1 Cor14 v5. I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied, for greater is he that prophesies than he that speaks in an unknown tongue EXCEPT HE INTERPRET THAT THE CHURCH MAY RECEIVE EDIFYING.
Above all, God wants that his people can understand His heart, this is why He often uses a collective effort of hearing and discernment.
I have been with saints many times when a word is given that seems meaningless. Another word follows, again perplexing, and so on. I have seen many batches of revelation come like that. A mixture of scriptures, small prophecies and visions and a dream thrown in. Suddenly someone sees the linking principle, and a powerful prophetic meaning is blown wide open because God is demonstrating his Body at work.

1 Cor14 v26. How is it then brethren when you come together, everyone has a psalm has a doctrine has a tongue has a revelation has an interpretation, let all things be done to edification.
This shows that God would have ALL the saints moving in the gifts, all orchestrated by the one spirit. However it also shows clearly that tongues are an appropriate part of meetings otherwise interpreters would not be mentioned.
v27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two or at most three and in turn and let another interpret.
v28 But if there be no interpreter let him keep silent in the church and let him speak to himself and to God.
These two verses surely must show that tongues are a part of the meetings alongside the other gifts

As far as the subject of tongues, I agree with most of what you say here. With over 36 years within the Pentecostal household, I have my opinion;, but, in truth, also have at least a question or two concerning the matter. True enough that Chapter 14 begins with a statement that tongue-talking is “not unto men, but unto God”. If, in the sense you express, however, then why would it be necessary to interpret it to God. Maybe I’m reading people wrong here; but Paul also says the reason for the translation is “that the church may receive ediying”. Are you saying that what they are edified by is an interpretation revealing the tongue-talker’s dialogue with the Almighty?

Don’t take me as being contentious. I have long wondered and seen enough abuse of the gift within the sanctuary, know well the purity of having the Spirit so move through you whether in a prayer closet or in a sanctuary, bringing unto one the ability to exhibit praise in his most heart-felt form, giving release for any need to ponder verbage, establishing freedom in prayer. Yet a man’s ego remains a man’s ego and I long ago became convinced that prophesying, whether through tongues or otherwise, should be taken with a grain of salt and personal conversation with Christ about the matter. God does not lie. He proves His word. Amazing to me that so many want to tell you “God said”, but never show up to apologize when it does not come to pass, wanting to blame failure on your lack of faith.

I do agree, my friend: If the world laughs, maybe we need to examine the image and the witness we have given them.

I’ve never been a fan of Oliphant, so I’m not surprised at the garbage he’s spewing. The cartoon is so ridiculous to Pentecostals yet seems so right to liberals looking for anything they can use to ridicule Gov. Palin. If the unthinkable happens and the Chicago lightweight is in the Oval office next year, I hope Ms. Palin will choose wisely to stay in the national spotlight, as she has been a breath of fresh conservative air.

Tongues as practiced in a church service goes only as far as the pastor allows it. Some Pentecostal pastors look disappointed if someone doesn’t have a word every service, while other Pentecostal churches can go for years without a public utterance. I like to think of tongues as a private prayer language, where the Holy Spirit takes over to say what cannot be said by the native language.
[This is somewhat conjecture for me, as I still have not been blessed in spite of attending Pentecostal churches for over 12 years. I struggle with it, even praying for it, as I feel like a wretched sinner who does not deserve it. His timing can be difficult, and my stubbornness blocks drawing closer to Him.]

When I finally proclaimed that I was a “born again Christian”, I couldn’t stop having to explain that this did not mean I spoke in tongues.

What made the need to defend myself ironic was that the Pentecostal Church’s misuse of this on me specifically greatly hindered my walk in getting to know Christ.

Through Paul, He could not have explained more clearly how “tongues” were to be used and that these were the least desirable gifts to aspire to. How is it that an entire denomination feels so strongly compelled to raise this gift up to something to be desired?

I feel that any doctrine that is not taught correctly is a false doctrine, and I’m sure your readers know how God feels about false doctrines.

Today, I witness to believers of other faiths, to bring them to see the truth in Christ. I mainly focus on the sects under Islam.
I have been wondering more lately if i may not be of greater service to God if I didn’t just focus more on witnessing to my fellow Christian brothers and sisters that follow the Pentecostal, Catholic, Prosperity Churches and even the KJV literalists.

