An Emerging Magisterium The Case Of The Assemblies Of God

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

| PentecostalTheology.com

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 164

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

S SP

Articles

An Emerging Magisterium? The Case of the Assemblies of God*

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr.

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oli- garchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualiﬁed by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being dis- qualiﬁed by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opin- ion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of demo- cracy and tradition….1

The idea of tradition is not a new one, but in this so-called postmodern age, it is an idea that has often come into disrepute. The idea of tradition is an ancient idea, however, and the words of G. K. Chesterton may help us realize just how important this concept is. It places us in contact with our past. It helps us recognize and appreciate our debts. It acknowledges, in part, the sources from which we all derive many of our contemporary ideas and actions.

The New Testament uses the word tradition (parãdosiw) several times, and it helps us to see both the strengths and the weaknesses in this

* This essay was written in honor of Russell P. Spittler. It is to appear next year in a Festschrift prepared in Dr. Spittler’s honor entitled, Spirit and Spirituality: Essays in Honor of Russell P. Spittler, edited by Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies (Shefﬁeld, England: Shefﬁeld Academic Press, 2004). We are grateful to Shefﬁeld Academic Press and Con- tinuum for permission to print this essay in advance of the Festschrift’s publication.1

Gilbert K. Chesterton, Heresy/Orthodoxy Nelson’s Royal Classics (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000), 207. Chesterton’s book, Orthodoxy, from which this quo- tation comes, was originally published in 1908. At the time that Chesterton wrote this para- graph, the term groom was a reference to a servant responsible for the care of one’s horses, a position of lowly or inferior status.

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 165

An Emerging Magisterium

concept. Jesus was critical of tradition for example, when it became a means of binding people in ways that God had never intended for them to endure. When the Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus and complained that his disciples were not obeying the tradition (tØn parãdosin) of the elders because they had not washed their hands properly before eating, Jesus ﬁrst took the opportunity to instruct them, then went on to accuse them of hypocrisy and of making void “the word of God (tÚn lÒgon toË yeÇou),” for the sake of their tradition (tØn parãdosin Ím«n).2

The apostle Paul spoke about tradition as well. Like Jesus, he was concerned with the appeal to tradition as a means of controlling the ideas and actions of others. He warned his readers in Colossae to be sure that they stayed alert, lest they should become the captives of those who worked “through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradi- tion (tØn parãdosin t«n ényr≈pvn), according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). The potential that humanly contrived traditions would create problems even for Christian believers was genuine, and Paul was concerned to alert the Church to that possibility.

On more than one occasion, however, Paul spoke of “tradition” in a positive manner. If what he called “human tradition” could deceive even Christians and hold them in bondage, another kind of tradition held value for them. It was a tool that aided the Church. It provided genuine testi- mony from their spiritual “ancestors,” the prophets. A vivid example of his interest in this type of tradition is found in the following words:

For I handed on (par°dvka) to you as of ﬁrst importance what I in turn had received (˜ ka‹ par°labon); that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures (grafåw), and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures (grafåw), and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than ﬁve hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apos- tles, unﬁt to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them—though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe. (1 Cor. 15:3-11)

Cf. Matthew 15:1-6, esp. 2, 3 and 6. All quotations of Scripture are taken from the New Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted. Italics are mine and are added for emphasis.

165

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 166

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

With his language of receiving (par°labon) and handing on (par°- dvka), Paul viewed himself as standing in the line of those who embraced a “tradition” (parãdosiw) that was worthy of transmission. It was a tradi- tion that was rooted in the Scriptures or “writings” (grafåw) on the one hand, and in his personal experience—that is, the appearance of the risen Christ to him—on the other. Just as in the case of Cephas, the Twelve, and the “more than ﬁve hundred brothers and sisters,” Christ had appeared to him, and Paul understood himself to be a living witness to the truth of the tradition attested in the Scriptures, a tradition whose proclamation would enable others to believe.

In another instance, Paul disabused the Christians at Thessalonica of the idea that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thes. 2:1-2). He encour- aged them to “stand ﬁrm and hold fast to the traditions (tåw paradÒseiw)” he had taught them in person or had sent to them in a letter (2 Thes. 2:15).3 As the apostle continued his instruction of these Christians, he appealed to them a second time, again in the name of tradition: “Now we com- mand you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition (tØn parãdosin) that they received from us (ÑØn parelãbosan parÉ ≤m«n)” (2 Thes. 3:6).4

For the earliest Pentecostals, who believed that they were living in the generation immediately preceding the parousia, however, the notion of tra- dition was one that did not fare very well. If anything, it was treated with disdain. According to their reading of history, tradition had not served the Church very well. It had clouded the real issues. What they had “received,” these early Pentecostals argued, had not come by means of tradition but, rather, through their own reading of the Scriptures, sometimes quite apart from any tradition they might have inherited. What they were experienc- ing—the power of the Holy Spirit—was something fresh that had come not by tradition but from their personal quest for spiritual power. In fact, their reading of history and of Scripture ultimately led them to reject much of what had happened earlier in the history of the Church. They were part of God’s end-time work of restoration. They wanted to be bound only to that which was truly apostolic, not to that which was merely tradition-al. As they began the twentieth century, they were prepared to leap over the

Once again the verbs of receiving and passing on are present.4

The translators have moved from the singular to the plural throughout this verse to avoid “sexist” language.

166

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 167

An Emerging Magisterium

intervening centuries in order to ﬁnd themselves once again in the pages of the Bible. And they did just that in their reading of Acts 2. There was, for them, no need for “precedent,” “habit,” or “custom”—in short, there was no need for tradition.5

As we begin the twenty-ﬁrst century, however, the status of Pente- costals has changed dramatically. Their numbers have soared. Their pres- ence is felt around the globe. Many of them have changed social location. They have split so many times that even David Barratt cannot process all the emerging groups. They have developed a full and sometimes contra- dictory range of theological positions. Many who worship in Pentecostal congregations, especially in the United States of America, no longer expe- rience or even value some of the things that earlier generations fought so hard to ensure. In recent years, however, Pentecostals have given renewed value to history, precedent, habit, custom, and tradition. If we stop and think about it, this value has been there all the time; it just hasn’t been acknowledged publicly very often. In the apologetic arena of the ﬁrst gen- eration of the modern Pentecostal Movement, the level and kind of rhetoric that prevailed blinded its participants to the real value of tradition that since that time has come to be acknowledged, sometimes in more surrep- titious forms.

The Development of a Magisterium

The idea of tradition is essentially linked to that of a magisterium, the authoritative teaching ofﬁce of the Church. From the time that doctrine began to be formulated by the early Church and passed down to subse- quent generations, the Church has been concerned to see that the “faith once delivered to the saints” is passed on in a manner that guarantees that subsequent generations of Christians stand within the same believing tra- dition as that in which earlier generations stood. This concern has been

“The older denominations have a past which is their own in a peculiar sense; they can trace the beginnings of their church and the course of its history subsequent to its founda- tion. The time between the beginning and the present has been sufﬁcient to establish prece- dent, create habit, formulate custom. In this way they have become possessed of a two-fold inheritance, a two-fold guide of action, a two-fold criterion of doctrine—the New Testa- ment and the church position. The Pentecostal Movement has no such history; it leaps the intervening years crying, ‘Back to Pentecost.’” B. F. Lawrence, The Apostolic Faith Restored (St. Louis, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1916), 11-12. This volume is the ﬁrst published “history” of the Pentecostal Movement produced by the Assemblies of God.

