. Early Pentecostals also called it the "heavenly choir" and said that when it happened it was like the congregation became a musical instrument in the hands of God.

I've heard several people at one time, but never an entire congregation. It's beautiful.

LinkH said:

I went to an Assembly of God tonight where the pastor had the microphone and sang in tongues after a song as the congregation joined in.

I was raised AOG during my teenage years. One church I went to had a Bible College associated with it, and it was taught that if tongues were spoken out in church, they were to be interpreted. I don't recall any singing in tongues in a church service there. There were occasional messages in tongues and interpretations. The other AOG I spent a lot of time in had messages in tongues, followed by interpretation. Usually, a tongue or prophecy came between songs. I don't recall any singing in tongues in the public service in this church.

In neither AOG did I hear speaking in tongues 'en masse' where everyone spoke in tongues at the same time. Some Pentecostal churches do that. Some AOGs probably do that even though the Bible colleges from what I hear teach order, that tongues should be interpreted.

I go to this AOG from time to time on Sunday night. Where I go in the morning doesn't have a night service. But i was just thinking tonight. They do this mass singing in tongues thing, but I don't ever remember a tongue and interpretation. They don't allow people who aren't authorized somehow to pray for people in the front, so I wonder if they have limits on interpreting tongues, or if these gifts just aren't nurtured or aren't present, or what.

I don't see how having everyone sing in tongues at the same time fits with the instructions Paul gives in I Corinthians 14. Unbelievers may still think you are mad. If one person speaking in tongues in church even when it is obvious there is no interpreter is out of order, how much more disorderly is everyone singing in tongues at the same time? We each edify ourselves if we do that, but we don't edify one another without the interpretation.

Click to expand...

I believe you are correct, but some here will vehemently disagree. I have never heard singing in tongues in-mass like I have heard it spoken of here (by you and others) and according to scripture, it is a no-no. People cannot say that it is Spirit led either, for the Spirit will not go against what He has stated in His Word.

If one wants to sing in the Spirit, then they are to do it at home in privacy, unless there is interpretation. That is the instructions given to us by the Spirit. there will be those who are so religious and are hung up on religious experiences that they will get angry for what I have stated, but it is the Word, and whatever does not line up with the Word, is sin.

stormdancer0 said:

I am not selfish. I don't have an attitude of "I don't care what you think, as I am doing what makes me feel good," I have one of "I'm going to worship and obey God, and if you think I'm crazy, that's fine. They thought my Lord was crazy, too."

Click to expand...

With regard to you being selfish, I was applying this statement with a very broad brush right across the Body of Christ. For a number of years I also sung in the Spirit during times of congregational praise and worship and I don’t think that my attitude was particularly one of selfish behaviour either – at least not consciously. As the circles I moved in during the Charismatic renewal generally encouraged this type of behaviour, I simply accepted it as the way it was supposed to be but I began to struggle with this practice once I took note of Pauls admonition that we are forbidden to do so. I suspect that one of the reasons that Paul was so upset with the Corinthians all speaking/singing in tongues at once, was that he had already told them while he was with them for around 18 months that this type of behaviour was not acceptable; if he had not already told them earlier on, then I find it hard to understand why he would be so harsh with his condemnation about their behaviour in this area.

Even though I struggled with this for a brief period, after a while I simply stopped doing this as I knew that if I continued doing this that I would be in disobedience to the Lord. Once I understood why Paul forbade such behaviour, in that the unsaved would deem it to be a negative sign and that many of them would probably say that we were out of control or maybe even mad, then it was easy not to keep doing it. Even so, I still quietly sing in the Spirit to myself during times of praise and worship which is not hard to do in a large congregation where the sound system seems to shake your bones.

With regard to saying that “you were mad”, all I was doing here was making reference to Pauls' statement that the unbeliever would probably be justified in saying that a congregation “was mad” when they encountered everyone speaking in tongues. Over the years I have heard countless statements made by people who have been upset and even repulsed by such practices and undoubtedly I was unwittingly one of those who maybe turned a few people away from the Lord as I was also a part of this for a few years.