There’s just so many false teachers that are leading His sheep astray in today’s Christian Churches.

By the way, it’s ridicules to proclaim that an “unpardonable sin” has something to do with mocking those who speak in tongues among unbelievers.

Just because someone is speaking in tongues doesn’t mean the words aren’t from Satan.

However, I think I should point out that I suspect the political picture might be a tad more complicated, and there are many things in operation here.

(Now the World is guaranteed to always react to other “languages,” and an unfavorable reaction cannot be merely written off as being purely all our fault. Go back and look at 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 again. God himself says “…even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord”. Indeed, as Paul says, tongues are a sign for unbelievers: it’s a sign showing them their condition of unbelief in God, and indeed that’s how people at a purely soulish level and without the Spirit will react, with ridicule and scoffing. {Prophecy goes to the next step of disclosing the secrets of the heart and leading people to confess that indeed God is present, and in a manner of speaking, prophecy is the sign that leads people to belief and hence a sign for believers.} So what I am saying, Rich, is that even if we had everything down pat, and even if we blamelessly conducted ourselves in this regard in perfect accordance with all of apostle Paul’s directives, the World’s reaction will still be the same: ridicule and scoffing. There is simply no escaping this, and therefore we have got to stop our constantly apologizing for everything. Now I don’t know about the places where you hang out, Rich. But where I am, the biggest problem is the relentless quest to gain “respectability” and to earn “the praises of men,” which is leading to plenty of far-reaching damage. Having somebody speaking in tongues, out of order, is the very least of our problems where I am.)

However, none of the parenthetical remarks I made above is the real point that I wanted to make here, which is that there is a genuine effort out there to find some means of smearing Sarah Palin by using her supposed religious beliefs. On one hand, I think BHO himself has more dignity than to resort to such tactics, but there are plenty of his supporters in the MSM and the blogosphere who are not that restrained (just visit the Daily Kos to see what I mean). Oliphant’s cartoon was just one reflection of the larger situation. However, what’s even stranger is the effort in some quarters to somehow link Sarah Palin with Todd Bentley, no matter how far fetched that that might seem. Finally, as far as I know, nobody has bothered to sit down and simply ask Palin herself what she believes. So far everything has been mostly suppositions made on the basis of “guilt by association.”

Further, in every instance where public “tongues” was interpreted in the scripture it was always praise and exaltation of God..”and they heard them praising God in their own language”. There have only been a very few times in my life that I have ever heard an interpretaion of tongues that I thought was scriptural…why I think tongues is mostly for the Holy Spirit making intercession for us to God in a private prayer language. The few interpretations I have found scriptural were so encouraging and edifying by exalting God in a manner that the speaker would not normally have been capable of doing.

In referring to nationally-known folk, you may be interested to know that the Christian singer/song writer and winner of the last 3 annual Dove awards for Female Vocalist of the Year, Natalie Grant, http://www.nataliegrant.com was raised in an Assembly of God church in the Seattle area singing on stage first at 3 years of age. One of the greatest aids in raising my children (four more in addition to Natalie) who now all serve the Lord, was the ministries of that wonderful Assembly of God church and it’s pastoral staff. And God has blessed me so greatly that now all of my 13 grandchildren who have reached the decision age have also committed their lives to Christ. The greatest decision parents can make for successfully raising their children is to find a good church, get involved in the ministries, and set an example for their children to follow. A church is no substitute for a daily family altar (Dad taking the lead in praying and reading God’s Word) at home but I will be forever thankful for the wonderful, faithful ministry of our Assembly of God church.

I also disagree with you that this is all our fault. I’ve seen all the abuses you have listed and even participated in some (when I was an usher at youth rallies we ushers used to place bets on when a certain person would give a message in tongues). However, I think that conversation should be done in house and not by Oliphant. What’s his claim to expertise about pentecostals? Is he one of us?

Instead, I think the intention was to defame our movement and God in the process. As George Wood pointed out the real objection to this comic is how God is portrayed in it, not that Sarah Palin is speaking gibberish. If Oliphant wanted to make fun of us, he has plenty of material to work with. However, he crossed the line when he made fun of God, too.

Consequently, I’m not assuming the “blame” for this piece. It was mean-spirited and derogatory. And, it’s not my idea of funny.