167

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 168

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

given ﬂesh in two primary ways. One is the development of various regu- lae ﬁdei, that is, “rules of faith” and ultimately creeds, while the other is the development of the doctrine of succession, whereby only those who were properly recognized by the community of bishops to be “teachers” or “doctors” of the Church were allowed, in consultation with them, to de- velop, articulate, and deliver doctrinal teaching.

The ideas of creedal formulation as well as succession began their cen- turies-long development already in New Testament times. We can note in 1 Corinthians 12:1-3 that the afﬁrmation “Jesus is Lord” is among the most basic of building blocks of the Christian faith. We have already observed further creedal development in Paul’s statements of doctrine regarding Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 and his understanding of this teaching as something that he had both received and now handed on to the Corin- thians. As Charles Gore reminded his readers in the nineteenth century, Paul as well as the other apostles were “ministers of a ‘tradition’ to which they themselves [were] subject, a tradition ‘once for all delivered.’”6

The early Church developed its creedal tradition further, in much the same way that the canon came into existence, as steps along the way, steps that spoke to the majority of the community and communicated some power that they sought, a power that either afﬁrmed or challenged the community’s self-understanding.7 Thus a developing tradition was en- listed by the Church to head off personal claims of divine inspiration or private interpretations that its leaders viewed as competing with the “truth,” and this “tradition” was intended to bring greater stability to the Christian community that it represented.8

During the intervening centuries, the deposit of “the faith” was clearly viewed as that which had been given ﬁrst to the apostles, who passed it on to their successors, the bishops upon whom they laid hands and whom they had appointed, who in turn did the same to their successors. What God had given to Christ, Christ had mediated to the apostles, the apostles had

Charles Gore, “The Holy Spirit and Inspiration,” in Charles Gore, ed., Lux Mundi: A Series of Studies in the Religion of the Incarnation (1889; London: John Murray, 1913), 248.7

J. A. Sanders, “Adaptable for Life: The Nature and Function of Canon,” in F. M. Cross et al., eds., Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Works of God: Essays on the Bible and Archeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 538.8

Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.10.1-2 and III.3.2-3 provides great examples of the devel- opment involved in the regulae ﬁdei. One can also see this in Tertullian’s appeal to the regu- lae ﬁdei in On Monogamy 2.2-3; 4.1; On the Veiling of Virgins 1.4-5, 7; Prescription Against Heretics 13. Cf. L. W. Countryman, “Tertullian and the Regula Fidei,” Second Century 2 (1982), 208-27.

168

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 169

An Emerging Magisterium

preached to the bishops, and the bishops had protected and passed along to successive generations.9 The pastoral role attributed to these bishops viewed them as guardians of that deposit of faith, while at the same time and with the aid of the Holy Spirit, they became builders upon the foun- dation that Christ and the apostles had laid. One can think of the develop- ments in Christology or the doctrine of the Trinity or even the doctrine of the YeotÒkow as clear examples of how the Church continued to build upon that foundation. None of these doctrines was clearly explicated within the pages of Scripture, but they became clear as the church faced new chal- lenges from within and without in succeeding centuries.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, the Second Vatican Council reafﬁrmed the role of Tradition and the role of the magisterium in the Roman Catholic Church. The Council adopted a number of documents that guided it in Rome’s movement into the twentieth century. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, commonly known as Dei Verbum, spelled out the nature of God’s revelation to humankind. It made clear that in Roman Catholic teaching, Scripture and then Tradition, ultimately woven together into a single tapestry, are those components that constitute the whole Word of God. Dei Verbum rejected the Reformation notion of sola scriptura, noting that the Holy Spirit continued to speak to the Church through the voice of the successors of the apostles, that is, through the bishops, who were the appointed guardians of the Apostolic Tradition.

The Council Fathers wrote:

the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching ofﬁce of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet this magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.10

Within Roman Catholic teaching, it is important to note that there is a dis- tinction between “Tradition,” “tradition,” and “traditions.”

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Canon, Regulae Fidei, and Continuing Revelation in the Early Church,” in James E. Bradley and Richard A. Muller, eds., Church, Word, and Spirit: Historical and Theological Essays in Honor of Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987), 85.10

Dei Verbum 10.

169

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 170

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

The Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order was held in Montreal, Canada in 1963. On that occasion, theologians from a wide range of theo- logical traditions tackled the issue of “Tradition” and its relationship to Scripture. With the aid of its Roman Catholic and Orthodox delegates, it clariﬁed the following set of deﬁnitions.

We speak of the Tradition (with a capital T), tradition (with a small t) and traditions. By the Tradition is meant the Gospel itself, transmitted from gen- eration to generation in and by the Church, Christ himself present in the life of the Church. By tradition is meant the traditionary process. The term tra- ditions is used in two senses. To indicate both the diversity of forms of expression and also… confessional traditions….11

When the Second Vatican Council approved Dei Verbum as the ofﬁcial position of the Roman Catholic Church, it reﬂected this same basic posi- tion. Certain doctrines were clearly understood as best being described by the term Tradition, that is, they were viewed as part of the original Apostolic Tradition, now interpreted by the magisterium, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and viewed as the Word of God. As such, they were to be accepted and obeyed by the faithful.

It is my intention to show that in recent years the Assemblies of God has increasingly, but on the whole unknowingly, adopted this same posi- tion. Its executive ofﬁcers, the General Presbytery, and the Doctrinal Purity Commission have become the magisterium, and together they have essen- tially removed the discussion of certain doctrines from the general fellow- ship. By exploring the development of the doctrines that govern the relationship between the reception of the baptism in the Spirit and speak- ing in tongues as the “initial physical evidence” of that baptism I hope to show how they are now viewed by this magisterium as part of what may now be described as the Tradition, meaning that they stand at the very heart of the gospel itself.

Members of this group now offer the only authentic or ofﬁcial interpre- tation of that Tradition. They claim to be servants of the Word of God, passing on to the present generation what they themselves have “received.” They believe that they are aided by the Holy Spirit and are merely guarding the deposit of faith. Those who continue to ask questions

“Report of Section II: Scripture, Tradition and Traditions,” in Michael Kinnamon and Brian E. Cope, eds., The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices (Geneva: WCC Publications/Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), 139.

170

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 171

An Emerging Magisterium

regarding that authentic interpretation, or who engage in unauthorized hermeneutical debates on the subject, are systematically being silenced. The ministers of the Assemblies of God are expected to accept, without further question or discussion, the authentic interpretation now given to this Tradition by members of the magisterium. This authentic interpreta- tion has become tantamount to the Word of God.

