The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues

This is not a full regular book review, but more of an interaction with John P. Kildahl's The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues, published in 1972. There are many of Kildahl's observations with which I can concur based on my 55 years in Pentecostalism (I've been in Assembly of God churches my whole life, and am a fourth generation A/G member). But there are also other observations he makes where I feel his analysis is off, or simply doesn't take into consideration other possibilities. Of course, the book is over 50 years old now, and I'm sure Kildahl, were he alive today with access to more data and evidence, would likely reconsider some of his conclusions. 

My format in this article will primarily consist of citing a quote from the book, and then my response to the claims or conclusions that Kildahl makes.

I believe it depends on whether the person is open to God, and willing to accept what God wants for him. (p. 7, quoting an interview respondent)

This is fairly basic Christian theology, at least in non-Calvinistic circles. While God uses teaching and circumstances to persuade people, individuals must be open to the move of the Spirit. Some people are so stiff-necked in their pre-conceived ideas that even when God works in their midst, they find a way to rationalize it and explain it away (atheists find a naturalistic explanation, while cessationists will chalk it up to delusion at best and demonic activity at worst). We see throughout Scripture that God reveals himself to people, but whether those people receive a blessing from Him depends on how they respond to that initial revelation. It is rare for someone who is not open and seeking for God to move to actually experience what God is doing.

Not all glossolalia appears directed by the Holy Spirit, but much by a desire to be accepted by congregations where the gift is held in esteem. (p. 9, another interview respondent)

As a fourth generation Pentecostal, I can agree with this statement. Many times, especially at revival meetings or youth camps, there can be an immense feeling of pressure to have a "deeper experience" with God. No one wants to feel left out of what God is doing, so some will "fake it to make it" and not be seen as "second-class" Christians. (This pressure can be especially intense for members of some groups who say that you haven't even experienced the new birth until you speak in tongues, or when an individual feels the call of God to ministry, but seeking credentials with one's denomination requires that the ministerial candidate have personally experienced speaking in tongues as evidence of Spirit baptism.)

Glossolalia in current usage is not of the type described in Acts. In the past the ability has been claimed for some early Christian missionaries, but today there are no verified instances of a tongue-speaker having a foreign language at his command which he has not learned by the usual means. (p. 13)

Could the Apostles speak a specific language of their choice on command? Apparently not, as Paul and Barnabas appear not to have initially understood the Lycaonian language in Lystra, where the locals said the gods had come down to them in human form (Acts 14:11). It wasn't until Paul and Barnabas saw that the priest of Zeus was bringing animals to offer in sacrifice to the Apostles that they reacted (v. 14). There is definitely an implied time lapse after the crowd makes their declaration, for the priest of Zeus to have time to get the bulls and wreaths he wanted to offer. Also, contrary to many popular understandings that the gift of tongues was for missionary evangelization in the early church (a misconception shared by some early Pentecostals at the beginning of the twentieth century), we never see an instance of an Apostle or other believer preaching in tongues. Rather, the content of tongues-speech appears to be prayer, praise, and thanksgiving ("declaring the wonders of God" in Acts 2:11).

Historical examples of people speaking in tongues after the New Testament era, yet before the Pentecostal revival at the beginning of the twentieth century, include: Jansenists in the 1700s; splinter groups among early Quakers; various groups in England in the early nineteenth century; pockets in Sweden, Norway, and the United States in the early nineteenth century; and scattered reports in the nineteenth century in Orthodox Russia. (pp. 16-18)

This concurs with the research of Dr. Stanley Burgess, a Pentecostal historian, whose work Christian Peoples of the Spirit documents appearances of the charismata throughout church history. This contrasts, of course, with the cessationist claims that tongues ceased wither with the death of the last Apostle, the death of the last person an Apostle had imparted the gift to, the closing of the New Testament canon, or one of another half-dozen points in history (cessationists can't even seem to agree among themselves as to when the actual end of the "sign gifts" occurred).

