39

’TONGUES OF FIRE’ IN THE PENTECOSTAL IMAGINATION:

THE TRUTH OF GLOSSOLALIA IN LIGHT OF R.C. NEVILLE’S

THEORY OF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLISM

Amos Yong*39 Mason Avenue, North Attleboro, MA 02760, USA

* Amos Yong (MA Portland State University) is a PhD student at Boston Uni-versity, Boston, MA, USA.

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heavenand filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw whatseemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each ofthem. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak inother tongues as the Spirit enabled them (Acts 2.1-4).~ I

This essay can be considered as a schematic theology of glossolalia. Italso is a specific kind of theological analysis focused on the question oftruth. This issue has not been seriously taken up by scholars and the-010giants.2 Secular students of the movement frequently approach the

1. All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version.2. For a brief overview, see Russell Spittler, ’Glossolalia’, in Stanley Burgess,

Gary McGee and Patrick Alexander (eds.), Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charis-matic Movements (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), pp. 335-41. While much of thescholarly theological work on glossolalia has been done in connection with Spiritbaptism and by biblical-exegetical specialists, to my knowledge, no book-lengthinvestigation on the topic of glossolalia as truth exists. More recent important articleson a theology of glossolalia by Pentecostals are W.G. MacDonald’s six-part article,’Biblical Glossolalia—7 Theses’, Paraclete: A Journal of Pentecostal Studies 27(parts 1-4) and 28 (parts 5-6) (Winter 1993-Spring 1994); Frank D. Macchia,’Sighs too Deep for Words: Toward a Theology of Glossolalia’, JPT 1 (1992),pp. 47-73, and ’Tongues as a Sign: Towards a Sacramental Understanding ofPentecostal Experience’, PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal

40

phenomena with an a priori bias against the transcendental dimensionPentecostals themselves attribute to their experience. Non-PentecostalChristian researchers are usually at a loss as to how to assess the truthvalue of what has at times been claimed by tongues-speakers to beangelic language.

Pentecostal theologians, however, cannot continue to avoid con-fronting this important matter. The growth of the movement world-wide is intimately connected to the centrality of this experience-whatPentecostals have termed their ’distinctive testimony’. This demandsthat her theologians seriously reflect on this question of truth, not onlyfor apologetic purposes, but also for a deeper understanding of itsrole and function within the emerging global Pentecostal community.This paper is an attempt to respond to this demand, and, in its conc ernfor truth, is an essay in what David Tracy calls fundamental theol-ogy.’ While normative, it is also descriptive and interpretive for thePentecostal community and therefore systematic, with importantimplications for her practical theology.What does it mean to speak of ’the truth’ of glossolalia? On the one

hand, it may seem sound to begin by distinguishing between glosso-lalia (random verbal utterances) and xenolalia (utterances of actuallanguages unknown to the speaker), and then proceed to evaluate thetruth claims of xenolalic tongues-speech. However, the evidence is notcompletely in, and scholars are divided as to the validity of the dis-tinction. On the other hand, if William Samarin’s conclusions regarding

Studies 15.1 (Spring 1993), pp. 61-76. Catholics who have contributed to this topicinclude J.M. Ford, ’Toward a Theology of "Speaking in Tongues"’, TS 32 (1971),pp. 3-29, reprinted in Watson E. Mills (ed.), Speaking in Tongues: A Guide toResearch on Glossolalia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 263-94; Francis A.Sullivan, ’Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Catholic Interpretation of the PentecostalEvidence’, Gregorianum 55 (1974), pp. 49-68; Simon Tugwell, ’The Speech-Giving Spirit’, in Simon Tugwell et al., New Heaven? New Earth? An Encounterwith Pentacostalism (Springfield, IL: Templegate Publishers, 1976), pp. 119-60;and Killian McDonnell, ’The Function of Tongues in Pentecostalism’, One in Christ19.4 (1983), pp. 332-54. My own work builds on these and is one attempt torespond to the call for a theology of signs relative to glossolalia; see Peter Hocken,’Signs and Evidence: The Need for Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue on the Relation-ship Between the Physical and Spiritual’, PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society forPentecostal Studies 11.2 (Fall 1989), pp. 123-33.

3. See David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and Cul-tural Pluralism (New York: Crossroad, 1981), pp. 54-78.

41

the non-linguisticality of tongues-speech are correct, it makes no senseto speak of the truth content of glossolalia.1 It also makes just as littlesense to say that glossolalia itself is true if it is understood simply as areligious response to the divine, or, in Searlean language, a morepeculiar form of performative ’speech-act’ insofar as tongues areinterpreted or considered as verbal praise of the divine.5 Most Pen-tecostals would be genuinely bewildered if asked about ’the truth’ oftongues-speaking. They would instead encourage the inquisitor to seekthis gift of the Holy Spirit and thereby partake of the experience itself,confident the experience would dispel all doubts and resolve all

inquiries. All this is to say that the question of truth is related to thequestion of meaning.’ To ask about the truth of glossolalia, then, is atleast to ask about its meaning. More specifically, however, for thepurposes of this paper, it is to ask if the meanings which Pentecostalshave given to their experience make senseThe question then becomes one which asks what ’making sense’

4. As an anthropologist and linguist, Samarin has argued that glossolalic utter-ances are not to be considered as forms of human languages; however, he warns, atthe same time, against seeing glossolalia simply as gibberish, because ’millions oftongue speakers are led to believe that they engage in authentic speech’ (Tongues ofMen and of Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism [New York:Macmillan, 1972], p. 127). While Samarin’s conclusions are far from unanimouslyreceived, I will in this essay follow the broad contours of his work and make mini-mal assumptions about the linguisticality of glossolalia in the hope of engaging aswide a theological public as possible. On that basis, I resist the glossolalia-xenolaliadistinction. Further, I argue (in part against Samarin) that glossolalia is meaningfulnot only because millions are deluded with respect to its linguisticality, but becauseof the truth of its symbolic function within the broader theological web of beliefs. Itis important to note, however, that if his findings are ever conclusively falsified, myargument will not be affected, but can only be strengthened—especially on one level.

5. See John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).

6. See, for example, the Introduction to Leroy S. Rouner (ed.), Meaning,Truth, and God (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982), where thisconnection is fleshed out.

7. This is an important limitation on this paper, since glossolalia is not limited toPentecostal, Christian or even religious circles. For discussions of glossolalia outsideof modem Pentecostalism, see John T. Bunn, ’Glossolalia in Historical Perspective’,and E. Glenn Hinson, ’The Significance of Glossolalia in the History of Christian-ity’, both in Watson E. Mills (ed.), Speaking in Tongues: Let’s Talk about It (Waco,TX: Word Books, 1973).

