Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 367–371
The Promises and Perils of the Azusa Street Myth
Accompanied by religious fervor and supernatural manifestations, the out- pouring of the Spirit in Los Angeles at the beginning of the twentieth cen- tury prompted social reconstructions within the Azusa Street Mission that produced an unprecedented level of equality and inclusion, cutting across lines of race, gender, class, and nationality. The reception of these Azusa tes- timonies have become more than mere factual accounts; they represent an ideal, henceWalter Hollenweger’s now famous assessment that the first decade following Azusa represents the heart rather than the infancy of the move- ment.1 The narrative of the Azusa Street revival plays a prominent and myth- ical role for Pentecostals and Charismatics, notwithstanding the plurality of historical events that occurred during early years of the pentecostal move- ment.2
As many historians have noted, the social reforms of Azusa were short lived. Cultural pressures of racism, sexism, classism, and nationalism impinged on the community from both secular sources and (unfortunately) from their fellow Pentecostals.3 The failure to maintain this newfound diversity resulted inracialsegregation,the marginalization of women,anda populistxenophobia and suspicion of multiculturalism, all of which continue to plague the global movement. However significant the countercultural impulses of Azusa may have been, its brevity begs the question: What are the lasting effects of the Azusa Street myth? In this editorial, myth is being used as a double entendre—
1 Walter J. Hollenweger,The Pentecostals(Peabody,ma: Hendrickson, 1988), 551.
2 Historians continue to uncover data from various global locations that demonstrate the pres-
ence of multiple origins of early Pentecostalism. See Adam Smith, “From Monogenesis to
Polygenesis in Pentecostal Origins: A Survey of the Evidence from the Azusa Street, Hebden,
and Mukti Missions,” in Pentecostudies: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Research on the Pen-
tecostal and Charismatic Movements 13 (2014): 151–172. The evidence for polygenetic origins
does not detract from the mythical reception of the Azusa Street narrative and the role this
myth plays in forming a collective identity for Pentecostals and Charismatics.
3 Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., The Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal
Movement(Nashville,tn:Thomas Nelson, 2006); Gastón Espinoza,William J. Seymour and the
Origins of Global Pentecostalism: A Biography and Documentary History (Durham, nc: Duke
University Press, 2014).
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-03804017
1
368
waddell and althouse
both in the popular sense as a widely held though false belief, and in the traditional sense as a communal story that continually provides meaning, shapes identity, and inspires ethical conduct.
Following the hermeneutical theory of Paul Ricoeur, Jean-Daniel Plüss defines myth as “a traditional story in the experience of time, with a plot that leads to an unexpected reversal of fortune and a surplus of meaning, thus pro- viding people with grounds for ritual action as well as ethical commitment.”4In the case of Azusa, the social reconstructions were initially either condemned or simply ignored by the publications of the predominantly white groups.5 Charles Parham, despite his openly racist views, dominates many historical accounts of the origins of Pentecostalism. Later explanations that acknowl- edge and even celebrate Azusa’s social reconstructions have failed to affect the movement’s social structures. The dissolving of the all-white Pentecostal Fel- lowship of North America, dubbed the “Memphis Miracle,” held momentary promise for substantial change, though the replacement organization, Pen- tecostal/Charismatic Churches of North America, was unable to address the underlying causes of the original segregation, owing in large part to a lack of concern for racial or gender justice among the populist majority of the white denominations.6
The ongoing divisions within the movement are evident, and they mirror identical divisions in society. Although the global numerical growth and multi- cultural demographics of pentecostal and charismatic Christianity are often celebrated by denominational ecclesiarchs, the critical reflection needed to offer a nuanced assessment of the deep social fissures remain. It may be objec- tively true that Azusa Street and Memphis exhibited temporary social recon- struction, though a positivist historical account reduces these narratives of social reconstruction from myth to fairy tales. In other words, “A myth is not simply to be explained (as the Modernists or the literalists would have it)” because “it provides a form of divine truth in a worldly context which reaches
4 Jean-Daniel Plüss, “Azusa and Other Myths: The Long and Winding Road from Experience to
Stated Belief and Back Again,”Pneuma15, no. 2 (1993): 193–194.
5 Estrelda Alexander,Black Fire: One HundredYears of African American Pentecostalism(Down-
ers Grove,il: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 121.
6 See the contributions of Frank D. Macchia, Ithiel C. Clemmons, Leonard Lovett, Manuel
Gaxiola-Gaxiola, Samuel Solivan, Barbara M. Amos, and Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Roundtable:
Racial Reconciliation,” Pneuma 18, no. 1 (1996): 113–140; Zachary M. Tackett, “The Embour-
geoisement of the Assemblies of God: Changing Perspectives on Scripture, Millennialism,
and the Roles of Women” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998), 151–
157.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 367–371
2
the promises and perils of the azusa street myth
369
beyond known and tangible reality.”7 While it may be a myth (in the popular sense) that Pentecostals and Charismatics have dispensed with social inequal- ities, it is equally true that the myth of Azusa Street can still inspire a transfor- mational hope for a sustainable work of the Spirit.