The theory that glossolalia is a form of hysteria is held by many workers in the field. Kelsey disagrees; while stating that both hysteria and tongue-speaking obviously arise in the unconscious, he sees no other connection. Hysteria is an illness which harms the mind and sometimes the body; glossolalia seems to result in an increased ability to cope with reality, both material and spiritual. (p. 28)

I found this finding very useful for rebutting those who categorize tongues-speakers as mentally ill.

Carl Jung's theory of the collective unconscious figures largely in the neo-Pentecostals' concept of the meaning or source of glossolalia, and as we have seen, Morton Kesley also espouses this view. It is used to explain how a person can speak in a known tongue of which he has, and could have had, no knowledge, or in a tongue not recognized as any language but which might well be an unknown language either of the past or the present. (p. 30)

While I firmly believe that tongues will be human languages (either known or unknown, whether extant or dead), I find the "collective unconscious" idea more New Age than pneumatological. 

These authors consider that the practice of glossolalia includes a self-aggrandizing, narcissistic component. But they do not think that it hastens or causes a permanent disintegration of the personality but rather believe that due to the lessening of inner conflict the practice may in some cases be beneficial.

They are essentiually ambivalent about the positive and negative effects of the practice. They feel that it does help some people reduce their inner conflicts and cope more adequately with the world. but the element of self-aggrandizement leads some to overemphasize their "specialness," isolating them along with their peer group from the mainstream of society. (pp. 30-31) 

Sadly, I have seen some people use the fact that they speak in tongues to place themselves in a higher category of spirituality than other equally faithful (or even more faithful when it comes to ethics) Christians. Such self-aggrandizement actually runs counter to the fruit of the Spirit set forth in Galatians 5:22-23.

Oates asserts that tongue-speakers tend to have weak egos, confused identities, high anxiety levels, and generally unstable personalities. (p. 32)

While this may be true about some of the more hyper-charismatic Christians who seem to use tongue-speech as a sign of spiritual superiority, or are constantly seeking more and more extraordinary displays of signs and wonders, I think it's unfair to apply these descriptors to Pentecostals in general.

An important question in the study of glossolalia is how a tongue-speaker is able to call upon his unconscious so that he can produce unintelligible speech and still maintain enough ego control to drive a truck on an interstate highway. (p. 36)

Pentecostals don't see tongues-speaking as "calling on the unconscious," but rather allowing the Spirit to give the speaker the sounds to speak forth. The quote also seems to conflate tongues-speaking with ecstatic activity, where one loses connection with one's surroundings. Pentecostals typically believe that the speaker retains full control of his/her faculties, so praying in the Spirit while performing other complex tasks is not an issue. In fact, praying in the Spirit while driving, working, etc. may actually be less distracting than praying in one's native language, since the words are provided by the Holy Spirit and do not necessitate thinking them through as one would compose a prayer in English.

Our glossolalists told stories in which someone else solved the problem. Our nonglossolalists told stories in which the main character solved his own problems. (p. 43)

It shouldn't be surprising that those who depend on the Holy Spirit to enable them to speak in tongues would describe these pictures as showing help coming from outside. This doesn't necessarily mean these people are weak and unable to help themselves. It simply indicates they choose not to be guided by self-reliance, in accord with Prov. 3:5-6.

Our interviews with the tongue-speakers had already indicated how essential it was for a potential tongue-speaker to have a close relationship with the leader who was helping him.(p. 44)

This may have been borne out by the sample population interviewed by the researchers, but there are plenty of counter-examples that are quite prominent. Noted New Testament scholar Craig Keener testifies that he began praying in tongues shortly after his conversion from atheism, without having received any teaching or coaching concerning the practice, British biblical scholar N. T. Wright also speaks about how he simply began praying in tongues one day during his daily devotional time, It did not happen based on a close relationship to a leader guiding him into the experience. 

While some of the insights offered by psychology into the phenomenon of tongues-speaking is useful, their over-reliance on finding a natural explanation for everything (as opposed to allowing for the supernatural involvement of the Holy Spirit) definitely seems to limit their perspective.