Dashed Hopes and the Development of the Tradition

At the founding meeting of the Assemblies of God, April 2-12, 1914, in Hot Springs, Arkansas, the ministers who gathered together unanimously passed two resolutions. The ﬁrst of these spoke to the issue of local church sovereignty, and the second one attempted to name the organization. These two resolutions were supported by four underlying arguments, the ﬁrst three of which spoke about God. These three arguments were that (1) God had sent his only-begotten Son to redeem the world and establish the Church, (2) God had given the “Holy Inspired Scriptures” “as the all- sufﬁcient rule for faith and practice” for that Church, and (3) God had com- manded that there be “no schism [division, sectarianism] in His Body.”12

The fourth underlying argument was not about God. This statement set forth what they believed about what they were doing when they came together to form the General Council of the Assemblies of God. It read, in part:

we recognize ourselves as members of said GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GOD, (which is God’s organism) and do not believe in identifying ourselves as, or establishing ourselves as, or establishing ourselves into a sect, that is a human organization that legislates or forms laws and articles of faith and has unscriptural jurisdiction over its members and creates unscriptural lines of fellowship and disfellowship and which separates itself from other mem- bers of the General Assembly (Church) of the ﬁrst born, which is contrary to Christ’s prayer in St. John 17, and Paul’s teaching in Eph. 4:1-16, which we heartily endorse.13

Looking back from our perspective this was probably a foolish afﬁrma- tion to make, since the list of things “most surely believed” by the founders

“Preamble and Resolution of Constitution,” Minutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America, Canada and Foreign Lands held at Hot Springs, AR, April 2-12, 1914 (Findlay, OH: Gospel Publishing House, 1914), 4.13

Ibid.

171

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 172

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

was a very long one that, for all their claims to the contrary, looked and sounded very much like an extensive creed.14 In spite of their initial deci- sion never to adopt articles of faith because of their unscriptural implica- tions, the Assemblies of God met in General Council over the next several years speciﬁcally to deliberate issues of doctrine.

Between 1914 and 1916, the ministers of the Assemblies of God strug- gled to maintain their unity when the “New Issue” regarding the nature of the Trinity and the appropriate formula to be used in water baptism emerged as points of contention between various factions. By 1916, just two years after saying that they did not believe in legislating or forming laws and articles of faith because they led to division and were clearly con- trary both to Christ’s prayer for unity and Paul’s teaching which they claimed they “heartily endorse[d],” they did just that. They adopted a Statement of Fundamental Truths. It sliced the heart out of their unity to that point, excluded one-third of their ministers and many other laypeople, and erected a wall between classical Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals that has existed ever since.15 Their hopes for unity apart from dogmatic concerns had been dashed. What is worse, they had violated what they claimed they believed to be both Christ’s desire and Paul’s teaching. The dam had been broken, and doctrinal disputes would emerge that led the Assemblies of God to construct other doctrinal lines as well.

While the issue of the Trinity and the appropriate baptismal formula had been ﬁrmly settled in the minds of those who remained in the Assemblies of God subsequent to the 1916 General Council, the issue of

Among the doctrines afﬁrmed in the “Whereas” or propositional portions of the “Preamble and Resolution” were (1) the Fatherhood of God, (2) the only-begotten nature of the Son, (3) the fallen nature of humankind, (4) the redemption of humankind available through the shedding of Christ’s blood, (5) the election of the saints, (6) the Lordship of Jesus Christ, (7) the foundational role of the apostles and prophets to the Church with Christ as chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), (8) the organizational, baptizing, and ongoing governing functions of the Holy Spirit in the Church, (9) the integrity and strength of the Church (Matt. 16:18), (10) the primacy of a divinely inspired Scripture consisting of both old and new covenants (Heb. 3:6-13) as the “all sufﬁcient rule for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16),” to which nothing would be added and from which nothing would be deleted (Rev. 22:18), and (11) God’s command that the Church never enter into schism, division, or sectarianism in keeping with John 17 and Eph. 4:1-16.15

For a helpful treatment of this issue see David Arthur Reed, “Origins and Development of the Theology of Oneness Pentecostalism in the United States,” Pentecostal Theology 1:1 (Spring 1979): 31-37; “Origins and Development of the Theology of Oneness Pentecostalism in the United States,” unpublished dissertation, Boston, MA: University Graduate School, 1978.

172

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 173

An Emerging Magisterium

the relationship between speaking in tongues and the baptism in the Spirit had not been settled to the satisfaction of everyone. That debate would consume the next two years, ultimately forcing others to withdraw from the fellowship or face expulsion in 1918.16 To understand what was at stake, we must return to the very beginnings of the Pentecostal Movement in the United States.

At the beginning, Charles Fox Parham developed a theory regarding baptism in the Spirit in which that experience was reserved only for those who lived the “sanctiﬁed life.”17 By deﬁnition, it came subsequent to con- version and to sanctiﬁcation. Parham’s followers were encouraged to expect and to seek this experience, and they were instructed that when they received it they would also receive the same evidence of that experience that he believed the earliest Christians had received on the day of Pente- cost. He called this part of his theory the “Bible evidence.”18 Parham understood it to be an ability “to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:1-4). Those tongues, he posited, would always be permanent endowments recognizable as known human languages.19 Many are the testimonies of the earliest Pentecostals who claimed to have spo- ken in a speciﬁc language with which the Spirit had endowed them.20

What was essential to Parham, however, was that those who claimed the Pentecostal experience had to embrace three separate and distinct cri- sis experiences: salvation, sanctiﬁcation, and baptism in the Holy Spirit

F. F. Bosworth, “Do All Speak with Tongues? 1 Corinthians 12:30: An Open Letter to the Ministers and Saints of the Pentecostal Movement” (Dayton, OH: John J. Scruby, n.d.), 32 pp.17

“The Apostolic Faith Movement,” The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 1:1 (September 1906), 2.1.18

C. F. Parham, Kol Kare Bomidbar: A Voice Crying in the Wilderness (Kansas City, MO: privately published, 1902, rpt. Joplin, MO: Joplin Printing Co., 1944), 25-38 contains a sermon preached by Parham in January 1901 in which he clearly employs this language. It is reprinted in W. F. Carothers, The Baptism with the Holy Ghost and the Speaking in Tongues (Houston: privately published, 1906), 5-18. Parham claimed that this was “the ﬁrst [sermon] upon the baptism of the Holy Ghost in all modern Pentecostal Apostolic Full Gospel movements.” Charles F. Parham, “The Latter Rain” in Robert L. Parham, comp., Selected Sermons of the Late Charles F. Parham, Sarah E. Parham (Baxter Springs, KS: Robert L. Parham, 1941), 79.19

Charles F. Parham, “The Baptism of the Holy Ghost,” in Robert L. Parham, Selected Sermons, 70-71; Untitled Report, The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 1:1 (September 1906), 2.3-4.20

Cf. “Russians Hear in Their Own Tongue,” The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 1:1 (September 1906), 4.3; “Missionaries to Jerusalem,” The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 1:1 (September 1906), 4.4; “In Minneapolis,” The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 1:8 (May 1907), 1.3.

