The word choice of "getting something" could be viewed with a double meaning: (1) the person did not actively seek out something to grasp and take away or 'own', (2) the person patiently waited to take receipt of something which appeared not to have been delivered; or if delivered was not recognized as such. In other words, to exclaim that I didn't get anything from your sermon today" ironically casts blame in both directions: to say that the speaker failed to communicate something of substance or coherence, but also to say that the listener did not fulfill his or her responsibilities.
Apr 1, 2014
"Getting" something out of the sermon
Reportedly said to a local minister at the end of the worship service, "Pastor, I didn't get anything from your sermon today." To which the minister responds, ''Is that so. And how did you prepare for the worship today: prayer, reading Bible, praising God in song"?
The word choice of "getting something" could be viewed with a double meaning: (1) the person did not actively seek out something to grasp and take away or 'own', (2) the person patiently waited to take receipt of something which appeared not to have been delivered; or if delivered was not recognized as such. In other words, to exclaim that I didn't get anything from your sermon today" ironically casts blame in both directions: to say that the speaker failed to communicate something of substance or coherence, but also to say that the listener did not fulfill his or her responsibilities.
The word choice of "getting something" could be viewed with a double meaning: (1) the person did not actively seek out something to grasp and take away or 'own', (2) the person patiently waited to take receipt of something which appeared not to have been delivered; or if delivered was not recognized as such. In other words, to exclaim that I didn't get anything from your sermon today" ironically casts blame in both directions: to say that the speaker failed to communicate something of substance or coherence, but also to say that the listener did not fulfill his or her responsibilities.
Glossolalia or speaking in tongues
Morning Bible study took the theme of one of the rarest of the 20 spiritual gifts that saint Paul wrote of in 1 Corinthians, speaking in tongues. Language specialists have scrutinized this on many cultures of the world, including among the shamanic traditions centering on NE Asia. There are certain formal properties that bear a family resemblance to known language patterns and dimensions, but that is not to say that this is simply a variation on the human communication theme. It might be better to view this as something that falls halfway between music and language; a sort of poetry or verse, rather than narrative or prose. Those with first-hand experience of hearing or speaking note a few things, also echoed in the 4 volume master source for all things Biblical, the international Bible standard reference encyclopedia.
There are at least two sorts of speaking: that of men and that of angels. In the case of men, the value of relating directly and intuitively to God is to the speaker alone, unless there is another person whose gift is prophecy or interpreting the truth conveyed in the verbal expression. The instructions by saint Paul to the people in the cosmopolitan crossroads town of Corinth spell out what is appropriate and what is false: the speaking should be in its place and orderly, not a flailing interjection that interrupts external order of worship. Above all this is meant for God's glory and not for the performance effect of the speaker. As he says, he'd rather speak 5 words of prophecy than 10,000 of tongues because unless the meaning is understood by those present, it has no effect.
Taking the metaphor that glossolalia is a sort of language, certain properties of communication come to mind to look for there, by comparison: (1) both parties are involved - the one expressing and the one hearing --but do people with the gift of tongues experience hearing, too? (2) Ordinary speaking can be in response to something or can initiate something with some sort of intention or meaning, yet do speakers of tongues engage their thinking selves and express directionality of purposeful strings of meaning, or is the production of phrases spontaneous like jazz improvisation and scat singing; in the zone or flow of the moment? (3) Much of language is conveyed by context and tone of voice, timing and so forth. Even when one does not know a particular human language the meanings can somehow be guessed or comprehended; is this true for the people who hear another person speaking in tongues? (4) Fluency develops with experience and in response to communicative functions faced. So in the course of a person's speaking in tongues, do the utterances grow in length and complexity, or stay more or less the same always?
There are at least two sorts of speaking: that of men and that of angels. In the case of men, the value of relating directly and intuitively to God is to the speaker alone, unless there is another person whose gift is prophecy or interpreting the truth conveyed in the verbal expression. The instructions by saint Paul to the people in the cosmopolitan crossroads town of Corinth spell out what is appropriate and what is false: the speaking should be in its place and orderly, not a flailing interjection that interrupts external order of worship. Above all this is meant for God's glory and not for the performance effect of the speaker. As he says, he'd rather speak 5 words of prophecy than 10,000 of tongues because unless the meaning is understood by those present, it has no effect.
Taking the metaphor that glossolalia is a sort of language, certain properties of communication come to mind to look for there, by comparison: (1) both parties are involved - the one expressing and the one hearing --but do people with the gift of tongues experience hearing, too? (2) Ordinary speaking can be in response to something or can initiate something with some sort of intention or meaning, yet do speakers of tongues engage their thinking selves and express directionality of purposeful strings of meaning, or is the production of phrases spontaneous like jazz improvisation and scat singing; in the zone or flow of the moment? (3) Much of language is conveyed by context and tone of voice, timing and so forth. Even when one does not know a particular human language the meanings can somehow be guessed or comprehended; is this true for the people who hear another person speaking in tongues? (4) Fluency develops with experience and in response to communicative functions faced. So in the course of a person's speaking in tongues, do the utterances grow in length and complexity, or stay more or less the same always?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)