42

means. The traditional views of truth as correspondence, coherenceand useful (pragmatic) are a useful place to begin. Truth as corre-spondence entails that propositions accurately depict or mirror reality.Truth as coherence entails that assertions are systematically reinforcedand that there are no logical or empirical contradictions within anygiven system. Truth as pragmatic presents a ’workable’ solution to anyproblematic situation. Any investigation of truth should include atleast these elements. Here, it is of import to note Donald Wiebe’sargument that because truth is ’primarily a cognitive concept’, it needsto be taken seriously by students of religion. Against the logical posi-tivists and analytic philosophers of religion, Wiebe insists that religiouspropositions and beliefs should not be excluded in an a priori manneras non-sensical or irrelevant.’ With regard to the question of truth,Wiebe has done an invaluable service to religious studies by urgingthat ’even though &dquo;religious truth&dquo; is something more than merepropositional truth and so, in a limited sense beyond the observationand critical analysis of the &dquo;objective&dquo; observer, it is nevertheless

intimately (necessarily) connected with propositional truth therebymaking it subject to objective discussion, analysis, and criticism’ .~ Inother words, access to truth involves treading a path through propo-sitions, identifying their references (correspondence), clarifying theirconnections (coherence), and explicating their meanings (pragmatic).An investigation of the ’truth of glossolalia’, then, would at least inpart be semiotic-utilizing a theory of signs-in examining whetheror not and how the claims of Pentecostals satisfy the canons of truth astraditionally formulated. In other words, what reality are Pentecostalsactually referring to when explaining glossolalia; how coherent aretheir claims; and, most importantly, in what ways do their claimsfunction in their cultic and devotional practices? What Wiebe did notset out to do was to provide the student of religion or theologian withthe tools necessary to conduct such an analysis.

Fortunately, however, we now possess, with the publication of TheTruth of Broken Symbols by Robert Cummings Neville, a philosophi-

8. Donald Wiebe, Religion and Truth: Towards an Alternative Paradigm forthe Study of Religion (The Hague: Mouton, 1981), p. 227.

9. Wiebe, Religion and Truth, p. 228; Wiebe’s proposal that the practitioners ofReligionswissenschaft be necessarily open to the question of religious truth ratherthan be satisfied with the descriptions given by the social-scientific method is animportant one, a move to be applauded and taken.

43

cally rich and theologically sophisticated theory of religious symbol-ism by which to accomplish our task. 10 I believe that Neville’s theoryof truth goes a long way in enabling Pentecostals to come to a moreastute understanding of the glossolalic experience. Such an under-standing is valuable not only for the depth which it provides to thedeveloping Pentecostal theological tradition, but also because of theprofundity with which it is able to depict Pentecostal religious life andinform Pentecostal mission. I will explicate Neville’s theory ofreligious symbolism and truth in Section I, where the discussion willbe necessarily somewhat technical but not comprehensive, beingrestricted for the purposes of the paper at hand. Section II will applythis theory heuristically in a theological exploration of the dynamicsof the symbol of glossolalia both in its individual and communal con-texts. In the concluding section, I will anticipate some objectionsregarding the fundamental value of Neville’s theory of truth, and pro-pose a preliminary Pentecostal response.

I

Neville, a widely recognized theologian and authority in comparativereligion, is by training a systematic philosopher in the grand Ameri-can tradition of Peirce, Royce, and Whitehead.&dquo; He defines truth as’the carryover of value from the object into the interpreters’ experience

10. Robert Cummings Neville, The Truth of Broken Symbols (Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1996); future references to this book will be paren-thetically noted in the text by TBS and page number.

11. Neville’s teachers at Yale included Paul Weiss and John E. Smith. He has

published widely on metaphysics, philosophical theology, and comparative theologyof religions, aside from the extensive theological work associated with his ordinationin the United Methodist Church and his Deanship at the Boston University School ofTheology. Most pertinent to The Truth of Broken Symbols is his trilogy titled TheAxiology of Thinking: Reconstruction of Thinking (Albany, NY: State University ofNew York Press, 1981) where the notion of imagination is investigated and the rela-tion between form and value is explored; Recovery of the Measure: Interpretationand Nature (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989) where hedefends the theory of truth as the carryover of value; and Normative Cultures(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995) where the questions oftruth and difference are investigated in the context of cross-cultural pluralism. For thepurposes of this paper, I will assume his earlier work and stick closely to an exposi-tion of the most recent volume.

44

by means of signs, as qualified by the biological, cultural, semiotic,and purposive contexts of the interpreters’ (TBS, p. 240). Three itemsin this definition are noteworthy from the start. First, the centrality ofinterpreters and signs points to a reliance on the semiotic theory ofC.S. Peirce, an indebtedness which is acknowledged throughout byNeville. Secondly, the emphasis on the carryover of value as opposedto the correspondence of form as in Aristotelianism, results in Neville’stheory, broadly considered, being a pragmatic approach to truth.While a pragmatist, however, Neville is concerned to avoid completerelativism, and therefore seeks to retain both the notions of truth as

correspondence and as coherence. This leads, thirdly, to the objectsignified to the religious experiencer. A non-relativistic theory of truthis developed which attempts to make sense of religious experience, itssigns or symbols (the latter being more particular kinds of the

former) and their referent(s), meaning(s), and interpretation(s). Ulti-mately, what Neville is interested in as a philosophical theologian isthe ’truth of religious symbols’, as opposed to ’pure soteriologicalinstrumentalism’ . As he puts it, ’if religious symbols are mere mech-anical instruments of salvation or enlightenment, they do not sym-bolize anything and hence can be neither true nor false’ (TBS,pp. 243-44).

That truths about the divine are mediated to us by way of symbols isan important point to be noted. Symbol is defined by Neville as ‘anykind of sign, some of which can be literal in the sense of non-metaphorical and others of which (all primary religious ones) are

non-literal’ (TBS, p. 129).12 Non-metaphorical does not mean notmetaphorical, but only that there must come a point when metaphorsare taken to refer to the divine without any further qualifications oralterations. For example, the metaphor ’tongues of fire’ can be under-stood literally as a mistaken response to an acidic aftertaste. But it is

better understood as a literal metaphor-literal not in a physiologicalor chemical sense but in the sense that it either translates Wesley’s’heart-warming experience’ into Pentecostal terms or perhaps refers toan experience of inward cleansing, purification or empowerment.

12. Neville draws the distinction as follows: ’I take symbol to be the genericword for all kinds of religious signs of the divine (or however we might define whatreligious signs signify)’ (TBS, pp. xxi-xxii). His complex analysis further distin-guishes between schemata, schema-images, replicas and symbol-fragments. These,however, will not be elaborated on as they are of minimal import for the task at hand.

45

Herein lies the importance of what Neville calls the respects of inter-pretation. ’Tongues of fire’ is best understood not with respect to

physiology or chemistry but with respect to the believer’s experienceof the divine.While all symbolic language is more accurately understood as

metaphorical or non-literal, is it the case that all religious language issymbolic (and therefore metaphorical)? Neville says that, ’Onlythrough symbols can a religious object be referred to. Only throughsymbols can there be a content (even emptiness) ascribed to theobjects. Only through symbols can the object be interpreted so as torelate to the life of the interpreter and the interpreting community’(TBS, p. 31; emphasis mine). What is his basis for saying this? Herewe come to the crux of his argument which builds upon the religiouscharacter of imagination.

Imagination, says Neville, is ’the elementary capacity to experiencethings as images’, and is therefore fundamentally religious, ’regardlessof whether it contains any specifically religious symbols of God orrelated matters’ (TBS, p. 47). As highly developed only in humanbeings, imagination functions in Neville’s philosophical anthropologyas the peculiarly distinguishing mark of the imago Dei. Imaginationforms the basis for human experience in general but is also importantreligiously in that (1) it is world-making (or world-view-making) inthe sense of being able to perceive or apprehend boundary conditionsof the human finitude and existence, and (2) it is expressed in terms ofboth ontological and existential contingency.