There's an awful lot of judgment going on here. A lot of Pharisee talk - it HAS to be this way, God NEVER does this or that. How can you say that "some individuals spoke up trying to pretend that they were speaking under the power of the Spirit"?? Were you there? Did you hear it? Paul was talking to an immature, out-of-control congregation that was abusing the gifts.

Click to expand...

Judgement? I would like to think that I am applying some sound exegesis based on the application of solid hermeneutical principles to the texts that relate to this question.

As my wife and I are about to travel through North America in a few months time, I thought that it would be a good idea to at least download a copy of the Californian driving regulations. Maybe I could simply presume that the Californian regulators are happy if I were to presume that ‘close enough is good enough’ in that they are only providing regulatory practices for the more errant drivers on their roads – so maybe I can make my own decisions as to what regulations need to be obeyed. Who knows, maybe I could drive in accordance with my own State’s regulations as they all seem to be pretty much alike, except maybe for how you guys drive on the wrong side of the road. Having seen a few US TV shows where some drivers have driven on the left-hand side of the road and survived; as it seems to have worked for them maybe I might consider doing the same thing down main street USA.

As for being a Pharisee, if obeying Gods Word makes one a Pharisee then so be it as I have absolutely no issues with making a strong stand on a given issue – especially when I am fully convinced that I am making the right stand.

When it comes to a word that is given in a tongue always being directed toward the Father, this is an absolute which allows for no variation as the Spirit will never speak to an individual or to a congregation in. When someone follows up with an interpretation to a tongue, this merely provides the congregation with some understanding as to how the Spirit is speaking of the wonders of God as with the Day of Pentecost. With prophecy, this is always directed toward the congregation and given in the vernacular.

What about Paul's declaration that tongues + interpretation is equivalent to prophecy?

Click to expand...

This is covered in another topic but I am well aware that some (actually many) will make the claim that tongues + interpretation ≈ prophecy; though this is a common misnomer within many Full Gospel circles but it is also absolutely incorrect.

I used to say that tongues + interpretation ≈ prophecy for years and considering that I heard this statement just about everywhere then it was a practice that was easy to uncritically accept. A problem arose when I looked into the Word and found that Paul did not make such a statement which was first pointed out to me by others. What Paul does say is that tongues have value for the congregation as does prophecy, at least when each tongue is being accompanied with an interpretation so that the congregation can gain an understanding of what is being said to the Father.

I will never limit God, saying something "simply does not happen."

Click to expand...

If the Father has put in place stipulations as to how things are to be done then we should have no qualms with simply following what he has already told us. Any casual reading of the Scriptures will indicate that the Father certainly has a lot to say as to how certain things are to be done.

This scripture says clearly that tongues, when interpreted, edifies the church. How can you say that tongues and interpretation never happens?

Click to expand...

Good question, particularly as I have never said anything along this line. Tongues when accompanied with interpretation will always be a benefit to the Church; maybe you may not have explained your point all that clearly ir that I am simply missing the point.

... out-of-control congregation that was abusing the gifts.

Click to expand...

In my view, which is certainly in the minority, is that the Corinthian congregation(s), be it with some indiscretions that they were in fact effectively operating within the Manifestations of the Spirit in their meetings. Even though there is a lot of material that suggests otherwise, it seems to me that there is some confusion with Pauls’ concerns with the selfish and self-serving attitudes of the wealthy and upwardly-mobile elements within the church and not so much with that of prophecy and tongues; things have changed very little it seems over the generations.

Paul certainly spends a copious amount of time regulating how both prophecy and tongues (along with interpretation) is to operate within the congregational setting and certainly he is concerned with how many within the congregation were involving themselves with corporate congregational singing/speaking in the Spirit.

From what I can see from 1 Corinthians, there was no abuse of the gifts but that Paul was concerned with the improper use of tongues and prophecy but certainly more so with uninterrupted tongues and we see this same problem being evident within many congregations today.

ltwin said:

I interpret Biblicist's comments to refer to the two differing positions among Pentecostals and charismatics on the issue of prophetic tongues.

Click to expand...

