First time I've seen this in church, EVER

[EagerBeaver]

Brenda, I think you're spot on in your statement about tongues going uninterpreted because someone didn't step out and speak. I've always maintained that every public tongue NEEDS an interpretation so everyone can understand what is going on (especially the less spiritual among us such as myself) and if someone doesn't step up and interpret, the word is incomplete. Not on God's end but ours.

[RamboPreacher]

...and if someone doesn't step up and interpret, the word is incomplete. Not on God's end but ours.

exactly. Not God's "fault". of course the reverse is also true. someone (or many) could give a "message in tongues" that is pure emotional - whether expression of being in God's presence, or some far more "fleshly" reason of ego. then a "interpretation" of that message that was not from God to begin with. the interpretation may be biblical, or something far more "fleshly" and egocentric as well. even if it was "Biblical", was it appropriate? discernment is always needed.

[EagerBeaver]

I would generally tend to agree with your statement above RP. Good thoughts.

The only thing I have any trepidation about when it comes to speaking in tongues, well besides people giving false information, is someone who speaks the tongue self-interpreting. It may not be their intent, but it could create an impression of self-righteousness or someone just trying to be heard.

I still wonder why Paul first says the tongue talker should pray that he interprets, yet goes on to say someone else should interpret. That doesn't seem to add up.

[RamboPreacher]

I would generally tend to agree with your statement above RP. Good thoughts.

The only thing I have any trepidation about when it comes to speaking in tongues, well besides people giving false information, is someone who speaks the tongue self-interpreting. It may not be their intent, but it could create an impression of self-righteousness or someone just trying to be heard.

I still wonder why Paul first says the tongue talker should pray that he interprets, yet goes on to say someone else should interpret. That doesn't seem to add up.

I believe, as I mentioned is that the context must be taken into consideration (the Corinthian church, their lack of unity, and their apparent individual desire for "super-spirituality"). the person giving the message (Tongue talker), should be aware that if they are "spiritual" enough to "receive" a message from God, and speak it - that they should also be prepared to give an interpretation of that message, especially if there is no other interpretation.

I am not saying that the interpretation must always be from the one giving the message in tongues. just that they should feel the responsibility of the issue in total. it's not just about giving the message, and really not about the interpretation either. but more about the focus on serving others. if a message is given, there should be an accountability that the tongue talker should understand that the interpretation is for others, and that if they are going to be a message giver, they should realize it might be their responsibility to give the interpretation as well.

I have been in far too many services where someone gave a message, and then there was silence for a long time, and no interpretation. in some cases another message is given, and the first had not been interpreted - in my understanding and interpretation of Paul, this is out of order.

but in the case of the message with no interpretation...I think that it can be a problem if the pastor/leader waits and waits and will not continue the service until there has been an interpretation. the reason is that will lead to one of a couple things. Usually, the TT person feels no responsibility - "they did their part", adn someone else finally has an "interpretation".

I don't know what timeline should be used - I believe this is something that the pastor/leader should decide/discern. Paul didn't mention specific times. but in my mind, if a message is spoken, and there is no interpretation for a period that is long enough to make people uncomfortable in being there, and people are just waiting - then the service should just continue, and no further messages be allowed unless there is an interpretation.

I am not saying that waiting on the Lord is bad. I am saying that waiting too long on an interpretation is. where do you draw the line? I don't know.

[Brenda]

Brenda, I think you're spot on in your statement about tongues going uninterpreted because someone didn't step out and speak. I've always maintained that every public tongue NEEDS an interpretation so everyone can understand what is going on (especially the less spiritual among us such as myself) and if someone doesn't step up and interpret, the word is incomplete. Not on God's end but ours.

I agree, the tongue is to be interpreted. Just someone didn't obey and give the interpretation.
The fault lies with us not God.

[Brenda]

a message in tongues has a different type of pronunciation to it.
The spirit settles down among us differently then with common tongues..if I might call them common. Which I don't think anything of God is common for all tongues is for a different purpose whether they be praying in tongues or blessed in the Holy Ghost by the tongue. (self edification)
The message it self comes with a quiet, hush type of spirit and you know God is saying something to his people.
It seems when this happens if there is any tongues going on they stop and allow for the spirit to speak.

[EagerBeaver]

I have been in far too many services where someone gave a message, and then there was silence for a long time, and no interpretation. in some cases another message is given, and the first had not been interpreted - in my understanding and interpretation of Paul, this is out of order.

but in the case of the message with no interpretation...I think that it can be a problem if the pastor/leader waits and waits and will not continue the service until there has been an interpretation. the reason is that will lead to one of a couple things. Usually, the TT person feels no responsibility - "they did their part", adn someone else finally has an "interpretation".

I don't know what timeline should be used - I believe this is something that the pastor/leader should decide/discern. Paul didn't mention specific times. but in my mind, if a message is spoken, and there is no interpretation for a period that is long enough to make people uncomfortable in being there, and people are just waiting - then the service should just continue, and no further messages be allowed unless there is an interpretation.

I am not saying that waiting on the Lord is bad. I am saying that waiting too long on an interpretation is. where do you draw the line? I don't know.

My sentiments exactly Brother. Good words.