Oct 11
Tongues and translations (art. XXIV)
(This post is part of a series on the 39 articles of the Church of England)
I did wonder whether to simply pass over the twenty-fourth article, not only because it is so brief, but because the principle it enshrines is, at least in the Western Church, more-or-less universally accepted, that worship should be in one’s own language. As you will have gathered, I resisted this temptation not only in favour of thoroughness in this series, but because there are some things worth reflecting on in the article.
XXIV. Of speaking in the Congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.
There is a certain irony that just as this Reformation principle was winning acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church following Vatican II, the charismatic movement in all the mainstream churches was beginning to promote the use of tongues not “understanded of the people” within the worshipping life of the Church.
First, of course, the scriptural interpretation of “tongues” in Paul as the non-rational phenomenon of glossolalia, and not as other languages, means that prayer in other languages is not quite so “plainly repugnant to the Word of God”. The Word of God, it seems, was talking about something else, even if it is a relatively straightforward hermeneutical move to get from the Scriptures to the Reformation position.
The encouragement of a means of prayer and praise which relies not on reasoned speech and understanding, but affective (and almost phatic) communication, was at the root of initial (and long-standing) evangelical opposition to the charismatic phenomenon. Much of it the emotional and a-rational praise and prayer conveyed by tongues could also be paralleled by the practice of prayer at Taizé, whose popularity was growing in the same period. The use of Latin, especially, but many other languages in repetitive chants (also not dissimilar from some uses of choruses) had a similar purpose in focusing the heart while calming the mind.
Nor can these phenomena be divorced entirely from the wider cultural shift in the West which moves away from a simple emphasis on reason and the life of the mind, to embrace attitudes that give greater attention to the body and the feelings, and no longer accords reason its dominance in either church or culture. Understanding is often underplayed, while affective participation is played up. It is, perhaps, ironic that it is amongst those who would most often stress their Reformation inheritance that the charismatic movement has become most influential. Nor can one neglect the popularity of certain á-la-carte selections from the earlier tradition, whether of incense of Gregorian chant, amongst the most contemporary forms of “alternative” worship.
I generally want to welcome this valuing of the affective and non-rational aspect of worship as an important recalling of the relational nature of our faith, and its treating us as whole persons, not disembodied minds. Though I note we are confused about it: a great many churches which use Taizé chants in Latin seem baffled by singing in tongues, and vice versa. Broad and Catholic Anglicans appear to have arthritic shoulders and can never left up holy hands in praise, while Evangelicals have arthritic legs, and can never bow the knee.
But this rather odd confusion should not make us ignore the danger of devaluing understanding. It is right and good to stress the bodily and the affective as part of the worship of the whole person, but the whole person must continue to include the mind, the reason, the understanding, that in the end lies behind this article. Despite the long hegemony of Latin (or Tudor English), we must not forget that the initial use of Latin (or Tudor English) was precisely so that people could worship and hear in their own language, with understanding.
One of the most distinctive points about the early Christian movement was their easy abandonment of the reading of Scripture in Hebrew (which appears to have been shared with other Diaspora Jews). There is no one holy language in the Church, (and this remains a significant difference between Christianity on the one hand, and Islam and Judaism on the other) but just as God is God of all peoples so he is God to be praised in all languages, and God who speaks to us in our own tongue.
While this point is not, in itself, simply about understanding, it certainly includes the love of God with the mind. We should not forget, even if we exegete the text differently, that there is long Christian tradition of it being our reason which makes us to be in the image of God. Understanding, and the exercise of the rational faculty, properly belongs at the heart of our worship, reasonable human beings relating to the one whose reason became flesh for our sake.
I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will sing praise with the mind also. (1 Corinthians 14:15 NRSV)
October 11th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Thank you for the concluding part of this. But I can’t help noting some serious misunderstandings earlier on in it:
From my experience there has been minimal actual use of messages in “tongues” in public worship in charismatic churches in mainstream denominations. And there is always, on the basis of Paul’s specific instruction, an expectation that an interpretation will be given. Presumably you would not want to use this article to forbid a foreigner preaching through an interpreter. On the same basis there is no basis for using it to forbid messages in tongues with proper interpretation.
This has me totally puzzled. This is certainly not a scriptural interpretation in the sense of being one in accordance with the Scriptures. It may be an interpretation some have imposed on the Scriptures to make it conform to their own rationalist presuppositions, but that hardly merits the description “scriptural”. Paul seems clear that tongues were actual languages, and hints in 1 Corinthians 13:1 that they may be angelic languages.
I might have expected you here to take to task those who insist on continuing to use the Book of Common Prayer and the Authorised Version Bible in public worship in situations, in regular congregations here in England, where these are now “in a tongue not understanded of the people”.
I also take this article as affirming the work of Bible translation, which I am still involved in part time, which is needed to ensure that the resources are available for every people to worship and be taught in a language they understand.
October 11th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Peter, first, yes, I am guilty of sloppy language in the way I used the term scriptural, when I actually meant interpretation of scripture. (reminder to self, re-read before posting). I think Paul generally included other real human languages, and I don’t think this is how tongue-speaking today generally works.
My own experience has generally been that tongues without interpretations are rather more common than the official line suggests. I would also note that, whatever Paul thought an angel’s language was, most observers and many participants see dissociative vocalisation rather than coherent linguistic patterns in tongue-speaking today. I agree with this view as being the norm of what I’ve experienced and observed. I’ve also heard too many interpretations (and prophecies) that, ironically, consist of concatenations of quotes from the KJV. All of these are enough to make me reluctant to simply equate modern practice with what Paul is talking about, without feeling there are still questions to be asked and answered. (I quite agree with you on the point of interpreting a foreign preacher – it’s just that I’m not sure what actually occurs with tongues is equivalent).
These may be the areas where we simply disagree, and possibly have different experiences.
Your last two points I fully agree with, and they are (I think) implicit in my antepenultimate paragraph.
October 11th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
curiouser and curiouser… dissociative vocalisation - nice term, disconnecting the outputs (tongue) from the input (thinking) - overcoming perhaps the arthritic aspects of the internal so-called rational thought process which is in fact a series of associations often without logic and often short-circuited.
My own experience largely agrees with yours, Doug. Interpretation is tricky, ambivalent, and strange if it really happens even on an individual basis - but that God accepts this self-edification is something I believe - why? because I learned my love through the death of Christ even if I am reduced to singing only in myself or to myself. In some sense, this unconstrained spirit of a tongue is a willing death to our too-sure rationality. As one said to me in ym youth 35 years ago - do not suppress the Spirit, Sing - it will turn into something beautiful. And though I can ‘explain’ everything from a human point of view if pressed, I think he is right and that beauty points to the love of God towards us in Jesus Christ.
There is a record of my first hearing of someone speaking tongues in my story - it was a remarkable experience of the Other. The interpretation was astonishingly beautiful. The poetry may well have been from a prepared mind, but the tongue was spontaneous, under the control of the singer, absolutely beautiful and in tune from a man who is tone deaf (I have a very critical ear), and it worked in me in my eyes between my ears a mandala image of the crucified lamb that I would not have consciously made up. I have extracted that section of story to my blog - as recounted by Eutychus. His words that I wrote 10 years ago still mean something re tongues: “Who knows what direction to go in when the words are unintelligible – but our intelligence, gift though it is, is no match for what we don’t know. I sought the unknown and found it was beautiful.”
October 12th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Only indirectly relevant but you guys might enjoy the writings of language guy (http://thelanguageguy.blogspot.com) who talks about some of these issues with a common touch that non-academics such as myself can get a handle on.