173

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 174

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

with the Bible evidence of speaking known or understandable foreign languages. In technical terms, they had to demonstrate xenolalia.21 The reason the doctrine of subsequence was essential to Parham’s theory was that these people were already committed Christians, and in many cases they were already “sanctiﬁed” saints. The reason xenolalia was essential was because Parham taught that these tongues were intended solely for the purpose of world evangelization. Parham’s Apostolic Faith Move- ment (Baxter Springs, Kansas) continues to embrace this position to the present.22

In spite of Parham’s support for this theory as the only tenable Pentecostal position, many questioned and ultimately rejected the idea that speaking in tongues had always to be identiﬁed as a known foreign lan- guage.23 Their theory was that it could be a tongue that was not neces- sarily identiﬁable as a human language. It could be the tongue of an angel (1 Cor. 13:1) or some other form of communication speciﬁcally intended to make the deepest groanings of human need intelligible to God (cf. Rom. 8:26-27).24

In an unsigned item published in The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 1:1 (September 1906), 1.4, the writer notes that “[a] minister says that God showed him twenty years ago that the divine plan for missionaries was that they might receive the gift of tongues either before going to the foreign ﬁeld or on the way. It should be a sign to the heathen that the message is of God. The gift of tongues can only be used as the Spirit gives utterance. It can- not be learned like the native tongue, but the Lord takes control of the organs of speech at will. It is emphatically, God’s message.”22

“Doctrinal Teachings of the Apostolic Faith Movement,” (Baxter Springs, KS: The Apostolic Faith Bible School, n.d.), 2, states “The EVIDENCE of the baptism of the Holy Ghost is the speaking with other tongues (no fanaticism)”; “Bylaws of the Apostolic Faith Bible College, Inc.,” Article VII Doctrine, (Baxter Springs, KS: Apostolic Faith Bible College, n.d.), 10 reads “These common doctrinal beliefs are essentially as follows: ‘Baptism of the Holy Spirit; evidenced by speaking in other languages.’”23

W. F. Carothers, The Baptism with the Holy Ghost and the Speaking in Tongues (Houston, TX: privately published, 1906-7), 21, offered the following observation in November 1906: “. . . tongues now are praises to God in language peculiarly acceptable to Him for the reason that He forms the words, and there is abundant use for the tongue whether any man understands him or not…. Just what part the gift of tongues is to ﬁll in the evangelization of heathen countries is a matter of faith as yet. It scarcely seems from the evidence at hand to have had much to do with foreign mission work in the New Testament times, and yet, in view of the apparent utility of the gift in that sphere and of the wonderful missionary spirit that comes with Pentecost, we are expecting the gift to be copiously used in the foreign ﬁeld. We shall soon know.”24

The writer of “The Promise of the Father and Speaking with Tongues in Chicago,” The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 1:9 (June-September, 1907), 3.4 argued that in Chicago, the manifestation of tongues s/he observed ﬁt this description. “The tongues they speak in do not seem to be intended as a means of communication between themselves and others, as on the Day of Pentecost, but corresponds more closely with that described in the 14th of

174

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 175

An Emerging Magisterium

Among those who rejected Parham’s stringent position on tongues were many of those who formed the Assemblies of God. They rejected his posi- tion on two grounds. First of all, they rejected the idea of sanctiﬁcation as a second deﬁnite work of grace whereby the sinful nature was eradicated. They could not justify this teaching on biblical grounds, and many of them had not experienced a crisis of sanctiﬁcation. Such teaching could be classed as a human tradition, not a result of divine revelation. They assumed that a crisis experience of sanctiﬁcation was not, therefore, a pre- condition for receiving either the baptism in the Spirit or the ability to speak in other tongues. Instead, they embraced the position of William H. Durham in this regard.25

Second, they rejected the idea that it had always to be in a known for- eign language, believing instead that while it could be a known foreign language, it need not be so. They did not assume that the gift of tongues had the same missionary value that Parham ascribed to it, although on occasion it might be used this way, but rather, they emphasized that it was a gift given for the praise of God and the ediﬁcation of the local assembly (cf. 1 Cor. 12-14).

In spite of these differences of opinion during the ﬁrst decade and a half of its existence, those within the Pentecostal Movement showed a remark- able ability to tolerate a variety of theological positions on subjects such as

I Corinthians, 2nd verse, and seems to be a means of communication between the soul and God. They do not speak in tongues in the assembly, but when in prayer; they become intense in their supplication; they are apt to break out in the unknown tongue which is invariably followed by ascriptions of praise and adoration which are well nigh unutterable. The writer has about concluded that it is the ‘new tongues’ spoken of in Mark xvi. 17 as one of the signs which are to follow them that believe, rather than the ‘gift of tongues’ which all evidently did not possess.” Similarly, Charles Harrison Mason testiﬁed to having undergone a range of experiences when he spoke in tongues at the Azusa Street Mission. In “Tennessee Evangelist Witnesses,” The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 1:6 (February-March 1907), 7.2, he wrote, ‘. . . it seemed I was standing at the cross and heard Him as He groaned, the dying groans of Jesus, and I groaned. It was not my voice but the voice of my Beloved that I heard in me. When He got through that, He started the singing again in unknown tongues. When the singing stopped I felt that complete death, it was my life going out, but it was a complete death to me.”25

William H. Durham, “The Finished Work of Calvary,” Pentecostal Testimony 2:1 (ca. December 1911), 1, wrote, “How anyone could have been blinded by the theory that sanc- tiﬁcation is a deﬁnite, second, instantaneous work of grace is now a great mystery to me. Of all theories to which men are in bondage, it seems to me this is the weakest as well as the most un-Scriptural, and yet men are contending for it as if the salvation of the world largely depended upon it. In order to do this they have to close their eyes to the light in exactly the same way those who reject the truth concerning the baptism and the speaking in tongues have done, and are still doing.”

175

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 176

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

the nature of the Trinity and theories on sanctiﬁcation, baptism in the Holy Spirit, and speaking in tongues. And they could still treat one another as sisters and brothers in Christ with whom they could cooperate.

While it is the case that some ultimately rejected Durham’s position on sanctiﬁcation as a “shortcut,”26 and they would continue to take the prover- bial “high” road,27 and while the rhetoric between these camps was often very strident, they did not necessarily break fellowship over the issue. They might draw denominational lines, but people who shared the experi- ence of baptism in the Holy Spirit were still welcome to worship with one another and to exchange greetings at one another’s conferences and coun- cils provided they were able to tolerate one another’s differences. On the whole, they did not break what we might call eucharistic fellowship.

