You're not speaking in tongues, you're just mumbling

Tuesday in the Pentecost Novena to the Holy Spirit

At charismatic prayer services (whether Catholic or not), it is not at all uncommon to hear individuals “speaking in tongues”. This phenomenon, as expressed in these meetings, is often claimed to involve deep spiritual movements such that the individual speaks almost without control – and by “speaks”, I do not mean to imply any intelligible speech, but rather only to state that the individual will pour forth various audible sounds.

On the other hand, it sometimes happens that this “speaking in tongues” is not claimed to be so much an external movement of the Spirit as a conscious act of the individual. At will, or at least mostly at will, the individual believer who has been “baptized in the Spirit” is purported to be able to “speak in tongues” – but again, this “speaking” is not the articulation of rational dialogue, but only the pronouncement of a random collection of syllables.

Rather than entering into a general discussion of the charismatic renewal (to which I, personally, am quite open; and which I think has helped many people), we will benefit from a consideration of the scriptural account of the charism of tongues. What is speaking in tongues? And ought we to imagine that this phenomenon would be common today?

[for a good discussion of this question from a more personal perspective please see this article from the Catholic Phoenix, which is a blog well worth adding to your regular reading list]

Speaking in languages

It is quite unfortunate that, in modern English-speaking cultures, the etymological link between “tongue” and “language” has been largely forgotten. Any who know the history of the word “language” will recognize the Latin root lingua by way of the Old French langage. Lingua is Latin for both “tongue” and “language, speech” (hence the modern English word, “lingual” as in “of the tongue”).

Hence, the charism “speaking in tongues” may just as easily be called “speaking in languages” – and this is the clear sense given in the Scriptures. By this gift of the Holy Spirit, the apostles and others were able to speak in languages which they did not know. Through this speech, the early Christian missionaries spread the faith to foreign lands with greater ease.

The Greek word used in the New Testament to refer to “speaking in tongues” is glōssa, “tongue” or “language”. This is the word used throughout the Pauline Epistles and also, most notably, in our Savior’s promise of this charism: And these signs shall follow them that believe: […] They shall speak with new tongues (Mark 16:17). Our Lord guarantees this gift together with the commission, Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). Here we witness something of the logic of the gift of tongues: In order that the disciples will be able to more effectively carry out their mission to evangelize all peoples, it will be necessary for them to speak the languages of all peoples. To this end, our Savior promises the gift of languages (or of tongues) to his disciples.

Again, we see this quite clearly in the reference to the miraculous speaking in tongues which occurred after Pentecost. The disciples spoke in tongues, meaning that they spoke in the languages of all those present. For this reason, people were amazed and said, And how have we heard, every man our own tongue wherein we were born? (Acts 2:8)

The apostles and the other disciples in the early Church were not mumbling random syllables when they “spoke in tongues”, rather they were speaking true human languages. These languages were previously unknown to them, but the Holy Spirit infused into their intellects a knowledge of these new tongues so as to be able to speak clearly and fluently to all peoples the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Faulty scriptural references

For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings (Romans 8:26). This passage is often referred to as a scriptural witness to “speaking in tongues”. However, the obvious meaning of the text rules this out: The groanings are unspeakable or unutterable. By their very nature they are not audible, for they are not uttered. The groanings of the Spirit are the deep movements of prayer, which occur within the recesses of the human heart; not external cries of the human tongue.

If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels (I Corinthians 13:1). Some will cite this verse as though the “tongues of angels” were the ramblings of the charismatic prayer groups. On two accounts this is quite silly: First, the speech of angels is entirely mental and inaudible, since they have no bodies but are pure spirits. Second, if the angles were speaking audibly, it certainly would not be a random collection of syllables, but a reasoned discourse. St. Thomas Aquinas, following the tradition (which can be found in works like the glossa ordinaria), believes that the reference to angels can either be understood to refer to those who govern the Church and are particularly entrusted with her missionary activity or to the instructions which men have received through the ministry of angels.