Because these boundary or contingency conditions are imaginativelyconstituted, they can only be described via symbols. Neville introducesthe technical term finitelinfinite contrast to refer to the symbols bywhich humans engage the divine. But even if apprehended only via theimagination, Neville argues that finite/infinite contrasts are not

’fictions only’, but if truly interpreted, ’they are realities, or struc-tures of reality... [having] the form of being disclosures of reality, notof being mere images themselves’ (TBS, p. 58). I3 The metaphor

13. Neville’s argument is complex. On the one hand, his indebtedness to Tillich’s doctrine of symbolism is evident in his insistence that all religious language is sym-bolic. (Tillich scholars have debated about how literal Tillich actually meant ’Being-itself to be. In Nevilleian terms, ’Being-itself’ understood as the terminus ofmetaphorical language about God is, in that sense, literal. However, since even’Being-itself is a finite reference to the divine infinity, it is more accurate to say that

46

’tongues of fire’ is a finite/infinite contrast highlighting the divinepresence which was alive in the imagination of the first Christians,both in its reference to ’tongues of fire’ in the intertestamental litera-ture (1 En. 14.8-25) and in the imagery of fire as seen otherwise inthe Hebrew Scriptures (e.g. the burning bush, the consuming fire ofSinai, the cloud of fire in the wilderness).

If imagination is the imaging of the world, interpretation is query-ing about the truth or falsity of imagination, theory is organizing boththe stuff of imagination and their interpretations more and more com-prehensively, and practice is pursuing the responsibility issuing forthfrom these cognitive activities. All of these-imagination, interpreta-tion, theory and practice-combine in what Neville calls engagement.Applied to religious matters, then, not only do we need religious sym-bols-since ’without images of God, God could not be engaged’ (TBS,p. 61)-but we need engaging religious symbols since, if left at thelevel of imagination, symbols are effectually dead. There is, in effect,a dialectical movement of sorts. On the one hand, the imagination isthat which seizes, as it were, the finite/infinite contrasts in its appre-hension of the divine. On the other hand, it is the symbols whichactually work to shape the imagination. We both form the symbols ofthe divine as well as are shaped by these same symbols. From our end,it is the latter which usually precedes the former. As Neville puts it,’the more divine matters are accurately grasped, the more peopleare transformed, enlightened, or saved, at least within certain lirnits.Engagement is crucial for interpretation, theory, and responsibility’(TBS, p. 65).From this, engagement can be religiously understood as the process

of transformation. Although religious symbols function in many con-texts, their devotional use is primary. Devotion, says Neville, ’is notabout doing something but about finding something and being trans-formed by that’ (TBS, p. 199). In devotion, then, ’religious symbolsare developed, cultivated, and employed to lead the soul’ (TBS, p. 153)so as truly to engage the divine. And since devotees in any traditioncan be found at various spiritual stages, in this context, religious

even ’Being-itself’ is symbolic [see TBS, p. 129].) On the other hand, his book is anextended argument against those who would systematically reduce religion to socio-cultural realities (see TBS, pp. 14-19), and he does this by way of attempting to getat the heart of what religious symbols actually refer to; thus the import of his conceptof finite/infinite contrasts.

47

symbols refer both to the finite/infinite contrast (or the divine) on theone hand and to the devotee at her stage of maturity on the other (thedoctrine of dual reference). This explains at least in part the some-times exaggerated and fantastic symbolisms that arise ’from the needto connect with the devotee in reference’ (TBS, p. 172), and cantherefore be idolatrous especially when dealing with a relativelyimmature person. Transformation thus refers to the ongoing progresstoward spiritual maturity and is the most important effect producedby a genuine encounter with the divine. In other words, genuine’tongues of fire’ are transformative; without the latter, the formermay just be gibberish.What issues forth from transformation, however, is what was

referred to earlier as the pursuit of responsibility or religious praxis.Generally, transformation occurs at the individual level and praxis isdefined in the context of the religious community. This is not to say thatcommunities are not transformed and that individuals do not practice,but only that individual transformation allows one to partake in thetransformation of community and that organized religious life providesat least in part the arena within which individuals are transformed.With regard to praxis, however, Neville posits that religious symbolsare interpreted both representationally regarding the finite/infinite

contrast on the one hand and practically regarding the implications ofthe symbolized object as drawn out for the community on the other(the doctrine of dual interpretants).14 Thus, religious symbols bothshape the imagination with regard to the divine and, following GeorgeLindbeck’s cultural-linguistic theory, interpret the world of thereligious community while enabling the community’s response to thisworld.15 In these contexts, then, they are ’primarily referred to theirobjects performatively and only secondarily representationally’ (TBS,p. 141).

It is time to return to the question of truth. No matter what onebelieves regarding whether or not the mystical experience of the

14. Dual interpretants are not to be confused with dual references introducedabove. Dual reference tells us something about the divine and the state of the devotee;it is related to truth as correspondence. Dual interpretants deals with meaning andvalue of transformation; its implications are for praxis, and its being ’for something’(or other); it is therefore connected to truth as pragmatic.

15. See George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology ina Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984).

48

divine is direct or mediated, in relating this experience of the divine,truth can be accessed and communicated only via symbols which con-trast the finite and the infinite. The matter, however, is complex since’truth itself is a dyadic relation [truth as correspondence] within thetriadic relations of interpretation’ (TBS, p. 242). Central to this prag-matic approach, then, is the notion of interpretation, understood bothextentionally and intentionally. The former refers to what Nevillecalls ’network meaning’, which is the overlap of symbol systemswherein x points to y which points to z, and so on, as elaborated cul-turally by anthropologists such as Clifford Geertzl6 and religiously bytheologians such as George Lindbeck. Being concerned with religioustruth, however, Neville argues that intentionality is intrinsic to inter-pretation, the cumulative act of which is therefore an effort to under-stand a real religious object.&dquo; Intentionality produces a ’contentmeaning’ which internalizes network meaning and by which ’the net-work meaning as an actual experiential symbol [is] actually disclosive’(TBS, p. 101). So while extentional reference is an important elementin the process of interpretation, at some point-in religious matters, atthe boundary of the finite and infinite-metaphors come to an end, atwhich time the interpreter both intends the religious symbol to engagethe divine and the symbol actually discloses the divine to the inter-preter (this has been traditionally known in theology as ‘revelation’ ).’Tongues of fire’ thus refers extensionally in part to the webs or net-works of meaning in the Jewish literary tradition; in addition, how-ever, the early Christians associated the metaphor with the Holy Spiritin light of their Pentecostal experience. As a finite/infinite contrast,

16. See Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: BasicBooks, 1973), pp. 3-32 and 87-125.

17. This is an important point. Neville insists that ’ "understanding" means"understanding the religious object", not merely "understanding the meaning of thetheological claim" ’ (TBS, p. 265). If limited to the latter, decoding extentional refer-ence is all that would be necessary in interpreting religious symbolism, and thecultural-religious hermeneutics of anthropologists like Clifford Geertz are all thatwould be required. In my ’Tongues, Theology, and the Social Sciences: A Pente-costal-Theological Reading of Geertz’s Interpretive Theory of Religion’, Cyber-journal for Pentecostal/Charismatic Research (http:BBwww.pctii.orgBcybertab.html) 1(January 1997), I have argued that Geertz’s phenomenological inquiry most appro-priately serves as a necessary starting point for any theological task. With regard toglossolalia, the theologian then needs to press the theological or transcendent truthquestion; that is what is being done in the present paper.