Exactly!
Since the mid 90’s there has been an incredible amount of academic material written on this topic and even those academics and scholars who would deem themselves to be open-but-cautious and not so much charismatic, will also acknowledge that tongues are always directed to the Father and not to man; most will also agree that tongues are also given in non-human tongues or sounds.

However, there is another school in Pentecostal/charismatic thought that believes that speaking in tongues + interpretation is NEVER prophetic utterance. What they believe is that a message in tongues is ALWAYS directed from MAN to GOD, not the other way around. Therefore, these Pentecostals think that when someone speaks out in tongues, he is basically expressing his own heart and thoughts toward God, but sharing them with the assembly so that others can be edified through his utterance. What this school believes is that Pentecostals have misunderstood the gift of tongues confusing utterance from their own spirits with utterance from the Spirit of God.

Click to expand...

This may be the case in some circles, but it seems to be generally recognized that when tongues operate through the individual that the Holy Spirit is the one who initiates the wording that He uses to speak to the Father.

stormdancer0 said:

Sometimes, the purpose of tongues is to edify the speaker. I would personally love to hear an entire congregation singing in tongues. These people are expressing inexpressible love and worship of God.

In some instances, there should be an interpretation. But a lot of the time, people are just praising God. Yes, we should keep order. But not to the point of regulating the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Stormdancer, I just loved this!! We can't regulate the Holy Spirit. I love speaking in tongues but I can only (literally) speak when the Holy Spirit gives me utterance. I can never speak at will or on command. However, I love to hear others who can b/c I see the worship in it. Well said Storm.

Biblicist said:

With regard to you being selfish, I was applying this statement with a very broad brush right across the Body of Christ. For a number of years I also sung in the Spirit during times of congregational praise and worship and I don’t think that my attitude was particularly one of selfish behaviour either – at least not consciously. As the circles I moved in during the Charismatic renewal generally encouraged this type of behaviour, I simply accepted it as the way it was supposed to be but I began to struggle with this practice once I took note of Pauls admonition that we are forbidden to do so. I suspect that one of the reasons that Paul was so upset with the Corinthians all speaking/singing in tongues at once, was that he had already told them while he was with them for around 18 months that this type of behaviour was not acceptable; if he had not already told them earlier on, then I find it hard to understand why he would be so harsh with his condemnation about their behaviour in this area.

Even though I struggled with this for a brief period, after a while I simply stopped doing this as I knew that if I continued doing this that I would be in disobedience to the Lord. Once I understood why Paul forbade such behaviour, in that the unsaved would deem it to be a negative sign and that many of them would probably say that we were out of control or maybe even mad, then it was easy not to keep doing it. Even so, I still quietly sing in the Spirit to myself during times of praise and worship which is not hard to do in a large congregation where the sound system seems to shake your bones.

With regard to saying that “you were mad”, all I was doing here was making reference to Pauls' statement that the unbeliever would probably be justified in saying that a congregation “was mad” when they encountered everyone speaking in tongues. Over the years I have heard countless statements made by people who have been upset and even repulsed by such practices and undoubtedly I was unwittingly one of those who maybe turned a few people away from the Lord as I was also a part of this for a few years.

Judgement? I would like to think that I am applying some sound exegesis based on the application of solid hermeneutical principles to the texts that relate to this question.

As my wife and I are about to travel through North America in a few months time, I thought that it would be a good idea to at least download a copy of the Californian driving regulations. Maybe I could simply presume that the Californian regulators are happy if I were to presume that ‘close enough is good enough’ in that they are only providing regulatory practices for the more errant drivers on their roads – so maybe I can make my own decisions as to what regulations need to be obeyed. Who knows, maybe I could drive in accordance with my own State’s regulations as they all seem to be pretty much alike, except maybe for how you guys drive on the wrong side of the road. Having seen a few US TV shows where some drivers have driven on the left-hand side of the road and survived; as it seems to have worked for them maybe I might consider doing the same thing down main street USA.

As for being a Pharisee, if obeying Gods Word makes one a Pharisee then so be it as I have absolutely no issues with making a strong stand on a given issue – especially when I am fully convinced that I am making the right stand.