A quick survey of The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles, CA) published by the Azusa Street Mission as well as other early Pentecostal writings shows just how differently people viewed the subject. There was no unanimity concerning the subject except that it was an experience from God that had an empowering effect upon believers, and Christians should be encouraged to ask for it. Some, picking up on Parham’s language, argued that speaking in tongues was the “Bible evidence” of baptism in the Spirit.28 Some saw tongues as a “gift of the Spirit” in keeping with 1 Corinthians 12–14.29 Others viewed it as a “sign” that followed Spirit baptism.30 And still others viewed tongues as the “outward evidence” of baptism in the Spirit.31 W. F. Carothers saw subtle differences in purpose

Veteran Members of the Headquarters Staff, Compilers and Editors, A Historical Account of the Apostolic Faith: A Trinitarian-Fundamental Evangelistic Organization: Its Origin, Functions, Doctrinal Heritage, and Departmental Activities of Evangelism (Portland, OR: The Apostolic Faith Mission, 1965), 69-70.27

Paul F. Beacham, Questions and Answers on the Scriptures and Related Subjects (Franklin Springs, GA: The Publishing House of the P.H. Church [now Advocate Press], 1950, rpt. 1974), 236-38.28

“Pentecost Has Come,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles, CA] 1.1 (September 1906), 1.1.29

T. B. Barratt, “Baptized in New York,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles, CA] 1.4 (December 1906), 3.2. Barratt called it “the full Bible evidence,—the gift of tongues.”30

“The Baptism with the Holy Ghost,” The Apostolic Faith[Los Angeles, CA] 1.11 (October-January 1908), 4.1; “Salvation of Jesus,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles, CA] 1.12 (January 1908), 4.4; “The Baptism of the Holy Ghost,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles, CA] 2.13 (May 1908), 3.1.31

Mrs. W. H. Piper, “‘He Shall Baptize You,’ Matt. 3:11,” The Apostolic Faith1.10 (September 1907), 4.1.

176

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 177

An Emerging Magisterium

and use, and came to distinguish between tongues as evidence of baptism in the Spirit and tongues as a gift of the Holy Spirit.32 Within this same basic time period, many within the Assemblies of God also continued to debate the issue of what role speaking in tongues played and how it was to be understood.

While the Azusa Street Mission clearly accepted speaking in tongues as the “Bible evidence” of baptism in the Spirit, when the editor responded to the direct question, “What is the real evidence that a man or woman has received the baptism with the Holy Ghost?” the response was signiﬁcant: “Divine love, which is charity.” The editor continued: “this is the real Bible evidence in their daily walk and conversation; and the outward man- ifestations: speaking in tongues and the signs following.”33 Tongues were not enough; the fruit of the Spirit were also essential. E. N. Bell would echo this thought in his own magazine in late 1913. “Put these fruits on one side without tongues in any man today, and the tongues on the other side without these fruits and I will take the side as regenerated without the tongues every time.”34 What all of this indicates is that there were many possibilities and a range of opinions that various Pentecostal believers held regarding the relationship between speaking in tongues and baptism in the Spirit, how it was to function, and how it was to be described.

If the discussion regarding the relationship between baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues was ﬂuid, so was the language that early Pentecostals used to describe their experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Many understood that if a person had not spoken in tongues, s/he had not received the baptism in the Spirit. Others were not so dogmatic on the issue of timing. While answering the question “Is it necessary to have hands laid on in order to receive the Holy Ghost?”— to which the editor of The Apostolic Faith responded, “No”—the editor went on to note,

“Two Works of Grace and the Gift of the Holy Ghost,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles, CA] 1.1 (September 1906), 3.2; “Sanctiﬁed before Pentecost,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles, CA] 1.4 (December 1906), 2.3-4; cf. Carothers, The Baptism with the Holy Ghost and the Speaking in Tongues, 20.33

“Questions Answered,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles, CA] 1.11 (October to January 1908), 2.1.34

E. N. Bell, “New Birth and Baptism with the Spirit,” Word and Witness (November 20, 1913), 2. I owe my knowledge of this citation to my doctoral student Mr. Allen Tennison.

177

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 178

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

The baptism of the Spirit is a gift of power on the sanctiﬁed life, and when people receive it, sooner or later they will speak in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. A person may not speak in tongues for a week after the baptism, but as soon as he gets to praying or praising God in the liberty of the Spirit, the tongues will follow. Tongues are not salvation. It is a gift that God throws in with the baptism with the Holy Spirit.35

The question of whether one spoke in tongues or not when he or she was baptized in the Spirit was not being asked. It was anticipated that they would. It was merely the question of when one spoke with tongues in rela- tion to the baptism in the Spirit that was at stake here. At the Azusa Street Mission, at least, it was clear that some spoke in tongues immediately after they had received the baptism in the Spirit, while others did not. Their expression of tongues would come later.

It should not be surprising, then, that when the Assemblies of God came into existence, there would continue to be a difference of opinion or under- standing on the nature of tongues as well as the precise language that would come to be used to describe any evidences of baptism in the Spirit. Take, for instance, the example that may be found in the pages of The Christian Evangel, the predecessor to The Pentecostal Evangel, the ofﬁcial magazine of the Assemblies of God. In a column of “Questions and Answers” that ran June 1, 1918, written by E. N. Bell, Chairman of the Assemblies of God, the question was asked, “I have been wonderfully blessed and feel the Spirit within and feel that I have the baptism, but have not yet spoken in tongues. Have I the baptism as yet?” Bell’s response was both diplomatic and tolerant.

God knows them that are His, but we do not always know even this. So with the baptism, no man is authorized to answer certainly for others. After God, you are the one most interested. In cases similar to yours some testify the Spirit came and stayed continuously until a day, three days or three weeks after they broke out speaking in tongues. I see no reason to doubt such tes- timony. But in other cases where they thought they had Him, His presence disappeared and they seemed just the same as before their blessing. I advise against grieving the Spirit by denying His presence when you feel it, rather rejoice, believe, praise and bless God for it. But I also advise against stop- ping short of God’s sign, against being so easily satisﬁed. With praise press on for the fullness.36

“Questions Answered,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles, CA] 1.11 (October- January 1908), 2.2.36

“Questions and Answers,” The Christian Evangel (June 1, 1918), 9, Question 414. Italics mine.

178

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 179

An Emerging Magisterium

Such a position provided a certain amount of leeway regarding one’s personal experience, but it also held out for what Bell believed to be the fullness. This position was in keeping with that taken by W. Bernard, who had written in response to the question, “Has anyone who has not spoken in tongues been baptized?” “I do not feel that we can say they have not. It is safe, however, to say that they had not had the baptism on scriptural or apostolic lines…. There are other manifestations in the Pentecostal move- ment which may also be termed “Bible evidence of the baptism of the Spirit.”37 Scriptural or apostolic fullness undoubtedly included the ability to speak in other tongues.

The caveat that “the phraseology” that would come to be employed in the Statement of Fundamental Truths “is not inspired or contended for” which still presages what follows in the Statement of Fundamental Truths, is consistent with this ﬂuidity.38 What is equally clear, however, is that up until late 1918, the Assemblies of God was willing to tolerate ambiguity on the subject and it could still do so because it did not believe that the Statement of Fundamental Truths was part of the Tradition. With the adop- tion of the Statement of Fundamental Truths, however, the Assemblies of God had begun to close the door on differences of opinion. The beginnings of the Tradition had now emerged, and they did so with respect to baptism in the Spirit and tongues. These doctrines became Articles 5 and 6 in the Statement of Fundamental Truths that was adopted in 1916. These doc- trines in their original form read as follows:

5. The Promise of the Father

All believers are entitled to, and should ardently expect, and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Ghost and ﬁre, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian Church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry. Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4; 1:8; 1 Cor. 12.1-31.