49

then, it is intended to refer to the boundary conditions which definethe believer’s sense of contingency in the presence of the divine Spirit(the aspect of internalization), while, at the same time, it conditions

the believer’s spontaneous response to this encounter with divinity (theaspect of experiencing with the symbol).18 I

Thus, Neville concludes that, ’Whereas an interpretation is eithertrue or false in a dyadic sense, determining what it means and whetherit is true is a matter for more interpretation, and perhaps a re-engagement of the object’ (TBS, p. 242). Thus truth is not only theo-logical, but is also devotional and practical. His more extended sum-mary statement deserves to be quoted in full:

Religious symbols are true if they transform people’s practices so as toembody the religious object, properly qualified; they are true if they effecttransformations in devotional life so that the soul becomes more and more

conformed to the religious object, properly qualified. They are true if theycarry over the values in the religious object so that the intentional under-standing of the mind is conformed to them, properly qualified (TBS,p. 243).19

In these matters, then, Neville’s pragmatic theory of truth argues thatreligious symbols ’might be here referential, there not, here meaning-ful, there not, here interpreted, there not, here true, there not... Thatis, they are true but broken’ (TBS, p. 244). So in the same way are’tongues of fire’.

II

My task is now to determine how and in what respects glossolalia as asign or an effect of the Spirit’s presence is true devotionally, practi-cally and theologically. These contexts, while demarcated for thepurposes of my discussion, cannot be separated in reality. If the reli-gious object to be engaged is the divine, qualified at least initially asthe Holy Spirit, then let me propose a hypothesis to be tested: glosso-lalia is devotionally true insofar as the Pentecostal soul is transformedto be more like this Spirit;2° it is practically true insofar as Pentecostal

18. Neville considers aspects of the fire-symbol as derivative from what KarlJaspers calls the Axial Age, one of many symbols which were developed in theemerging world religions of that period; see Neville’s discussion in TBS, pp. 93-95.

19. Proper qualification here considers the aforementioned biological, cultural,semiotic and intentional contexts of the interpreter.

20. Insofar as the Spirit is understood as the Spirit that empowered the historical

50

practices embody the Spirit; and it is theologically true insofar as theunderstanding of the mind is attuned to the Spirit.,

Glossolalia can be considered within three networks of meaning,broadly defined. These can also be understood as stages of personal orcommunal devotion which I will call innocence, growth and adept.Two caveats are in order. First, although these networks of meaningare meant to correspond to three stages of Pentecostal spiritual life,they are not meant to suggest that no others exist. Secondly, it is in thenature of any network of meaning both to intersect with other

networks as well as to contain within itself various micro-networks of

meaning. In other words, networks of meaning overlap and are not

isolated. Within the various networks of meaning-or stages, as theyare henceforth termed-glossolalia will be examined both as it

functions devotionally for the individual and practically for the

community. At each stage, I will suggest how glossolalia is true-howtruth is carried over from the object to the interpreter or the

interpreting community, properly qualified, in its various respects-thus developing a provisionally true theology of glossolalia.

Innocence

The first stage is what I have termed innocence. The qualifiers here-biological, cultural, semiotic and purposive-as elsewhere, can be of awide variety.21 Generally, however, during innocence, glossolalia isvaguely understood as something more or less foreign. The anticipat-ing or new glossolalist may be younger, both with regard to age andChristian experience. At some point, they would have been introducedto the phenomena of glossolalia and, psychological and cultural resis-tance being minimum, perhaps even would have become fascinatedwith it and encouraged to ’seek the Holy Spirit’. As generalizations,particular deviations from the ’rule’ can and always will be found. Atthis level, however, the imagination of the anticipating or beginnerglossolalist will at the very least have entertained the concept of Spirit-

Jesus and as pointing to and exalting the Christ, Pentecostals have understood thistransformation to be into Christ-likeness.

21. For a helpful introduction to the biological, psychological and socio-culturalcontexts which form the background of many glossolalists (applicable for any of thestages of my discussion), see the collection of essays in Mills (ed.), Speaking inTongues, Part IV, ’Psychological Studies’, and Part V, ’Sociocultural Studies’.

51

baptism, along with the notion of speaking in a strange tongue.22During innocence, then, glossolalia is encountered as a sign, phe-

nomenologically seen as the ’making of sounds that constitute, orresemble, a language not known to the speaker’.23 The focus at thisstage is on the human aspect of glossolalia, even while understood asthe effect of divine inspiration. The basic metaphor is the performa-tive ’speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance’ (inaccordance with the paradigmatic Pentecostal proof texts of Acts 2.4,10.44-46, 19.6). The Holy Spirit, who is also known as the Spirit ofliberty (2 Cor. 3.17), encounters the Pentecostal in a way such that heor she is initially confronted with infinite (unbounded, completelyfree) majesty and glory, and then swept up ecstatically into the Spirit’s spresence. Glossolalia in its strangeness thus refers to divinity, whatRudolf Otto has called the mysterium tremendum-the ’wholly other-ness’ of God. In its ecstatic expression, glossolalia refers to the devotee,the puny Pentecostal completely bound in the light of this experience.This dual reference thereby relates the finite and the infinite. Theunbaptized Pentecostal is here a seeker, looking for something, any-thing, to jolt them out of their spiritual doldrums and complacency.The ensuing baptism, a transforming, ecstatic experience, is, althoughfull of emotion, more accurately understood as a holistic response toand a thorough engagement with the divine self-disclosure as mediatedby the Spirit.24 In this movement from irrelevance to importance,

22. Thus, as a contrary example, Harvey Cox would not be considered a ’primecandidate’ for glossolalia, in accordance with his own admission: ’The fact is that Iwill probably never "speak in tongues". I am too self-conscious, too inhibited,maybe too old. And as I write these words I am not even sure I would really want to.But my recognizing publicly, if only to a small circle of friends and acquaintances,that there have been times when I have wanted to, still seems very important to me’(Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Reli-gion in the Twenty-First Century [Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1995], p. 182;italics his). Ardent Pentecostals, however, would point out that, given the crack inCox’s resistance, the Holy Spirit will eventually make headway into his life!

23. Spittler, ’Glossolalia’, p. 336.24. Neville warns that ’The pragmatic tests of engagement should not be limited

to superficial feelings of being turned on or off, but should issue forth in ’a certaintythat centers the heart’ (TBS, pp. 194, 197). Genuine Pentecostal glossolalic experi-ences that ’center the heart’ and transform the soul can be distinguished and shouldbe discerned from its more ’fleshly’ or even at times ’demonic’ counterparts that donot achieve the same effect.

52

from bondage to liberty, from the state of seeking to that of beingfilled, from ’life in the pits’ to ’freedom in the Spirit’, the Pentecostalis delivered from his or her fetters, and a celebration emerges fromthe deepest parts of the soul in the form of an unknown speech. Thestrange sounds which issue forth spontaneously from the Pentecostalcan therefore be understood as ’an unclassifiable free speech in

response to an unclassifiable, free God’,25 thus signifying a carryover,or loosing of the divine freedom into the devotee. Glossolalia thusinterprets the Holy Spirit in this ecstatic experience as the divinefreedom. Many Pentecostals have testified to this fundamentally trans-forming experience, symbolized at its core by the presence of thedivine Spirit in the act of glossolalia.At this first stage, glossolalia functions primarily as a sign denoting

the experience of the liberating Holy Spirit. Classical Pentecostaldenominations have dogmatized this sign as the ’initial physical evi-dence’ doctrine, which articulates the belief in glossolalia as authenti-cating the Pentecostal’s encounter with the Spirit.26 Sociologicalassessments of the origins of modem Pentecostalism have confirmedthe importance of glossolalia as evidential sign for the fledglingmovement. Walter Hollenweger, a leading interpreter of the movement,identified the initial evidence doctrine as a ’tribal mark’ which servedas a bond for Christians on the underside at the turn of the century:the economically deprived, the socially marginalized, the ethnic outcast,and the politically trivial. 27

25. Macchia, ’Sighs too Deep for Words’, p. 61.26. ’Classical’ is a sociological term referring to denominations which trace their

lineage to the early twentieth-century Pentecostal revival at Azusa Street. For a state-ment and popular defense of this doctrine, see ’The Initial Physical Evidence of theBaptism of the Holy Spirit’, a position paper adopted by the Assemblies of God in1981, and available in many formats and editions, including Where We Stand: TheOfficial Position Paper of the Assemblies of God (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publish-ing House, 1994), pp. 145-56. For a more complete scholarly discussion, see GaryB. McGee (ed.), Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on thePentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991). Neo-Pentecostal and charismatic groups have not followed the classicists here, preferringto see glossolalia less in evidential terms and more as one of the charismatic gifts.