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit (I Corinthians 14:14). Ironically, this verse, by which St. Paul criticizes the Corinthians for their excessive fascination with the gift of tongues, is occasionally invoked in defense of the senselessness of the charismatic “speaking in tongues”. It is true, according to St. Paul’s teaching, that the one who speaks in the tongue (and also, at a prayer service, most of those who hear it) will not understand the meaning. However, St. Paul does not state that the words themselves are meaningless, but that the language in which the individual speaks is not known to the hearers (nor even to the speaker). This is why St. Paul states that the gift of tongues is for the barbarian pagans, since by this gift the Christian missionary speaks in the foreign language and proclaims the Gospel with much power.

You’re just mumbling prayers (and that’s ok)

And what does all this mean for the charismatic prayer groups? Nothing too drastic. It is certainly possible to pray by simply muttering random syllables. There are times when even Gregorian chant can seem to approach this (though, in truth, the meaning of the words is essential to praying well with Gregorian chant; it nevertheless is also the case that certain chants are so exquisite as to draw the hearers beyond the words and into a higher realm).

I do not criticize the Catholic Charismatic Renewal for mumbling prayers. I do criticize those who claim that this mumbling (or, sometimes, yelling) is “speaking in tongues”. This common habit of denotation causes great confusion and tends to corrupt the meaning of the Scriptures.

So, to any charismatics who are reading this post: Please feel free to continue to pray as you are, but please stop claiming that this is a “charismatic” prayer or the “gift of tongues” – this mumbling is not the scriptural gift of tongues and, moreover, it is not a “charism” properly so-called. In truth, such sloppy language has done great harm for the charismatic movement, as it has led many Catholics to reject the movement all together.

Do people still speak in tongues today?

On the Vigil of the feast of Pentecost (i.e. Saturday in the Seventh Week of Easter), the Church gives us the following reading from an ancient African author as part of her official prayer (the second reading from the Office of Readings in the Liturgy of the Hours). What is particularly striking about this reading is its highly critical stance toward charismatic movements, which often led to heresy in the early Church (we consider Tertullian and the other Montanists as a good example of this tendency in Africa).

“The disciples spoke in the language of every nation. At Pentecost God chose this means to indicate the presence of the Holy Spirit; whoever had received the Spirit spoke in every kind of tongue. […] It was love that was to bring the Church of God together all over the world. And as individual men who received the Holy Spirit in those days could speak in all kinds of tongues, so today the Church, united by the Holy Spirit, speaks in the language of every people.

“Therefore, if somebody should say to one of us, ‘You have received the Holy Spirit, why do you not speak in tongues?’ his reply should be, ‘I do indeed speak in the tongues of all men, because I belong to the body of Christ, that is, the Church, and she speaks all languages.’ […] This was the way in which the Lord’s promise was fulfilled: No one puts new wine into old wineskins. New wine is put into fresh skins, and so both are preserved. So when the disciples were heard speaking in all kinds of languages, some people were not far wrong in saying, They have been drinking too much new wine. The truth is that the disciples had now become fresh wineskins, renewed and made holy by grace. The new wine of the Holy Spirit filled them, so that their fervor brimmed over and they spoke in manifold tongues. By this spectacular miracle they became a sign of the Catholic Church, which embraces the language of every nation.”

We ought not to hold to the old wineskins (which is the charism of tongues), but rather ought to put the new wine into the new wineskins (which is the new evangelization and the spread of the Church throughout the whole world).




UPDATE: Some readers have rightly pointed out that there are many in the Catholic Charismatic movement who do not call this form of prayer "speaking in tongues", but rather "praying in tongues". I have two comments on this: First of all, I commend these charismatics for trying to make the distinction between their common form of prayer and the charism often active in the early Church. 

Still, I find the expression "praying in tongues" problematic for three reasons: 
1) The thrust of my article is not about the word speaking but about the word in tongues. "Tongues" means "languages", therefore to call the random association of syllables praying in tongues seems to me to be misleading.  
2) If we do decide to call this form of prayer "praying in tongues", we have to stop citing Scripture and comparing it to the phenomenon as it was present in the early Church. St. Paul and St. Luke (in Acts) are writing about speaking in tongues, not praying in tongues.  
3) Finally, "praying in tongues" is not listed among the charisms of the Holy Spirit (either by Scripture or by Tradition). Therefore, even if we call it "praying in tongues", we must also admit that it is not a charism properly so-called. It may still be a valid form of prayer (personally, I think it can be useful at times), but it is not truly "charismatic" prayer.