Speaking in Tongues

In "Speaking in Tongues" by ZZ Packer, Tia and Marcelle are alienated from their church because they are "too old to sit with the children" and hadn't spoken in tongues yet, allowing them to sit with the adults. I was curious about why speaking in tongues would be so important to the people of Hope and Grace Apostolic Church of the Fire Baptized. What I knew about tongues was that it is a spiritual gift given to help those who have it lead people to Christ. My interpretation of it was that not everyone was given this gift, just as everyone is not given every other spiritual gifts. It seemed discriminatory to isolate those who couldn't speak in tongues from those who could. I figured it would be a good idea to research the concept of speaking in tongues a little more to see what I could come up with.

I'll start with a brief history lesson on tongues. The opinions of Christians on the practice of speaking in tongues are divided into three large categories: Glossolalists, Cessationists, and Skeptics. Glossolalists believe that those who practice speaking in tongues today are speaking the same language as those who spoke tongues in the Bible. They are divided in that some people believe that what the people in the Bible were speaking was a heavenly language. Others believe it was xenoglossia--the ability of a person to speak in unlearned languages. Cessationists believe that those who claim to speak in tongues today simply speak a cluster of unintelligible, gibberish words. They also believe that the tongue-speakers of the Bible were blessed with xenoglossia. Skeptics' beliefs are fairly predictable. They believe that all occurances of speaking in tongues, whether present or in the Bible, are made up and complete falsehoods. (For more information on speaking in tongues go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia)

Based on this information, I would characterize the people of Hope and Grace Apostolic Church of the Fire Baptized fall under the Glossolalist category. While Glossolalists typically perceive speaking in tongues as a gift from the Holy Spirit, the people from this church seem to believe that unless you were a child or a nonbeliever, you should be able to speak in tongues. This belief leads them to shun those believers who can't speak in tongues or (in the case of Tia) force her to pray or worship until she speaks in tongues. This almost seems backwards to me. According ZZ Packer's story, the church members believed that "you could only speak in tongues when all worldly matters were off your mind, or else there was no room for God." Following this philosophy, it seems as though you can't be forced to speak in tongues; it has to come to you when you personally are completely in tune to God. I don't think Tia was completely focused on God while Sister Gwendolyn had her in a headlock and forced her to recite the Lord's Prayer. It seems to me that the members of Hope and Grace Apostolic Church of the Fire Baptized genuinely want to believe that Tia believes in God, but they are going about cementing her belief the wrong way. Who would have thought that speaking in tongues could cause so much trouble, considering many people today have never heard of it?

"So It Goes"

I have come to the conclusion that I really don't like it that Vonnegut says "so it goes," after every mention of death in Slaughterhouse Five. I understand that for Billy Pilgrim, death is no big deal. He has the ability to go back to the moments in which a person who has died is still alive and relive it over and over again. Death is a part of life that can be beaten because every moment, past, present, and future, can be lived again and again whenever Billy or a Tralfamadorian wants to. Plus Billy and the Tralfamadorians understand that events happen, and they can't be changed. Future events are set in stone, and past events happen the same way no matter how many times one relives them.

The bad part about death is that for most people death is the end. It is a big deal for them. They couldn't even think to say "so it goes" every time someone dies. Except for Billy, humans don't get to see loved ones who die again. When they're dead, that's it. No more seeing them, talking to them, being with them. They no longer exist for those whom, unlike Billy Pilgrim, are stuck in time. So to me, it's insensitive of Kurt Vonnegut to continuously say "so it goes" in the face of death because for the normal people without the ability to travel through time, death is not something to be blown off.


I've been wondering whether Billy Pilgrim or the Tralfamadorians have any plans to teach the rest of the Earthlings how to become "unstuck in time." It seems like the Tralfamadorians don't have much reason to kidnap random humans and bring them to their planet. And why let Billy Pilgrim go home and not Montana Wildhack? Maybe they wanted Billy to spread the knowledge of time and other dimensions he had learned in Tralfamadore. Maybe Montana chose to stay in Tralfamadore because of the baby. Billy almost seems to be condescending to those who don't know about time travel and death not being the end. On the other hand, Billy does try to tell others about Tralfamadore and what he learned there by going on a radio show. Unfortunately, everyone thought he was crazy, including his own daughter. So maybe it makes sense for Billy to try and hide his experience and keep his talent of time traveling to himself. But still, it's not really fair to expect everyone to take death easily and simply say "so it goes" in the face of it.

Constitution Contradictions?

From elementary school to high school, we are taught about the formation of the world. Every time we discuss this in science class, we are taught the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution. Although I respect the school's right to teach this, I believe other students and myself are denied the opportunity to learn about other theories on the start of the world/universe. Separation of Church and State has censored students from learning the theory of Creationism and being able to compare theories and come to our own conclusions. Granted, no science teacher ever comes out and says that the Big Bang was definitely the was Earth was created and evolution helped it along, but by only teaching that theory, they are basically putting students in a position to assume that it is true.

The ironic thing about this situation is that the Constitution apparently contradicts itself. The Constitution sets up the Separation of Church and State, and the First Amendment guarantees free speech, eliminating censorship (according to some). If, as I believe, not teaching other theories besides evolution and the Big Bang (due to Separation of Church and State) is censorship, then the First Amendment makes Separation of Church and State illegal.

So I think it's time to stop censoring science theories and allow students to hear all the theories on the beginning of the world and the universe. We need to have faith that students are smart enough to consider all the evidence and come to a conclusion on which theory they think is right by themselves. Not teaching a theory because it may have to do with religion is as stupid as burning a book you haven't read because someone said it may negatively impact students.