27. Walter Hollenweger, The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in theChurches (trans. R.A. Wilson; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973), pp. 485-86. Eventhough classical Pentecostals have recently attempted to divert attention away fromthe phenomena (see Gordon L. Anderson, ’Pentecostals Believe in More than

53

As understood by the Pentecostal community, then, at innocence,glossolalia is interpreted with respect to the infinite as divine freedom,and, with respect to the finite community, as a cry for freedom alongwith the answer of the divine presence. At this level, glossolalia is trueinsofar as this freedom is transferred or carried over into the glosso-lalist properly qualified by his or her biological, cultural, semiotic andpurposive contexts. Glossolalists are thus those who have been trans-formed or rescued from a place of social insignificance and ’baptized’into a community where their identity is recognized and their contri-butions valued.&dquo; Practically understood, glossolalia is an invitation topartake of life meaningfully, to ’be filled with the Spirit’. This filling,within the Pentecostal community, while available to each believer asa privilege, is also requisite since, after some time, membership espe-cially for those aspiring to positions of leadership, may become suspectif the believer fails to certify their identity with the evidence ofspeaking in other tongues.29

Growth

Being ’filled with the Spirit’ is considered the prelude to being’anointed or empowered by the Spirit’, both normative in Pentecostalcircles of the Spirit-filled life. Thus, after glossolalia is initially expe-rienced, the Pentecostal is promoted, as it were, to another stage of

spirituality containing a new set of network meanings. I have termedthis the growth stage which captures more intensely both the dynamicmovement associated with this anointing and empowerment (this is not

Tongues’, in Harold B. Smith [ed.], Pentecostals from the Inside Out [Wheaton, IL:Victor Books, 1990], pp. 53-64), this interpretation of glossolalia as a ’tribal mark’is still appropriate in many respects. Thus, sociologists have identified frequency ofglossolalic experience as one of the contributing factors to the movement’s identityand growth (see Luther P. Gerlach and Virginia H. Hine, ’Five Factors Crucial to theGrowth and Spread of a Modern Religious Movement’, JSSR 7 [Spring 1968],pp. 23-40).

28. The classic socio-historical study of Pentecostalism is by Robert MapesAnderson, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism(New York: Oxford University Press, 1979).

29. It is here that neo-Pentecostals have lodged their complaint that the initial evi-dence doctrine misguidedly emphasizes seeking the gift (of tongues) rather than theGiver (the Holy Spirit). The proper classical Pentecostal response is not to de-emphasize the doctrine or the phenomenon, but correctly to interpret tongues as asign of the Spirit, precisely the purpose of this paper.

54

to imply that the other two levels are to be understood statically) andthe deeper reflection on the nature and significance of the experienceof glossolalia. The initiate would have gained official entry into thePentecostal community, and therefore develops the normative cul-tural, semiotic and purposive qualifications relative to their glossolalicexperience through faithful participation in the organized life of thegroup. The initiate often exhibits spiritual fervor, and usually pursuessubsequent experiences of the Spirit along with a deeper understand-ing of this experience. During this process of growth, the horizons ofthe Pentecostal are expanded. His or her imagination is enriched withother symbols and networks of meaning, and glossolalia itself takes onnew dimensions of meaning.The dominant metaphor during growth shifts from the performa-

tive ’speaking as the Spirit gives utterance’ to that of ’receiving powerafter the Spirit comes upon you’, the purpose of which is Christianwitness (Acts 1.8). Coming to the fore is the empowering speech ofthe divine, whether it be the creative Word (Genesis 1), the Logos asthe word of life (John 1), or the rhema or prophetic word of Godthrough the Spirit. What was foretold in the first Testament-’Withforeign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people’ (Isa.28.11)-is now realized by the people of God. The focus is now oncommunication, its vitality and its empowerment, referring first to thedivine ’thus saith the Lord’, and then to the believer, who is therebytransformed into being a witness. Glossolalia is therefore the humanprototype of the divine word. There is, then, in glossolalia, a disclo-sure of the Spirit who speaks and empowers and, therefore also, of amessage of life (the good news). What is carried over is this image ofthe speaking, empowering and, therefore also, life-giving Spirit, intothe glossolalist.11

Various sub-networks of meaning are operative here, the chief ofwhich is the complementary expansion of the Pauline understanding ofthe Spirit as connected with new birth, with that of the Lukan (Luke-Acts) notion of the charismatic or speech-giving Spirit. Glossolalia ishere evidence of a life anointed and empowered by the Spirit,primarily for verbal witness.&dquo; So, during congregational worship, the

30. I am here developing aspects of what Steven Land calls the ’speech of thekingdom’; see his insightful Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom(JPTSup, 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 110-13.

31. See James B. Shelton, Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy

55

Pentecostal may take on the role of a prophet, either edifying thefaithful or heaping conviction upon the unbelievers in their midst withtongues and its interpretations (1 Cor. 12-14). In other activities

organized by the church, such as door-to-door ministry and prisonvisitation, the Spirit-filled devotee may be an evangelist, a bearer ofgood news. In ordinary life, the glossolalist is always seekingappropriate occasions to give testimony. The more ’filled’ he or she is,of course, the more opportunities are found to witness, whether it beto a neighbor, the supermarket cashier or the friend of a friend.32 Notalways, but sometimes, visions of triumphalism and grandeur haveaccompanied the Pentecostal imagination. What scores of Pentecostalshave borne witness to is the baptism of the Spirit, signified byglossolalia, as an empowering experience, giving them personalboldness and verbal abilities previously lacking.

In growth, then, glossolalia functions as a sign of the empoweringand speech-giving Spirit. This finds expression among Pentecostals inthe prevalence of prophecy, the zeal for evangelism and the commit-ment to global missionisation. This should come as no surprise,especially given early Pentecostalism’s biblicistic primitivism. Theyare therefore quick to point out that the outpouring of the Holy Spiriton the Day of Pentecost turned sons and daughters into prophets (Acts2.17); that Peter’s Spirit-baptism loosed an evangelistic anointingwhich resulted in 3000 converts on that day (Acts 2.41); and that theChurch, while formally commissioned by Jesus himself, only receivedher emission into the world after the Pentecostal blessing. The storiesof prophets, evangelists and missionaries told in the. book of Acts,then, working together, provide Pentecostals with an elaborate pictureof the function of the Church, the restoration of which in these lastdays is heralded by glossolalia. The early Pentecostals saw themselvesas a prophetic voice, both in tongues and interpretations, proclaimingJesus as Lord and calling the larger church back to the fundamentalsof the faith.33 They understood themselves as evangelists to a decaying

Spirit in Luke-Acts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), especially Ch. 12, ’Filledwith the Holy Spirit... To Speak the Word with Boldness’; cf. also Roger Stronstad,The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984).

