Did the churches have prayer time at the altar with many people speaking in tongues at once?
I don't recall that in either of the Assemblies of God churches I was a part of growing up. I asked about that on an A/G forum, and a lot of them did that sort of thing. I sort of associated everyone praying at the same time more with the denominations that were 'Holiness' in their doctrine, predominantly southestern denominations. Some of the A/G folks who said they did that were from the Southeast or Texas, though. So it could be regional influence. One A/G I attended was in Louisiana and the other was in the Georgia suburbs.
It is controversial in our church and isn't exactly dogmatic. We do not believe it was the norm to speak in tongues in church services and that it was fairly unique to the Corinthians.
At minimum, Paul seemed to downplay Corinthian glossolalia's importance.
In comparison to prophecy and in the context of the church meeting, I would agree. But, of course, Paul instructed that speaking in tongues and interpretation be allowed in the church gathering and that 'ye may all prophesy.' Reading some second century writings, I get the impression that prophesying in church was practiced in churches. The Shepherd of Hermas warned that false prophets preferred to prophesy outside of the church meetings.
Many do not believe that the predominant tongues were Corinthian glossolalia, but were of the "other foreign language" for evangelization purposes (Pentecost glossolalia). We still have some modern examples of that within missions to areas where the language is unknown. Some Orthodox claim that the glossolalia described in the Corinthian's church was foreign languages. I can't claim that I am 100% convinced on that side of the debate. Perhaps that is because of my background.
The idea that speaking in tongues is languages is the historical Pentecostal view and also the experience of the early Pentecostal movement. I have come across three references to situations where someone spoke in tongues at the Azusa Street Mission during the years of the Azusa Street revival and someone who knew the language heard it and recognized it. Seymour mentioned it in a newsletter.
The Comforter Has Come describes another case. Val Dez gave another account in
Fire on Azusa. Vincent Synan did an interview that was posted on YouTube with two elderly folks in the early 1970's who had been children at the Azusa Street revival. One of them said that what drew people was the fact that people would come in and hear their languages, Japanese, or whatever, during the meetings. I've read accounts of the interpretations being verified by those who knew the languages naturally at well.
I don't see any reason to read into the Corinthian descriptions of tongues, the idea that they could not have been speaking real languages. It is just obvious from the text that no one present actually understood the languages naturally and the congregation needed the gift of interpretation to understand it.
Some tongues may be 'tongues of angels'. No one on earth may be able to understand that with their natural understanding.
Regarding the reason I would not attend a church with that present - there are many more complicated reasons, theologically and also emotionally involved with that. Perhaps I should clarify that I wouldn't attend if it was a predominant characteristic of the church. The beliefs behind the gifts are often very different in my opinion from the early church, even as described in Corinthians.
If we look at the actual text of the Bible for instructions from the apostles themselves regarding what to do in gatherings of the church, the one lengthy passage we have on what to do implies that a predominant characteristic of the church is that it is 'charismatic', that is, that the spiritual gifts are active in the church. Paul commands the church to allow speaking in tongues and for the saints to prophesy. He doesn't say anything about pastors preaching sermons or specify a particular liturgy. He also seems to imply that he is appealing to universal church practice and calls his instructions commandments of the Lord. Paul encourages readers to be zealous for spiritual gifts and instructs them to covet to prophesy.
Being slain in the spirit on the other hand - I don't see solid biblical basis for that.
The phenomenon was horribly named, IMO. There are plenty of cases where prophets and other individuals fell down, or were not able to stand (e.g. priests in the temple when the cloud was present). Daniel felt physically weak after an encounter with what seems to have been an angel. The guards who came to arrest Jesus fell on their backs when He said, "I am".
One note - you will find some Orthodox that are vehemently against it, and others that don't preclude it but see it as a minor gift. My husband would be among those who dismiss the tongues of angels side of it.
Across the board though, we certainly believe the Holy Spirit is active today. Check out the Mystics in the Orthodox Church if you are interested. St Gregory of Palamas is particularly interesting from a Pentecostal perspective.
Do you have a particular book in mind?
I'm pretty exhausted, as I am on serious jet lag right now, so I will try to answer this better once I am more awake. I just got back from vacation yesterday and am on a 6 hour time change!
Perhaps a quote from the Greek Archdiocese would help:
The Orthodox Church differs with those Pentecostal and Charismatic groups which regard Glossolalia as a pre requisite to being a Christian and to having received the Holy Spirit.
I think this misrepresents the beliefs of Pentecostals and Charismatics. In my experience, the belief that those who are truly saved will speak in tongues (prerequisite is not the right word) is pretty much exclusively a belief of Oneness Pentecostals. The last I read, that was maybe 5% of Pentecostals. I do not know that I have ever heard of a Pentecostal or Charismatic outside of the Oneness movement who believed that way.
Maybe if they said 'or to having received the Holy Spirit.' Most Pentecostal denominations and Charismatic churches believe that Christians can be baptized with the Holy Spirit subsequent to conversion.
From the same quote,
Better to "speak five words that can be understood ... than speak thousands of words in strange tongues." This is the Orthodox Christian viewpoint.
Paul put a clarifier on it. He spoke in tongues 'more than ye all.' But he said, "
Yet in the church" he would rather speak five words with the understanding that he may instruct others than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue.
He does not say that in terms of his personal prayer, tongues is any lower than prayer in a language he understood. This is part of an argument in the passage that speaking in tongues edifies the speaker and not the listener and is not beneficial to the rest of the congregation unless it is interpreted.
