This is not an argument about rites and rituals; I've come to realise. In many respects it counts as a doctrinal dispute. Why would some Christians insist tongues have passed away while others claim they have the gift?

Ethel, I remember how you just wished these arguments could dissolve and go away. But they do exist and can't be ignored; the apostles in Acts 6 took time out to resolve even a mundane dispute about food distribution.

It's interesting how you even term it a "movement". That itself polarises the Body of Christ, no? Just a thought.

Time for my position. Tongues, I believe, is a gift that God still bestows on some of His people. But as in 1 Cor 12:7, it, as any spiritual gift, is meant for the "common good". Indeed, all of the various gifts do bring about personal edification of the individual, they are not the ultimate sole purpose.

Similarly, the gift of tongues has to benefit the common good, ie the church. In 1 Cor 14, Paul clearly shows that this can only occur if interpretation follows together with a tongue, that it may become prophecy and benefit all. He sought not to discourage tongues, but urged the Corinthians to pray that they might interpret what they said.

In all my experiences, I have not seen one instance where interpretation followed tongue-speaking.

I have heard of churches actually teaching one how to speak in tongues. This I strongly rebuke. Tongue-speaking is a highly circumstantial and temporal gift; where in Acts do we find the Apostles becoming linguists after that fateful Pentecost?

Ok, that's lotsa food for thought tonight.