It is not surprising that a profound sense of trust in a leader is necessary for beginning to speak in tongues. (p. 44)

Pentecostals would counter that it is not so much trust in the human leader in the gathering as it is trust in God to give good gifts. 

The results of this test revealed that glossolalists were characteristically less depressed than nonglossolalists. When tested a year later, the glossolalists continued to experience the same feelings of well-being; they were no more—nor less—depressed than a year previously. (p. 45)

As a Pentecostal, I would attribute this to the glossolalists feeling of intimacy with God. If one feels the Creator of life is directly involved in his/her own life, then a greater sense of well-being is to be expected.

This finding also works against the common claim by non-continuationists that Pentecostals and Charismatics are suffering from mental issues.

The next major finding concerned whether the tongue-speakers were of a special personality type. Did they tend to be hysterical or compulsive, or manic, or any other particular diagnostic category? Our study answered an unequivocal No....Nevertheless, the finding that tongue-speakers were spread across the broad spectrum of mental illness and health, across the broad ranges of socioeconomic status and also of intelligence and education, was corroborated again and again. (p. 49)

Another good insight that debunks the idea that Pentecostals and Charismatics are automatically less intelligent, less educated, or more prone to mental health issues.

Without complete submission to the leader, speaking in tongues was not initiated. (p. 50)

I would here point again to the testimonies of Keener and Wright referenced above.

Our tongue-speakers had a strong need for external guidance from some trusted authority. That is, they had a strong sense of leaning on someone more powerful than themselves, who gave them security and direction in their lives. (p. 50)

Humility and submission are called for by God. Could the researchers have no real place for divine activity? Are they simply trying to explain all religious experience via naturalistic psychology?

In our interviews with people who had formerly spoken in tongues and were now indifferent to the experience, the common cause in each case was a falling out with the leader of the tongue-speaking group. Consequently, each was deprived of his feeling of acceptance and contentment and well-being. (p. 53)

Whenever the tongue-speaker broke off the relationship with the leader or the group, the experience of glossolalia was no longer so subjectively meaningful. (p. 55)

Yet, while some may abandon speaking in tongues when forced out of their religious group or when feeling deceived by leadership, others cling more to the Holy Spirit and His gifts because their trust is in God rather than man. When feeling distance from other human beings, they seek an even closer connection with God through praying in tongues.

Those who attended meetings where glossolalia was discussed were generally under pressure to do the right thing." That is, demonstrate their approbation of the venture by speaking in tongues. (p. 58)

In spiritual communities where speaking in tongues is seen as a badge of holiness or a mark of being more spiritually sensitive or mature, there can be a sense of "pressure to perform" for the sake of fitting in. I have been in services where the vast majority of the crowd was dancing, "falling under the power," speaking in tongues en masse, and so on. As a more reserved, cerebral individual not given to overt displays of emotion, I definitely felt like an outsider, and at times felt tempted to join in just so people wouldn't think less of me. Thankfully, I had been taught enough about peer pressure and integrity by my parents and youth pastors that I refused to yield. As a Pentecostal minister, I find these situations highly lamentable and problematic. Turning a good gift from God into a status symbol or marker of who is in and who is out is contrary to the way of Jesus. 

In our study persons with a low level of emotional stability tended to be extreme in their affirmation of the benefits of glossolalia. A well-integrated tongue-speaker generally made no wildly exaggerated claim for its powers, used it in a way that was not sensational, and did not allow it to dominate his life or use it as an instrument to manipulate others. (p. 59)

This seems to match my own observations from personal experience. Socio-economic factors, as well as level of education (both secular and biblical) also appear to impact this.

We know of a man who was raised in Africa, the son of missionary parents, who decided—rather cynically perhaps—to test the interpretation of tongues. He attended a tongue=speaking meeting where he was a complete stranger. At the appropriate moment, he rose and spoke the Lord's Prayer in the African dialect he had learned in his youth. When he sat down, an interpreter of tongues at once offered the meaning of what he had said. He interpreted it as a message about the imminent second coming of Christ.(p. 63)

This one really grabbed my attention. Since I have learned some basic New Testament Greek and memorized a few passages in that language, I must admit I've been tempted at times to quote John 1:1 or John 3:16 in Koine just to see what kind of interpretation might be given. But I have too much respect for the actual move of the Holy Spirit to play around like that. 