32. For further popular expositions of the value of glossolalia, see the essays byR.H. Hughes, J.A. Cross and J.L. Slay in Wade H. Horton (ed.), The GlossolaliaPhenomenon (Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 1966).

33. More recently, Pentecostals have taken up a critical stance toward society

56

church threatened by liberalism and Darwinism and a nation under theonslaught of issues like prohibition, modernity and the First WorldWar. And, of course, Pentecostals imagined themselves as the final

wave of Christian missions and, as such, harbingers of the last confla-gration. Influenced as they were by pre-millennial dispensationalism,Pentecostals read glossolalia as a missiological key to the great harvestthat was central in their apocalyptic eschatology.34 The Day of Pen-tecost, when various ethnic groups heard the 120 ’speaking in his ownlanguage’ (Acts 2.6), was looked to as a paradigm for ’the evange-lization of the heathen’,35 and many a Pentecostal urgently set sail forforeign lands without knowing the language, but believing that suchlack would be divinely compensated for by the gift of tongues. Timeshave changed, but the Pentecostal fervor for the proclamation of thekerygma has not abated. Prophetic ministries have multiplied, the tel-

evangelist market has boomed, and plans for global evangelizationamongst the various Pentecostal denominations have intensified.At the growth stage, then, glossolalia is interpreted with regard to

the divine as the speaking and empowering Spirit, and is thereby trueinsofar as this kerygmatic and witnessing ability is carried over intothe glossolalist or the community of glossolalists. The church is nowseen as the evangelistic and triumphant body of Christ. Practicallyunderstood, glossolalia is symbolic of the divine message and power,and serves as an exhortation to release the Spirit in proclamation ofthe impending Kingdom of God. During this stage, it can be said thatPentecostals who are truly grasped by and who truly engage the divineare less tongue-speakers than they are message-deliverers; they are

transformed from self-centeredness to other-centeredness; they movefrom being empowered selves to selves empowering others, frominnocence toward spiritual maturity.

which earlier generations overlooked; thus the horizons of prophetic criticism havebeen expanded in the Pentecostal imagination.

34. For a perspicacious overview of the pre-millennialistic foundations of Pente-costal theology, see Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), Ch. 4.

35. See notes on ’Gift of Tongues and Foreign Missions’, by W.F. Carothers,appended to Charles Parham, The Baptism with the Holy Ghost and the Speaking inTongues (Zion City, IL: W.F. Carothers, 1906); this pamphlet can be found in theAssemblies of God Archives, Springfield, MO. Cf. James R. Goff, Jr, Fields WhiteUnto Harvest: Charles F. Parham and the Missionary Origins of Pentecostalism(Fayetteville, AR: The University of Arkansas Press, 1988).

57

AdeptThis movement toward maturity is an important one, and it leads us toa third stage of glossolalia: the adept. Mature glossolalists normallyadvance to positions of leadership in their churches and communities.They come to be recognized for their integration of passion and zealwith knowledge and sagacity. To varying degrees, intellectual hori-zons are broadened even while the rhetoric of anti-intellectualism is

retained, and purposive contexts are more carefully ordered than theywere before. As research has demonstrated, ’the more integrated thepersonality, the more modest [the Pentecostal] in both claims andpractice of glossolalia’.36With these qualifications in mind regarding the relative maturity of

the adept, at this stage metaphors are less useful. Glossolalia is nolonger just an utterance, nor does it function simply as a sign of theSpirit’s presence or serve to communicate any particular message.What emerges is a vision of the divine life. Glossolalia now is an

embodiment of the divine unity, 3 and offers precisely an avenue intoparticipation in the divine life through the divine language. Glossolaliais transformed into divine praise (Acts 10.46), unutterable groans(Rom. 8.26), and the language of angels ( Cor. 13.1 ). The Pente-costal, while both enthusiast and proclaimer, is now first and foremostworshipper. Correspondingly, glossolalia is doxological, referring onthe one hand to the divine unity, and on the other to the aspiringmystic seeking bliss. Even in ordinary life, the Pentecostal saint prac-tices the injunction of Paul to pray without ceasing, which includingglossolalic prayer and praise, both brings about and results from a

36. John Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues (New York: Harper &Row, 1972), p. 60.

37. I am purposely using the language of divine unity rather than tri-unity in ordernot to exclude oneness Pentecostals from this discussion. The argument is valideither way since there is a ’oneness of experience’ common to these sibling groupsregardless of the divergent views on the Godhead (see David Bernard, ’A Responseto Ralph Del Colle’s "Oneness and Trinity: A Preliminary Proposal for Dialogue withOneness Pentecostalism" ’ [unpublished response paper read at the 25th AnniversaryMeeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Toronto, Ontario, 7-9 March 1996],p. 4). My own proposal to bridge the theological gap between the two groups can befound in ’Oneness and the Trinity: The Theological and Ecumenical Implications of"Creation ex nihilo" for an Intra-Pentecostal Dispute’, PNEUMA: The Journal of theSociety for Pentecostal Studies 19.1 (Spring 1997), pp. 81-107.

58

heightened sense of the ’transcendental experience of the Spirit whichis implicitly and apparently featurelessly there and always there’.&dquo;There is, then, an upward eschatological movement, a transformationinto the imago Dei spoken of by the patristic fathers.39 Glossolaliaprovides the entryway by which the Pentecostal brings his or her willinto conformity with the divine’s, and by which the soul is shaped bythe Holy Spirit into union with the divine life.

Glossolalia is interpreted regarding the infinite as symbolic of theunity of the divine life, but regarding the finite, it is interpreted bothhorizontally and vertically.4° This dual eschatological movement iswhat is observed in the doxa and praxis of the cultic community. Themovement vertically in the Pentecostal congregation is a devotionaltransformation that parallels what takes place on the individual level,but which has significant implications for the community. Adept Pen-tecostals bring their personal devotional spirituality to congregationalworship. Mystical personal union is conjoined in the context of theworship service by playful and ecstatic communal union with theSpirit. In this, the ritual of Pentecostal worship sets itself continuouslyagainst all forms of traditionalism, institutionalism and formalism.41

38. Karl Rahner, The Spirit in the Church (trans. John Griffiths; New York:Seabury, 1979), p. 17. As Richard Baer has said, glossolalia, like Quaker silenceand Catholic liturgy, ’permits the analytical mind... to rest, thus freeing other dimen-sions of the person, what we might loosely refer to as man’s spirit, for a deeperopenness to divine reality’ (’Quaker Silence, Catholic Liturgy, and PentecostalGlossolalia—Some Functional Similarities’, in Russell P. Spittler [ed.], Perspectiveson the New Pentecostalism [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976], p. 152).

39. Basil speaks of theosis through the Spirit in his Treatise on the Spirit 15.36.40. Following Steven Land’s taxonomy, I am arguing that glossolalia is a prima

facie symbol of orthodoxy (right praise), orthopathy (right affections), and ortho-praxy (right praxis), all networked in interrelated harmony. With regard to the last,again following Land, Pentecostal affections as transformed by glossolalia exhibittheir relational and dispositional nature toward both God and neighbor, thus thevertical and horizontal trajectories of glossolalia interpreted at this level (see Land,Pentecostal Spirituality, pp. 41 and 134-36).