Separation of Church and State isn't even feasible anymore. Religion affects people's opinions and beliefs and leads to discussions over which beliefs or opinions people may have. Religion is discussed in school because it is relevant to almost every topic. You can't even have politics without religion. So I say that it is time to change the contradictions of the Constitution. Separation of Church and State has been taken too far. Believe me; I am not advocating that the church takes a hold of the government or that the President becomes the head of the Church. I just want people to stop being so concerned about separating Church and State that they never talk about real issues and they start to censor valid issues.

Memories

Instead of remembering the bad things, remember what happened immediately before...Because of all that, my father always remembered the second before my mother left him for good and took me with her. No. I remembered the second before my father left my mother and me. No. My mother remembered the second before my father left her to finish raising me be herself.

Have you ever noticed that of everything that has happened to us in our lives, we tend to remember the bad things the most vividly. I look back on elementary school and remember some of the good times, but for the most part, I can remember little instances in which I was made fun of or hurt in such a way. Those are the memories I will remember forever. So what happened to treasuring our memories?

Sherman Alexie is on to a good idea in his story "Because My Father Always Said He was the Only Indian Who Saw Jimi Hendrix Play 'The Star-Spangled Banner' at Woodstock." He addresses the idea of remembering the good times right before the bad times, instead of remembering the bad times themselves. Then when you look back on your lives, you can feel like you've had your share of good times without becoming too concerned with the bad aspects of your life. But then again, sometimes it's valuable to remember the bad times and learn from them, so they aren't repeated.

Another way Sherman Alexie addresses memories is in his descriptions of the dad's, the mom's, and the son's different memories of the same event. Multiple people can experience the same event but remember it completely differently. Everyone comes from a different perspective because everyone is different. Events can evoke one emotion in one person and a completely different emotion in someone else. In this way, everyone can learn something different from the same event.

Memories are important...they teach us different things and help us to learn from our mistakes. But it is important not to dwell too much on bad memories. Instead, remember the good times that happened right before the bad times. Treasure and safe guard good memories and learn from the bad ones. And remember...memories are different for everyone. No two people are exactly the same..and that's the way it should be.

Double Personality or a Really Good Actor?

Up until the last page of “The Life You Save May Be Your Own” by Flannery O’Connor, I was under the impression that Tom Shiftlet was a nice, hard-working man who had already seen too much bad in the world. He seemed to enjoy the little beauties in life, like watching the sunset and talking with new friends. When he first started working for the Craters, I assumed that he needed a place to stay, and he wanted to be able to help these people out. The old woman seemed to think that too. He worked hard and even taught the daughter a word (significant because she had never spoken before).

Even the things he said seemed to go along with his “first” (or “faked”) personality. He told the women that he had never married because he couldn’t find “an innocent woman today.” “He had a look of composed dissatisfaction as if he understood life thoroughly.” These words led me to believe that Shiftlet was a good, decent man in a world where there weren’t any. When he married the daughter, I thought even better of him because he was willing to deal with her problems…then came the incident in the diner.

When his wife, the younger Lucynell Crater, fell asleep in the diner on the way to their honeymoon, Shiftlet told the worker that she was a hitchhiker, and he couldn’t wait for her to wake up. Then he left her there. Amazingly enough, he picked up an actual hitchhiker later on and started a speech on how his mother was an amazing woman, and God took her from him. At this point, I had lost faith in Tom T. Shiftlet. To me, he was a really good actor who used the two women for his gain—getting a car (with all the parts to fix it up paid for). In the second to last paragraph, there was a line that made me even more disgusted by Shiftlet. “Mr. Shiftlet felt that the rottenness of the world was about to engulf him. He raised his arm and let if fall again to his breast. ‘Oh Lord!’ he prayed. ‘Break forth and wash the slime from this earth!” That’s ridiculous. If he wanted the slime washed from the earth, he would be gone to because he’s part of it.

By the end of the story, it was easier to tell what kind of man he actually was. I looked back to the beginning and began to see some foreshadowing for an event like this. First off, his name was a clue. Shiftlet. It sounds a little shifty to me. He continually asked the old woman for money to fix up the car. But what would the two women need the car for? They had gotten along without it well enough before. Finally, he tried to squeeze every last cent from the old woman for the honeymoon…but really for himself. It says he “was deeply hurt by the word ‘milk.’” That seems suspicious because he was actually trying to milk her. Maybe he was hurt by that word because he didn’t want to appear so obvious.

Basically, Tom T. Shiftlet was a good actor. He was a man who could charm women out of their money no matter how despicable he had to be to get it. I’m sorry I ever fell for his act at the beginning of the story with all the foreshadowing and warning signals O’Connor was laying out.

Height is Figurative

At the thought of writing a statement about one of my beliefs, I drew a blank. It's not that I have no beliefs; I have too many. To pick one to write about would be difficult. But as I thought about it, I realized that recently one of my beliefs was more firmly established. It was so recent that it almost seemed to be a bigger part of me, especially considering how it was affirmed inside of me.

This I believe: serving others makes you taller. Humbling yourself in actuality lifts you up. Take Hurricane Katrina, for instance. In response to that disaster, hundreds of people volunteered to help out. But they weren't doing the glamorous jobs. They would clean up debris, build houses, and even muck out houses, but we respect them. By their actions, they are made greater in the eyes of others.

Recently this belief was reinforced in my mind at my great-grandfather's funeral. My mom, his granddaughter, stepped up to the podium. She explained how her grandfather was the tallest man she knew. now he was tall, but he wasn't literally the tallest. For her, he was tall because he was constantly leaning down to help and support others.

He loved my great-grandmother, his wife of 69 years, and went out of his way to show that. When his grandchildren would visit, he got down and played with them. No activity was too embarrassing or humbling for him to do. As he brought himself lower, he became taller.

This I believe: height is figurative. You must lower yourself first in order to grow taller.