Initiate tongue-speakers told us that religious services had further intensified their feelings of worthlessness, specifically because they made them feel inferior for not yet having spoken in tongues.  (p. 64)

As stated before, this is a very lamentable state of affairs. Sadly, I have heard preachers say things from the pulpit that reinforce the stratification between those who speak in tongues and those who do not, leading to a sort of Pentecostal caste system.

The tongue-speakers' tendency to overjustify and overrationalize their group's behavior is  pronounced. (p. 68)

Some people who speak in tongues are like a kid with a shiny new toy, playing with it not for the joy of having it, but to show everyone else what they have received. They throw off scriptural instructions regarding the use of the gifts, and will say they just can't help breaking out in glossolalia, when Paul writes that the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets.

However, they exhibited a subtle disrespect for non-tongue-speakers and toward those who showed no interest in joining their numbers. (p. 69)

This like is not related to the fact that the person speaks in tongues, but to other personality traits that seek to elevate one's self above others (which is totally in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles).

It is true that the group usually took on the character of the leader. When the leader was exhibitionistic, so, too, were the followers. Where the leader tended to be quiet and reserved, the groups developed that quality of meeting. (p. 71)

A pastor friend of mine tells about an experience he had while serving as youth pastor of a small-town church while he was in Bible college. He noticed that during times of intense emotion and a sense of God's presence during worship, almost all the girls in the you group raised their right hands and moved them in an almost identical manner. Later, he noticed that one of the elder female saints in the congregation raised her right hand and moved it back and forth in the exact same way when she felt the Spirit moving. The younger ladies had adopted this mannerism because they respected the older believer, and just thought that was how you reposnded to God's presence.

The belief that tongue-speaking is caused by direct mechanical movement of the vocal chords by the Holy Spirit made group members accept almost anything that was uttered as glossolalia. (p. 71)

Paul says that the spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet. That is, the human individual being used by the Spirit remains in control of his/her actions. The belief that the Holy Spirit is performing "direct mechanical movement of the vocal chords" may have been in vogue at the time Kildahl was doing his research, or specifically among the Charismatics who were his research subjects, but to my knowledge, this has rarely if ever been the classical Pentecostal understanding of tongues speech. 

Further, one glossolalist reported that as she became more settled in her life, her need to find solace and support from glossolalia was less urgent. (p. 78)

Even among Christians outside the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition, it is not uncommon for any spiritual activity—not just tongues—to wane as one achieves higher economic status, better health, and so forth. People often allow prosperity to diminish their seeking after experiences of God.

It was found that the crucial factor for their stopping the practice was a falling out with the authority figure who had introduced them to it. (p. 79)

I addressed this above with the citation of a similar observation.

A famous psychoanalyst was once seen by one of his patients eating lunch at a counter in an inexpensive New York cafeteria. The sight of his hero eating at such a place produced a profound feeling of mistrust and disappointment in the patient. "I wouldn't think of eating there," said the patient, "and if he is that kind of a person, what other mistakes in judgment might he make, including the way that he is proceeding to conduct my psychoanalysis?" The patient's attitude was immature, to be sure, but he kept his doubts to himself and soon thereafter stopped treatment. The analyst's methods had not changed after the lunch in the cafeteria. His patient had idolized him up until that time. But after seeing him eat beans and franks, the magic went out of the analysis. This appears to be what happens when a tongue-speaker loses respect—whatever the reason—for his leader. (p. 79)

This points to the importance, for the congregation, of basing our faith claims and religious practices on the Word of God and the character of Christ, rather than on fallible human beings who cannot help but let us down sooner or later. It also servers as a reminder to leaders that people are watching us, and, though each person is accountable for the decisions he or she takes with regard to spiritual matters, those in leadership do bear a responsibility for the way they behave and the words they speak. Shepherds are to look out for the well-being of the sheep, even if that means surrendering one's personal rights or preferences.