W. Bernard, “The Gift of Tongues and the Pentecostal Movement,” The Weekly Evangel (June 3, 1916), 4. I owe my knowledge of this citation to my doctoral student Mr. Allen Tennison.38

Constitution of the General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America and Selected Territories, Article V, Statement of Fundamental Truths, in the Minutes of the 48th Session of The General Council of the Assemblies of God Convened at Orlando, Florida, August 10-13, 1999, with Revised Constitution and Bylaws (Springﬁeld, MO: General Secretary’s Ofﬁce, 1999), 89.

179

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 180

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

6. The Full Consummation of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost

The full consummation of the baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost and ﬁre is indicated by the initial sign of speaking in tongues, as the Spirit of God gives utterance. Acts 2:4. This wonderful experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth. Acts 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:8, 9.39

In the Minutes of the General Council published following the Council of September 9-14, 1917, a correction was noted. It was given under the caption “Initial, Physical Sign of the Baptism.”

By an oversight last year the word “physical” got left out before the word

“sign” in reference to tongues as the initial physical sign of the Baptism with

the Holy Ghost. Therefore this section in the Fundamentals was corrected by

resolution to read as follows:

‘The full consummation of the baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost

[and ﬁre] is indicated by the initial physical sign of speaking with other

tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance (Acts 2:4). This wonder-

ful experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new

birth, Acts 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:7-9. It is also distinct from the gift of

tongues 1 Cor. 12:4-10, 28’.40

Even if we allow for the insertion of the word physical in 1917 to cor- rect an alleged oversight made when the Minutes of the previous year were published, it is clear from the other changes made to the statement that the nature of this evidence was not settled in all minds. The Council tinkered with several parts of Article 6, and for the ﬁrst time a note was made that distinguished between the gift of tongues and the tongues that evidenced baptism in the Spirit. The Minutes went on to note, “The above was passed with only three or four dissenting votes.”41 While W. T. Gaston, an Executive Presbyter, may have cast one of those dissenting votes at the

These paragraphs were published as part of “A Statement of Fundamental Truths Approved by the General Council of the Assemblies of God (October 2-7, 1916)” in the Minutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America, Canada and Foreign Lands held at Bethel Chapel, St. Louis, MO. October 1-7th, 1916 (St. Louis, MO: n.p., 1916) 10-11. The paragraphs are the original numbers used in this statement.40

Minutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America, Canada, and Foreign Lands held at Bethel Chapel, St. Louis, MO. Sept. 9th to 14th, 1917 (St. Louis, MO: General Council Ofﬁce, n.d.), 21. The bold print is mine and is intended to indicate changes in or additions to the text of the previous year. The words “[and ﬁre]” were deleted from the new edition.41

Minutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God (1917), 21.

180

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 181

An Emerging Magisterium

time, another of those dissenting voices was surely F. F. Bosworth, also an Executive Presbyter of the Assemblies of God. It was his challenge to this doctrine that became the impetus toward further development of the received Tradition.

The Challenge of F. F. Bosworth

Fred Francis Bosworth was an early convert to John Alexander Dowie’s Christian Catholic Church in Zion, Illinois.42 When Charles F. Parham vis- ited the city in September 1906, Bosworth listened to him and received the baptism in the Holy Spirit that same evening. Because the leaders of Zion City were opposed to such things, Bosworth soon left Zion City and moved to Dallas, Texas. There he pioneered a church and for many years he led a vital Pentecostal ministry. When in April 1914 a meeting was held in Hot Springs, Arkansas and the Assemblies of God was born, Bosworth was present as a delegate. Seven months later, in the November 1914 General Council, he was elected to serve on the Executive Presbytery of this new Fellowship. But Bosworth still had questions about the relation- ship between the baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues, and although he was an Executive Presbyter, he regularly voiced his questions.

The arguments that Bosworth used have been preserved for us in an open letter he ultimately issued in 1920 “to the ministers and saints of the Pentecostal Movement.” It was published in the form of a tract titled “Do All Speak with Tongues?”43 His title was taken from 1 Corinthians 12:30, in which the apostle Paul obviously expected those to whom he wrote, to respond to this question in the negative. Bosworth would argue that Paul’s anticipated response suggested that the Assemblies of God was too rigid on the expectation that all would speak in tongues when they were baptized in the Spirit. Bosworth’s friend and fellow Executive Presbyter, Warren Faye Carothers, answered this question differently. Carothers argued that not all received the gift of tongues mentioned in 1 Corinthians

For an overview of Bosworth’s life see Eunice M. Perkins, Fred Francis Bosworth (The Joybringer) Second Edition and Continued Story of Joybringer Bosworth: His Life Story (Detroit, MI: Eunice M. Perkins, 1921, 1927). The period of his life with the Assem- blies of God is covered in pp. 39-61, although the Assemblies of God is never mentioned by name.43

F. F. Bosworth, Do All Speak with Tongues? 1 Corinthians 12:30: An Open letter to the Ministers and Saints of the Pentecostal Movement (Dayton, OH: John J. Scruby, n.d.).

181

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 182

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

12, but all who received baptism in the Spirit as described in the Acts of the Apostles would speak in tongues as the evidence of that experience. In Carothers’ mind, the gift and the evidence were not the same thing. They might look and sound the same, for they were the same in essence. But their purposes and usages were different.44

Bosworth did not accept Carothers’ argument. He didn’t like the fact that the same language, indeed, the same word (gl≈ssa) was being used to describe two phenomena, the evidence and the gift. Surely, Scripture was not as confusing as Carothers made it sound with his theory. The uniniti- ated observer, even the basic Bible reader, would not be able to distinguish between the nuances that Carothers posited. Bosworth was, therefore, unwilling to differentiate between these two manifestations. But there was more to Bosworth’s critique. He viewed Carothers’ position as supporting a fundamental error. “The error to which I refer,” he wrote,

is the doctrine held by so many, that the baptism in the Spirit is in every

instance evidenced by the initial physical sign of speaking in other tongues

as the Spirit gives utterance, Acts 2:4, and that this is not the gift of tongues,

referred to in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. 12.45

For Bosworth, the issue was not speciﬁcally the issue of timing; the issue was whether or not everyone who was baptized in the Spirit spoke in tongues. The issue was not speciﬁcally whether or not the gift of tongues was an evidence of baptism in the Spirit; Bosworth believed that for many, it was. The issue was whether or not it was the only evidence that one was baptized in the Spirit, a position that most Assemblies of God leaders assumed to be the case. For Bosworth, it was the inherently sectarian char- acter of this claim without clear and convincing biblical support that trou- bled him most deeply. Second to the Bible was his experience of watching the hundreds, even thousands who claimed, even under his own Pentecostal ministry, to have received the baptism in the Spirit. He was overwhelmed by the shallowness of so many who claimed to have received baptism in the Spirit with the “Bible evidence,” yet, he observed, they evidenced no fruit of the Spirit or spiritual growth in their lives. These practical realities made him nervous about the dogmatic position his col- leagues in the Assemblies of God had adopted.

