Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:27:08.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Speaking in Tongues: A Philosophical Comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Catholics with some biblical knowledge will clearly be familiar with the expression ‘speaking in tongues’. Those who have encountered what is known as ‘Catholic Pentecostalism’ or the ‘Charismatic renewal’ will be even more familiar with it. For within this, though not always considered essential, it certainly is regarded by many as a topic of considerable importance. Up to the present, however, there has been little of a philosophical nature said on the subject and the purpose of what follows is to go some way towards remedying the deficiency. My comments will be necessarily curtailed for the sake of space, but, hopefully, something of interest will emerge.

Advocates of speaking in tongues undoubtedly have a biblical basis for introducing the topic. According to Acts, on the Day of Pentecost the apostles were ‘filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues’ (Acts 2.3, R.S.V. Cf. Acts 19.6-7; 10.66). In 1 Corinthians 14, although he has some harsh things to say on the subject, St Paul declares: ‘I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all’, and he makes it clear that speaking in tongues is a gift from God. The New Testament witness is not, however, a great deal of help in deciding what exactly speaking in tongues amounts to. It is not even clear whether the biblical authors regard the phenomenon as speaking in unknown but genuine languages. St Paul’s contribution is meagre enough and could hardly be called a fully worked-out analysis. He alludes to speaking in tongues only to make the negative point that this should not detract from Christian edification. Only when stating what he considers to be edifying does he begin to expand.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 Cf. Peter Hocken, ‘Pentecostals on paper II’, The Clergy Review, March 1975, p. 173.

2 Cf. Henry Wansbrough, 'Speaking in Tongues’, The Way, July 1974.

3 McDonnell, Killian, Catholic Pentecostalism, Ave Maria PressGoogle Scholar.

4 The Expositary Times, February 1973, p. 137.

5 Darton, Longman and Todd, 1972.

6 Catholic Pentecostals, Kevin, and Ranaghan, Dorothy, Paulist Press, 1969, p. 192Google Scholar

7 Philosophicai Investigations, Oxford, 1968, para. 527Google Scholar.

8 Paul Edwards, ‘Kierkegaard and the “Truth” of Christianity’, Philosophy, April 1971, p. 102.

9 Philosophical Investigations, para. 2.

10 ‘Wittgenstein's Builders’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Volume 60 (1959‐60).

11 p. 299.

12 Kenny, A., Wittgenstein, Penguin, 1975, p. 170Google Scholar.

13 Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1965.

14 Macmillan, 1971. Cf. Swinburne, Richard, The Concept of Miracle, Macmillan, 1970, chapter 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Phillips would reject this argument on the grounds that it involves a misunderstanding of belief in God. The question is too large to discuss here but for a useful critique of Phillips along lines that I should largely follow see John Hick, ‘Religion as Fact‐asserting’ in God and the Universe of Faiths, Macmillan, 1973. I have criticised details of Hick's remarks on related problems in my ‘God and Language’, The Downside Review, January, 1975.