It is worth noting that the paradigmatic myth for Pentecostals and Charis- matics—the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2—is as complex as Azusa Street and the Memphis Miracle. The multicultural, ecumenical, and socioeconomic im- pulses resonating from Acts 2 are quickly challenged. Ananias and Sapphira try to avoid the financial implications of the newly inspired economy. The Greek widows are racially profiled, and the Jewish leadership of the movement strug- gles with the implications of the inclusion of the Gentiles. Do they have to be circumcised? Are the laws of dietary purity required or optional? Although the Spirit has been poured out onallflesh, are women permitted to hold leadership positions? What does the outpouring on slaves mean for the future of slavery? The extent to which the early church experienced any lasting success regarding social divisions is questionable.8 Apparently, an outpouring of the Spirit does not make a group immune to theological errors or unethical practices, nor does it produce a spiritual singularity. The most conspicuous characteristic of the New Testament is its diversity; identification of its unity, on the other hand, requires work.9 Paul’s constant calls for reconciliation and social reconstruc- tion suggest that any experience of unity or social reconstruction was elusive.
Analogous to the days of the early church and the days of early Pente- costalism, today’s cross pressures of secularization, globalization, and multi- culturalism have the potential to generate anxiety about the future. This angst often produces a swell in exclusivist populism, an ideology that “pits a virtu- ous and homogeneous people against … dangerous ‘others’ who are … depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice.”10 In the tumultuous times, a clear dis- tinction is drawn between insiders and outsiders, and as Zygmunt Bauman puts it, “it is crystal-clear who is one of us and who is not.”11The extent to which the
7 8 9
10
11
Plüss, “Azusa and Other Myths,” 194.
See J. Kameron Carter,Race:ATheologicalAccount(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). See James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Char- acter of Earliest Christianity, rev. ed. (Louisville, ky: Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, 2012).
Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell,Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy(New York,ny: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), 3.
Zygmunt Bauman,Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World (Cambridge,uk: Polity Press, 2001), 12.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 367–371
3
370
waddell and althouse
myth of Azusa Street will be efficacious in the future is directly proportional to the faithfulness of present generations of Pentecostals and Charismatics to resist divisive forces in culture, to engage in ecumenical dialogue, to embrace strangers, and to follow the many-tongued universal Spirit of Pentecost. “It is a sign of a true myth, when ritual action (such as witness and praise) and ethi- cal commitment (such as a commission in the name of Christ) work hand in hand.”12The articles in this issue represent work in this direction.
The first two articles investigate the effects of societal changes vis-à-vis Pen- tecostalism. The issue begins with Michael Wilkinson’s presidential address, delivered at the forty-fifth annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Stud- ies. Wilkinson, the first sociologist to preside over the society, raises a number of important questions about the future of the study of Pentecostalism. In the article, he utilizes the categories of orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and orthopathy to examine issues of authority and authenticity. Noting the uneven effects of globalization and pluralism,Wilkinson sketches a new picture of current devel- opments within Pentecostalism. He concludes by raising a number of method- ological questions. Future scholarship of Pentecostalism would be remiss to ignore his guidance. In the following article, Awet Andemicael investigates the pressures of secularization on early black Holiness and pentecostal churches. She challengesthe received assumption that the black Holiness churchesmain- tained a cultural stance of Christ-against culture. Andemicael offers theologi- cal nuance to the discussion of why the black churches were able to navigate the theological conundrum of embracing the style and instruments of secular music while at the same time maintaining a high moral standard.
The next two articles share a common ecumenical theme and place pente- costal theology in dialogue with voices beyond the tradition. David Bradnick begins with the question: What does Mercersburg have to do with Azusa? As he admits, the pairing of nineteenth-century German reformers and twentieth- century American Pentecostalism may seem oxymoronic, though he makes the case that John Williamson Nevin and Phillip Schaff, the leading thinkers of Mercersburg theology, have more in common with Pentecostalism than heretofore noted. Bradnick notes that Nevin may serve as a helpful resource for the development of a pentecostal theology of Eucharist and that Schaff is a valuable dialogue partner for Pentecostals regarding both pneumatology and sacramental theology. Bradnick’s work opens the door for further ecumeni- cal engagement between Mercersburg and Pentecostals. Following this discus- sion of nineteenth-century thinkers, Mark Cartledge continues the theme of
12
Plüss, “Azusa and Other Myths,” 199.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 367–371
4
the promises and perils of the azusa street myth
371
ecumenical dialogue with a pentecostal evaluation of C.S. Lewis. Given his popularity, it’s surprising that relatively little work has been published on a pentecostal assessment of Lewis. Cartledge surveys previous pentecostal read- ings of Lewis and supplements the discussion with his own utilization of the framework of public theology.The article challengesPentecostalstoparticipate in a public theological discourse that integrates high academic standards and authentic spirituality.
The final two articles examine biblical passages. Chris Green’s article ana- lyzes 1Corinthians 11:2–16, an opaque text that has often been used to marginal- ize women. Having identified a number of interpretative challenges with this text, Green surveys its reception by looking at interpretations offered by John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Karl Barth. This is followed by a brief survey of modern commentators, including Gordon Fee, William Webb, and Lucy Peppiatt. Green concludes with his own eschatological/pentecostal reading that theologically wrestles with the text in faithful ways. The final arti- cle provides a unique perspective on a central pentecostal theme, namely, the relationship of water baptism to Spirit baptism in Luke-Acts. Sarah Hinlicky Wilson surveys the debate between James D.G. Dunn and Classical Pentecostals and concludes that the arguments on both sides have missed the point of Luke’s narrative. Their mistake, according to Wilson, is to focus on individual experi- ence. Rather than providing a template for individuals, whether for conversion- initiation (à la Dunn) or for missionary empowerment (à la the Pentecostals), Wilson argues that Christian baptism, which is in water and Spirit, plays a polemical role over and against John’s water-only baptism. This interpretation, which takes into account a variety of texts and theological themes in Luke-Acts, is certain to provoke new conversations.
Robby Waddell and Peter Althouse
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 367–371
5