41. In theory, and sometimes in practice, then, Pentecostal ritual is an anomaly tohistorians of religion who understand ritual as hostile to novelty and as conservativewith regard to cultic and social norms. Like any other movement, however, Pente-costal practice is not immune from the forces of institutionalization, and defectorsfrom amongst those dissatisfied with calcified, classical Pentecostal congregationshave been found to be ardent supporters and zealous promoters of more recentrevival movements such as the Fourth Wavers and the Toronto Blessing.

59

As a ’playful way of communicating, comparable with abstract art ormusic’, J.-J. Suurmond has asserted that ’glossolalia is a purposeless,unformed expression of the self in Word and Spirit, unhindered byrules of language and codes of behavior’ .42 This is an application ofJfrgen Moltmann’s theology of play. For Moltmann, ’Play as thesymbol of the world includes the creative role of &dquo;chance&dquo;; for it

understands chance as the event of something new-something under-ivable and undeducible from anything that already exists’:‘~3 Glossolaliacaptures the utter arbitrariness of speech, thus allowing the glossolalistaccess to the most non-purposeful of all games on the stage of divineplay. Glossolalia embodies this engagement and communion in anatmosphere of heightened congregational ecstasy. At times, Pentecostal worship is conducted in a sort of congregational trance, whenthe maximally participating and energetic congregation ascends anddescends in depth and intensity of mood, accompanied by a cacophonyof instruments, the rhythmic movements of the choir and worshipteam, and alternations of prayers, praises, prophecies (perhaps in theform of tongues and interpretations), testimonies and sermonettes, allrising to a crescendo of glossolalia. At other times, there is a sense ofthe sublime, either when glossolalia is put to a melody in ’singing inthe Spirit’ (Eph. 5.19, ’spiritual songs’), or in a more subdued sense aswhen the Pentecostal imagination plays with the ’tongues of angels’ ( ICor. 13.1).44 What is envisioned are images and symbols which reflectthe glory of God. The richness of the unity of the divine life and thecongregation of the Lord of Hosts are the imaginative symbols which

42. Jean-Jacques Suurmond, Word and Spirit at Play: Towards a CharismaticTheology (trans. John Bowden; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 156.

43. Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and theSpirit of God (trans. Margaret Kohl; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 312.

44. The Assemblies of God position regarding the language of tongues deservesto be quoted in its entirety: ’Speaking with other tongues refers to the ability the HolySpirit gives believers to speak in languages they have not learned. The word trans-lated "tongues" in Acts is the same word used in 1 Corinthians and refers to actual

languages of men or of angels (1 Cor. 13.1). There is no justification for interpretingthe word as strange or ecstatic sounds. In New Testament times, as in our own, therewere people who heard and understood the speaking in tongues’ (’The Initial Physi-cal Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, in Where We Stand, p. 147;emphasis mine). This distinction between the human languages and that of angels isan important one which allows Pentecostals to sidestep the issue of verificationrelated to confirming the linguistic authenticity of glossolalia.

60

motivate this movement. Thus the Lord Jesus is acknowledged aspresent, the Spirit is invited to come to anoint the liturgy of worship,and the congregation then released by the minister to ’behold theglory of the Lord’ and to ’enter into the divine presence’. Congre-gational glossolalia, then, expresses the solidarity of the members ofthe body of Christ and embodies, at it were, the unity and glory of thedivine through the presence of the Spirit. Because every congregationis comprised of members at various stages, the order of the liturgy isfrequently interrupted, and at times upset. But oftentimes, these areunderstood to reflect the divine freedom. Thus, adept Pentecostals areusually able to maintain focus on the Spirit’s presence, are cautionednot to ’put out [quench] the Spirit’s fire’ (1 Thess. 5.18) despite theintrusions, and may even say ’we’ve had Church!’ when these

unpredictable elements enter into the order of service (such as whenthe preacher never gets to his or her sermon). The Spirit is engagedand the divine presence apprehended when hearts are transformed andwhen the glory of the Lord is carried over into the worshipperresulting, practically speaking, in the ’peace that passes under-

standing’, ’joy unspeakable and full of glory’, and a life of piety.41This is where the Pentecostal, as adept, not only exercises the gifts ofthe Spirit but also exemplifies the fruit of the Spirit.At the same time, this praxis leads to the horizontal movement in

organized Pentecostalism. ’There is one body and one Spirit’, in thewords of the apostle Paul, precisely because there is ’one Lord, onefaith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all andthrough all and in all’ (Eph. 4.4a, 5-6). With regard to the finite, glos-solalia is now interpreted as the reverse of Babel, thus signifying there-gathering of the people of God. Whereas the diversification oftongues at Babel wrought division and confusion into the human expe-rience, the miracle of diverse tongues at Pentecost was clarity andcommunicability wrought by the Holy Spirit.46 Babel resulted in

45. For the adept Pentecostal, this piety can also be understood in Neville’s terms: ’Piety before the sacred then means the disciplined development of symbolsand their interpretation that register the divine within the interpreters without distort-ing the sacred in the respects interpreted, and then living in light of these registeringinterpretations without running counter to the divine, participating where relevant inthe initiatives that flow from the interpreted divine nature’ (TBS, pp. 30-31).

46. Michael Welker observes the ironic twist of Pentecost, that this ’unbelievable

comprehensibility is what deeply confuses and frightens’ the gathering at Jerusalem

61

variegated animosity; Pentecost in differentiated unity. Thus earlyPentecostals saw in glossolalia the Spirit who was no respector ofdenomination or gender, and African-American founding ancestors ofthe movement like William Seymour celebrated the ’washing away ofthe color line by the blood’ .47 In our contemporary pluralistic age,adept Pentecostals see Acts 2 as paradigmatic of the diversity of the

°

body of Christ, symbolically united under the banner of the one Spiritin audibly dissonant but spiritually univocal language.48 This eschato-logical movement can be seen to instantiate on the historical level whatis taking place spiritually in the visible church. As the church contin-ues to be drawn into the divine life by the power of the Spirit, she isalso extended as a universal oecumene. While Pentecostals have been

slower to learn the lessons of organized ecumenism, the movement isrelatively young and has this going for her in that she possesses, latentwithin the tradition, powerful ecumenical symbols founded as they areupon the ecumenical model in the second chapter of Acts. Within thishorizontal trajectory, then, glossolalia for the adept signifies or inter-prets the Spirit against the fullness of divine life both in universalityand particularity, and carries the unity of the divine life over into theexperience and community life of the wider Christian church. Glosso-lalia is therefore true for the glossolalic community as that ritualwhich both symbolizes and actually embodies the community’sengagement with the divine unity. It is further true insofar as it serves

such that they initially thought the disciples to be drunk with wine (God the Spirit[trans. John F. Hoffmeyer; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994], p. 232).

47. See D.J. Nelson, ’For Such a Time as This: The Story of Bishop William J.Seymour and the Asuza Street Revival’ (PhD dissertation, University of Birming-ham, 1981); cf. Leonard Lovett, ’Black Origins of the Pentecostal Movement’, inVinson Synan (ed.), Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins (Plainfield, NJ:Logos International, 1975), pp. 143-68.

