Sacred languages part of Christian liturgy from the very beginning

[Magdalenbrother]

1 Corinthians 14: 13-15

For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.

I say that this passage, one of many referring to "glossolaly" or speaking in tongues, shows that unintelligible languages, considered by some to be "irritating, nondevotional babble", were part and parcel of the Christian liturgies from the very start. In fact, angelic tongues may have been sung and spoken as early as Pentecost.

The passage above is from a controversial passage in Corinthians that many scholars today consider a late interpolation because of an infamous verse forbidding women to speak in Christian assemblies, an assertion which is contradicted in the same letter when Paul speaks of women prophesying.

I won't discuss the authenticity of Cor 14 here because the question of authorship is not relevant to the issue I want to raise. Suffice it to say that "Paul", while authorizing and apparently encouraging people to sing in tongues, actually made glossolaly much more difficult since he laid down the rule that this gift should be displayed in the liturgy of the Corinthian church only if the inspired speaker could find one or two singing mates and if one of the duo or trio could interpret the mysterious utterances for the edification of the whole congregation.

Now if you have been to a prayer session of the Pentecostal church or of Catholic "Charismatics", you will probably have noticed that usually the gift of interpretation is not given to the one who speaks in tongues. Besides, the person who interprets does not translate the tongues word for word but gives a global interpretation, which is suggested to him or her in a flash. Whether there will be an interpretation is never sure. I say this not only to suggest that the man who wrote Cor 14 was either ignorant of how the gift of glossolaly works (and therefore gave incompetent advice) or was deeply hostile to it while pretending to be in favor of it, but also to refute claims that intent and lucidity are essential in prayer. Forceful, wilful prayers are usually the least successful. Anybody who has a gift for healing prayer will tell you that successful intercession must happen spontaneously and that the less they interfere with the Spirit the better.


Returning to Corinth, my own educated guess is that the Corinthians, being new to the faith, needed religious instruction badly. There may also have been abuses and excesses with regard to speaking in tongues. Or the author was simply one of a long chain of Christian leaders and thinkers who were terribly afraid of anything that goes beyond the comprehension of their petty little minds. Paradoxically, the supernatural is not welcome at all in official Christianity.

No matter what, I don't think Paul's remarks should distract us from the fact that the Spirit moved people to speak in non vernacular during the liturgy. And that he approved of it, however grudgingly.

Why? Why did God's spirit not inspire exclusive singing in Koine Greek?

And where is this non vernacular, unintelligible aspect of Christian prayer to be found in today's liturgies?

[keith]

1 Corinthians 14: 13-15

Now if you have been to a prayer session of the Pentecostal church or of Catholic "Charismatics", you will probably have noticed that usually the gift of interpretation is not given to the one who speaks in tongues. Besides, the person who interprets does not translate the tongues word for word but gives a global interpretation, which is suggested to him or her in a flash. Whether there will be an interpretation is never sure. I say this not only to suggest that the man who wrote Cor 14 was either ignorant of how the gift of glossolaly works (and therefore gave they interfere with the Spirit the better.


Returning to Corinth, my own educated guess is that the Corinthians, being new to the faith, needed religious instruction badly. There may also have been abuses and excesses with regard to speaking in tongues. Or the author was simply one of a long chain of Christian leaders and thinkers who were terribly afraid of anything that goes beyond the comprehension of their petty little minds. Paradoxically, the supernatural is not welcome at all in official Christianity.

No matter what, I don't think Paul's remarks should distract us from the fact that the Spirit moved people to speak in non vernacular during the liturgy. And that he approved of it, however grudgingly.

Why? Why did God's spirit not inspire exclusive singing in Koine Greek?

And where is this non vernacular, unintelligible aspect of Christian prayer to be found in today's liturgies?
You have made some interesting points there. Just to pick up on the latter part of your post there, you are correct in pointing out that today's liturgies do not really have a place for non vernacular prayers. I suppose this brings into question what exactly is the purpose of a liturgy at all. There are groups such as Quakers or House Churches which have no set written format and so would, in theory at least, find room for such things. A liturgy, at least in my own Anglican tradition, is a framework that helps to set the perameters of what is possible to say and do "decently and in order". Depending on what type of leadership is in place it can easily become a straitjacket that limits spontaneity and openness to the Spirit of God. Just as an aside this tension between freedom and order is sometimes observed in the Old Testament too where there was a priesthood and rituals but also prophets who sometimes acted outside the Temple hierarchy to deliver a word from God.

You gave examples from Pentecostal or Charismatic Catholic prayer sessions. My own observations would pretty much agree with you on that. I wonder if one might expect more informality and freedom in a prayer session (presumably designed for practising believers) rather than a church service open to the general public? Perhaps some church leaders would worry that something too 'far out' for the uninitiated would scare people away?