When it comes to a word that is given in a tongue always being directed toward the Father, this is an absolute which allows for no variation as the Spirit will never speak to an individual or to a congregation in. When someone follows up with an interpretation to a tongue, this merely provides the congregation with some understanding as to how the Spirit is speaking of the wonders of God as with the Day of Pentecost. With prophecy, this is always directed toward the congregation and given in the vernacular.

This is covered in another topic but I am well aware that some (actually many) will make the claim that tongues + interpretation ≈ prophecy; though this is a common misnomer within many Full Gospel circles but it is also absolutely incorrect.

I used to say that tongues + interpretation ≈ prophecy for years and considering that I heard this statement just about everywhere then it was a practice that was easy to uncritically accept. A problem arose when I looked into the Word and found that Paul did not make such a statement which was first pointed out to me by others. What Paul does say is that tongues have value for the congregation as does prophecy, at least when each tongue is being accompanied with an interpretation so that the congregation can gain an understanding of what is being said to the Father.

If the Father has put in place stipulations as to how things are to be done then we should have no qualms with simply following what he has already told us. Any casual reading of the Scriptures will indicate that the Father certainly has a lot to say as to how certain things are to be done.

Good question, particularly as I have never said anything along this line. Tongues when accompanied with interpretation will always be a benefit to the Church; maybe you may not have explained your point all that clearly ir that I am simply missing the point.
In my view, which is certainly in the minority, is that the Corinthian congregation(s), be it with some indiscretions that they were in fact effectively operating within the Manifestations of the Spirit in their meetings. Even though there is a lot of material that suggests otherwise, it seems to me that there is some confusion with Pauls’ concerns with the selfish and self-serving attitudes of the wealthy and upwardly-mobile elements within the church and not so much with that of prophecy and tongues; things have changed very little it seems over the generations.

Paul certainly spends a copious amount of time regulating how both prophecy and tongues (along with interpretation) is to operate within the congregational setting and certainly he is concerned with how many within the congregation were involving themselves with corporate congregational singing/speaking in the Spirit.

From what I can see from 1 Corinthians, there was no abuse of the gifts but that Paul was concerned with the improper use of tongues and prophecy but certainly more so with uninterrupted tongues and we see this same problem being evident within many congregations today.

Click to expand...

I guess we will never be in agreement. You seem to advocate a strict, pharisee-style version of interpretation. I prefer a Spirit-led interpretation. Jesus chose to teach the Spirit of scripture, rather than the stricter "By the book" interpretation.

I cannot argue with rigiditiy.

"I went to an Assembly of God tonight where the pastor had the microphone and sang in tongues after a song as the congregation joined in."

Sure - relatively common in the Full Gospel Genres - particularly in the '70s and early '80s. NO so much these days in most places.

"One church I went to had a Bible College associated with it, and it was taught that if tongues were spoken out in church, they were to be interpreted."

AoG Churches, and Bible Colleges taught all SORTS of things back in the day. Some things were accurate, and many things were "Traditional" based on what "Grandpa did". The AoG used to teach that you shouldn't ordain black folks as AoG Ministers. We probably wouldn't agree with that these days.

WHEN tongues come forth in a service SPECIFICALLY as a "Message" to the congregation, they are expected to be "Interpreted", and in 50 years of attendance in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches from Boston to Dallas, I can still count on the fingers of my hands, when they weren't.

"I don't recall any singing in tongues in a church service there."

Odd - I've been in MANY services when it occurred.

"In neither AOG did I hear speaking in tongues 'en masse' where everyone spoke in tongues at the same time."

Even MORE Odd - that's always been typical during prayer and praise times in the many churches I've been in/been part of.

"I don't see how having everyone sing in tongues at the same time fits with the instructions Paul gives in I Corinthians 14."

Not an issue. Paul is trying to bring "order" to a completely disorderly bunch that was out of control. You're obviously describing services that are "in control", and flowing nicely.

But folks who decide to be OPPOSED to "Full Gospel" practices generally DO get "hyper-legalistic" about this aspect of the services. We don't mind, y'all!!!