Carothers, The Baptism with the Holy Ghost and the Speaking in Tongues, 20.45

Bosworth, “Do All Speak with Tongues?” 5. Italics are mine.

182

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 183

An Emerging Magisterium

After a decade of ministry in the Pentecostal Movement, Bosworth ﬁnally concluded that many who spoke in tongues had never been baptized in the Spirit in spite of their claims, and many who, he contended, had been baptized in the Spirit, such as Charles G. Finney and John Wesley, had never spoken in tongues. Because he believed that W. F. Carothers’ dis- tinction between the two phenomenologically identical yet allegedly dis- tinguishable forms of speaking in tongues had no scriptural support, he would no longer support the doctrine as it had been articulated by the Fellowship in which he was an Executive Presbyter. Needless to say, Bosworth’s questions did not sit well with other leaders in the Assemblies of God.

During the years 1916 through 1918, Bosworth’s position, which ran counter to that commonly held by most within the Fellowship, led increas- ingly to public debate. Some joined his cause, while others opposed him. During this period, The Weekly Evangel, later named The Christian Evangel, called upon several of the better-known ministers of the Assemblies of God as well as some well-known outside voices to buttress the ofﬁcial position of the Fellowship by writing speciﬁcally on this subject.46

While Bosworth made his position known, he was careful not to divide the Fellowship. That was not his desire. He was asking the question of whether the Assemblies of God had adopted the “Tradition” or whether they had voted for a human “tradition.” The debate would ultimately come to the ﬂoor of the General Council of the Assemblies of God in September 1918. Two months earlier, in July 1918, Bosworth, perhaps sensing the

B. F. Lawrence, “The Gift of Tongues and the Pentecostal Movement,” The Weekly Evangel (June 6, 1916), 4-6; “The Baptism of the Holy Ghost: The Greatest Need before the Rapture,” The Weekly Evangel (February 3, 1917), 3; G. R. Polman, “As the Spirit Gave Them Utterance,” The Weekly Evangel (February 24, 1917), 5-6; Stanley H. Frodsham, “The Latter Rain,” The Weekly Evangel (February 24, 1917), 8-9; Burt McCafferty, “The Time of the Latter Rain,” The Weekly Evangel (May 5, 1917), 4-5; W. W. Simpson, “The Baptism in the Spirit—A Defense,” The Weekly Evangel (July 14, 1917), 2-2-6; Elizabeth Sisson, “Acts—Two—Four—Past and Present,” The Weekly Evangel (December 1, 1917), 2-3; B. F. Lawrence, “The Baptism in the Holy Spirit the Will of God for Every Believer,” The Weekly Evangel (January 12, 1918), 4-5; F. F. Bosworth, “The Will of God Boiled Down into Five Words, ‘Be Filled with the Spirit,’” The Weekly Evangel (March 2, 1918), 1; W. H. Pope, “Why I Believe All Who Receive the Full Baptism Will Speak in Other Tongues,” The Christian Evangel (June 13, 1918), 6-7; Wm. H. Durham, “What Is the Evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost?” The Christian Evangel (August 10, 1918), 2-3; D. W. Kerr, “Paul’s Interpretation of the Baptism in Holy Spirit [Part 1],” The Christian Evangel (August 24, 1918), 6.

183

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 184

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

direction the Fellowship would take, tendered his resignation. Still, when the Council met in September, Bosworth was present and he was invited by the Chair to address the issue. He argued that the experiences of such people as Charles G. Finney, James Brainard Taylor, John Wesley, and George Whiteﬁeld were just as valid as the experiences of those who spoke in tongues. D. W. Kerr countered with the argument that if their experi- ences didn’t measure up to the experience of those in the Bible, they were essentially worthless to the debate.47

The Council debated the issue on Saturday afternoon, September 7, 1918. The Minutes record the following account of the debate.

The afternoon session was taken up with an animated discussion on the importance of a united stand in the ministry on the truth that the full con- summation of the baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost is invariably accompanied with the initial, physical sign of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit of God gives utterance (Acts 2:4).

Brothers R. A. Brown, Joseph Tunmore, J. T. Boddy, D. W. Kerr, T. K. Leonard, W. H. Pope, J. Rosselli, F. F. Bosworth, W. T. Gaston, and many others took part, and there was the utmost enthusiasm as message after mes- sage went forth in defense of what has always been considered the distinc- tive testimony of the Pentecostal people.

RESOLVED, That this Council considers it a serious disagreement with the Fundamentals for any minister among us to teach contrary to the dis- tinctive testimony that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is regularly accompa- nied by the initial physical sign of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit of God gives the utterance, and that we consider it inconsistent and unscrip- tural for any minister to hold credentials with us when they attack as error our distinctive testimony.48

Bosworth’s position that Article 6 was essentially a human “tradition” was ultimately defeated, yet it is a mark of his integrity that he left the Assemblies of God without incident once the vote had been tallied. It is

Carl Brumback, Suddenly… from Heaven: A History of the Assemblies of God (Springﬁeld, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1961), 222.48

Minutes of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America, Canada, and Foreign Lands held at Springﬁeld, Missouri Sept. 4-11, 1918 (Springﬁeld, MO: The Gospel Publishing House, n.d.), 7-8. The Combined Minutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God (no city: n.p., n.d.), 21, lists this last paragraph, with minor alterations, under the title “Our Distinctive Testimony.” The Minutes to the 1921 General Council found in the same volume, 66, notes that the Executive Presbytery had been authorized to edit, correct, and publish the minutes of the Council. Apparently, the changes were made by these brethren.

184

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 185

An Emerging Magisterium

worth noting, however, that the resolution adopted in 1918 only main- tained that the baptism in the Spirit was “regularly accompanied” by the initial, physical sign of speaking in tongues as the Spirit of God gives utterance. According to this wording, was it not possible for one to have an “irregular” experience of baptism in the Spirit? Was it not possible for one to have a “partial consummation” of the baptism, that is, without speaking in tongues, but for one to be able to claim that she or he had the baptism in the Spirit nonetheless? This action said nothing about the timing of such a manifestation, nor did it insist that it was the only evidence of the baptism. It made it clear that the anticipated and regularly appearing physical expression of having received the baptism in the Spirit would be that one would speak in tongues. Was it possible, then, that there were other, nonphysical evidences as well? In the end, the position adopted here was an argument that was based upon a particular interpretation of Scripture as well as the experience of the many. That interpretation became the Tradition.

