Abstract
I find myself in general agreement with Harrison's comments (see previous article, this issue) and feel confident that most of his criticisms of my article Testimony as a Commitment Mechanism in Catholic Pentecostal Prayer Groups (1977) would have been obviated had my original manuscript been printed without revision and massive cutting. In reply to his specific criticisms: 1. Glossolalia is frequently viewed by religious researchers as anomalous and as requiring explanation (I do not impute this notion to Harrison's own work). Many authors, therefore, look at this isolated phenomenon and try to explain it in terms of its psychological and sociological functions-one of which is its role as a commitment mechanism (heavily emphasized by Hine, 1969). My original manuscript suggested that the initial question must be broader: what are the functions of every type of speaking and hearing event (of which glossolalia is only one) in the entire process of commitment and conversion (c.f., McGuire, 1976,1977). From this perspective, the role of glossolalia is seen to be-among Catholic pentecostals at least-very minor, even negligible. The problem is not one of overemphasis; it is rather a matter of what is the relevant empirical and theoretical focus.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