48. Samuel Solivan, ’Cultural Glossolalia in Acts 2: A Theological Reassessmentof the Importance of Culture and Language’, unpublished paper presented to the 24thAnnual Meeting of The Society for Pentecostal Studies, Wheaton, IL, November1994. The dissolution of the predominantly white Pentecostal Fellowship of NorthAmerica and its rebirth as the more diversified Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches ofNorth America which took place in October 1994 at Memphis, Tennessee, has beentouted as the ’Memphis Miracle’. This event has generated much discussion withinPentecostal circles, thus feeding an underground stream of inter-racial ecumenism inthe movement; see, e.g., the collection of essays under ’Roundtable: Racial Reconcil-iation’ in PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 18.1 (Spring1996), pp. 113-40.

62

to bring about this unity in the church both historically and spirituallyso that it corresponds with the unity of the divine life. Practicallyspeaking, the church is therefore beseeched to ’keep the unity of theSpirit through the bond of peace’ (Eph. 4.3).

In light of the above analysis, the truth of glossolalia can thus besaid to lie, on the one hand, in its symbolic function which allow s thetongues-speaker both to experience and correctly to understand thedivine in a uniquely relevant way, and on the other hand, in its powerof spiritual transformation, which carries the divine reality over intothe life and community of the glossolalist. At the same time, becausethe divine infinitude can never be completely experienced, the mean-ing and truth of glossolalia will continue to take on new forms. AsNeville has cautioned, ’the insistence on the brokenness of religioussymbols is to protect and highlight their apophatic reference to thetranscendent or the infinite’ (TBS, p. 243). The truth of glossolaliacan therefore only be partially experienced and always requires ongo-ing interpretation. Glossolalia will continue to allow the devotee andthe believing community to engage the divine reality so long as theexplications of its expression are not confined to past models of con-ceptualization but are open to new contexts of experiencing and cre-ative ways of theological articulation. In other words, glossolalia istrue provisionally and never absolutely, that is, so long as it remains abroken symbol.

III

I proposed at the beginning of Section II the hypothesis that glossolaliais devotionally true insofar as the Pentecostal soul is transformed to bemore like the Spirit; it is practically true insofar as Pentecostal prac-tices embody the Spirit; and it is theologically true insofar as theunderstanding of the mind is attuned to the Spirit, in the respectsintended. What has been uncovered is precisely the powerful symbolicfunction of glossolalia as a finite/infinite contrast, such that it partici-pates in the religious object and carries over sufficient value into theexperience of the interpreter or interpreting community. Since God isfree, glossolalia both symbolizes the presence of the Spirit and isexpressed freely in the glossolalist. Because God has been revealed inJesus Christ and the Great Commission has been given, glossolaliaboth symbolizes the message of the gospel and is a prototype of its

63

proclamation. In light of the unity of the divine life, glossolalia bothsymbolizes the blissful union with the divine individually and corpo-rately and is a prophetic sign of the ecumenical and spiritual union ofthe churches. The truth of glossolalia is demonstrated in the libera-tion, proclamation and unity of the glossolalist, both individually andcommunally.

Glossolalia as a sign of embodiment is precisely for that reasoncapturing the imagination and engaging the life of the Pentecostalcommunity. In turn, deeper reflection on the glossolalic experienceorients the imagination toward understanding divine things. Theologyis enriched with regard to the divine freedom, the divine self-revela-tion, and the divine unity, and theological truth is attained as thePentecostal understanding apprehends God through the Holy Spirit inthese respects. Here, theology serves an important and illuminatingfunction. Insofar as the Pentecostal imagination is engaged by ’tonguesof fire’, it has interpreted God through the Holy Spirit for its mem-bers, producing devotional transformation and communal practice.This explains, in part, the phenomenal success of Pentecostalism, itsrapid growth, the vision for globalization of its many missionaryorganizations, and its rapid surge in the non-Western world.

Critical questions, however, may be raised at this juncture. BecauseI have relied on Neville’s pragmatic theory of truth, I have not beenable to escape the bite in John Kildahl’s conclusion from over 20 yearsago: ’Whether or not it is a gift of God’s providential care for hispeople depends on varying subjective interpretations of the nature ofwhat is spiritual and what constitutes a good gift for man.&dquo;~9 Withsuch subjectivistic and relativistic criteria for adjudicating truth, howcan we speak truly of glossolalia at all? Do not the pragmatic consid-erations overwhelm the others in this process? If glossolalia is

supposed to interpret the divine, how can we know about the divineapart from the experience itself or from other related networks ofsymbols? And if this is the case, are we not caught in a vicioushermeneutical circularity? Further, who ultimately says that the divineis carried over into our experience if the divine can only be cloaked insymbols? Or which traits of the divine are actually divine or can beauthoritatively deciphered as divine so that our symbols are faithfuland trustworthy rather than idolatrous or demonic? Can we trust onlythe philosophical theologian, or should we leave the interpretation of

49. Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues, p. 86; emphasis mine.

64

Scripture in their hands? How can we know the proper respects of inter-pretation apart from some seemingly arbitrary starting point relativeto the interpreter’s or interpreting community’s stage of engagement?Does Neville’s theory allow us access to the truth after all?These questions, however, are related insofar as they rely solely

(and mistakenly, in my view) on a correspondence-of-form view oftruth, and are therefore misplaced insofar as the thesis of this paper isconcerned with truth as the carryover of value. Recall that I am not

rejecting the former; the whole point of this essay is to discern

accurately what is true about glossolalia, what it properly references,and what it is in our glossolalic experience of the Spirit that can besaid to correspond to the divine reality. At the same time, I insist thatsuch discernment can be done only via a more broadly conceived andinterrelated network of truth, meaning and interpretation. My argu-ment here is that glossolalia is true insofar as the divine freedom, thedivine speech and the unity of the divine life are all carried over intothe tongues-speaker and the glossolalic community. Truth is that whichsets us free (Jn 8.36)-that which is properly transforming, both

spiritually, historically and existentially.This relocation of the question of truth from that of correspon-

dence-of-form to that of carryover-of-value is a pragmatic one, butone that is wholly congenial to Pentecostal sensibilities. While Pente-costals have not been known to be strict rationalists, we are notirrational either. Rather, our life is encapsulated in our stories and inour experiences. Therefore our theology is couched in testimonies,rather than treatises. In this sense, truth for Pentecostals is not arrivedat solely via dialectical argumentation or semiotic analysis. Rather,truth is what emerges from our experience of the biblical story. In amanner reminiscent of Lindbeck, our resources for understandingGod and the world are found in part in the effectiveness with whichwe engage the world. Ours is an effort of ’absorbing the world&dquo;’ intoour experiences. The Scriptures, the world and our experience allinterface in our quest for theological understanding. What is con-firmed in our engagement with the world suffices as truth until it is

50. I get this phrase from Bruce Marshall’s essay, ’Absorbing the World: Chris-tianity and the Universe of Faiths’, in Bruce D. Marshall (ed.), Theology and

Dialogue: Essays in Conversation with George Lindbeck (Notre Dame: Universityof Notre Dame Press, 1990), pp. 69-104.

65

demonstrated otherwise. While truth is not usually arrived at demo-cratically, yet a majority vote counts at least for something some ofthe time. In this sense, global Pentecostal expansion is food forthought, and ’tongues of fire’ ideal for the imagination. At the sametime, Pentecostals can no longer speak in tongues alone. The time hascome for interpretations of meaning and truth, both for those withinand without the Pentecostal community, and it is toward this cause thatthe above is meant to contribute.51 1

51. I am grateful to Dennis Cheek for his critical comments on an earlier draft ofthis paper. My thanks are also due to Eben Yong and Luis Enrique Benavides Vialesfor their suggestions regarding stylistic improvements.