In spite of this ruling, the Assemblies of God still appeared to tolerate differences of opinion that made it possible for pastors and congregations who were sympathetic to Bosworth to stay. The one thing they could not do was to attack the doctrine as an “error” like Bosworth had done. Despite their differences, many Assemblies of God ministers continued to embrace Bosworth’s ministry in subsequent years, and in spite of the fact that he withdrew from the Fellowship they maintained a cooperative relationship with him and his subsequent healing crusades.

While the primary debate had been completed that Saturday afternoon, there must have been a considerable residue of anxiety in the crowd, because the issue continued as a subject of discussion. D. W. Kerr preached the next morning, Sunday, September 8, and his sermon was described as a “truly Pentecostal message on our Distinctive Testimony.” Still, Kerr’s sermon did not end discussion around the edges of the Council. On Tuesday, September 10, two days later, another resolution was debated and ultimately passed. It contained the following language:

Whereas our distinctive testimony, expressed in the Fundamentals as to the speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance being the sign of the bap- tism with the Spirit, has recently been seriously called in question and char- acterized as error, therefore be it

RESOLVED, That we hereby most heartily reassert our position on all the fundamentals, and especially on the point that the speaking in tongues as the Spirit of God gives the utterance is the initial physical sign of the full

185

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 186

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

consummation of the baptism with the Holy Spirit, as herein revised, which revision was adopted by the Council.49

While the Council saw it necessary to strengthen the role of the ‘Funda- mentals’ at this juncture, it also reconsidered Article 6 again and made fur- ther changes to its wording. The result was:

The full consummation of the baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost is indi- cated by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance. Acts 2:4. This wonderful experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth Acts 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:7-9. The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues; 1 Cor. 12:4-10, 28, but different in purpose and use.50

The changes made to Article 6 at this time are clear evidence of the intervention of Executive Presbyter W. F. Carothers, for it is he who as early as 1906 had ﬁrst posited such a distinction in these terms. His posi- tion had won the day.51

The Testimony of J. Roswell Flower

The fact that Bosworth’s position had been defeated, and that the Assemblies of God worked well into the 1920s to consolidate its theolog- ical position through continued publication of articles on the relationship between baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues in The Christian Evangel, subsequently renamed The Pentecostal Evangel,52 might lead one to believe that all toleration of differences was now a thing of the past. But

Minutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God 1918, 10.50

Ibid. The bold print is mine and is intended to indicate changes from the text of the previous year.51

Carothers, The Baptism with the Holy Ghost and the Speaking in Tongues, 20.52

D. W. Kerr, “Do All Speak in Tongues?” The Christian Evangel (January 22, 1919), 7; W. T. Gaston, “The New Birth and Baptism in the Holy Ghost [Part 1],” The Christian Evangel (June 28, 1919), 1-2; W. T. Gaston, “The New Birth and Baptism in the Holy Ghost [Part 2],” The Christian Evangel (July 12, 1919), 1-2, 9; W. T. Gaston, “The Baptism of the Holy Ghost: A Word of Exhortation,” The Christian Evangel (August 9, 1919), 5; W. T. Gaston, “The Baptism of the Holy Ghost According to Acts 2:4: Some Objections Answered,” The Christian Evangel (August 23, 1919), 3; Thomas Atterberry, “They Shall Speak with New Tongues,” The Pentecostal Evangel (December 27, 1919), 2-3; Stanley H. Frodsham, “Our Distinctive Testimony,” The Pentecostal Evangel (December 27, 1919), 8-9; Salis Boulis, “In Defense of the Truth,” The Pentecostal Evangel (December 27, 1919), 10-11.

186

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 187

An Emerging Magisterium

this was clearly not the case. In January 1933, The Pentecostal Evangel published the testimony of J. Roswell Flower, General Secretary of the Assemblies of God. He told The Pentecostal Evangel’s readers that during the spring of 1907, a preacher whom we now know to have been Glenn Cook, an evangelist that had come from the Azusa Street Mission in Los Angeles, held meetings in Flower’s town of Indianapolis.53 It was in Cook’s meetings that Flower was converted, and within days, Flower had received an experience that Cook identiﬁed for him as sanctiﬁcation. While Flower would later interpret this experience as “the witness of the Spirit” to his salvation, from that time on he began to seek for his baptism in the Spirit.54

Flower’s quest would take months. During that time he traveled to a Faith Home operated in St. Louis, Missouri by two women, where he con- tinued daily to seek God for baptism in the Spirit. He was very speciﬁc about the intensity of the struggle he underwent during his spiritual quest for the baptism while he was in St. Louis. He read his Bible, he entered into daily worship, and he prayed alone for many hours. During this period he focused his attention on various biblical promises such as He- brews 10:36-37, Acts 1:5, and Luke 11:13. But nothing seemed to happen.

According to his published testimony, one morning while he was alone and waiting on God, he became conscious that he and God were traveling down parallel paths that would never intersect. Something had to change if he were ever going to receive the baptism. He wrote:

Then it came to me that my prayers must be mixed with faith. I had stepped out on the promises of God when I was saved, independent of feeling; I had dared to take a step of faith as I had been instructed to do, when seeking for sanctiﬁcation, but I was making a distinction between these former experi- ences and the Baptism in the Holy Ghost. Evidently I was seeking for a man- ifestation and refusing to believe God until after the manifestation was received. This was obviously all wrong.55

Flower’s reasoning is very signiﬁcant here. His personal concern was to manifest the ability to speak in tongues. His realization was that he was

Indianapolis newspapers provided almost daily coverage of Cook’s meetings in the city during this period.54

J. Roswell Flower, “How I Received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit [Part 1],” The Pentecostal Evangel (January 21, 1933), 2-3.55

J. Roswell Flower, “How I Received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit [Part 2],” The Pentecostal Evangel (January 28, 1933), 6.

187

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 188

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

missing the reality of the baptism in the Spirit precisely because he was being sidetracked by his quest for the manifestation that was said to be the evidence of that baptism. He determined to refocus his quest.

It should be remembered that Flower was training to be a lawyer, and his argument is very logical, very methodical. He began to think of other parallels in his experience from which he could draw, parallels that would help him come to terms with his own current inadequacy in reaching his goal. The parallels he saw came from classic holiness teaching. They had to do with what is known as “the double cure for the double curse,” a doc- trine based upon Isaiah 53:5.56To its Holiness proponents, “the double cure for the double curse” doctrine meant that both the salvation of the soul and the healing of the body were wrapped up in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ at the time of his cruciﬁxion.

The advice given by many Holiness evangelists was that one didn’t need to “feel” as if he or she had been saved. Such feelings were unneces- sary. The convert needed only to trust God, and accept in faith, the reality of the salvation that Isaiah 53:5 had already promised and delivered. Their faith in the saving work of Christ had already saved them. This same line of reasoning was also given frequently in healing services to those who had asked for prayer. They were told that even if they didn’t feel healed, even if they saw no immediate results, they needed to remember that Christ had already accomplished their healing, for “by His stripes we are healed.” Flower concluded that the same logic applied in his quest for the baptism in the Spirit. All he had to do was to praise God and, in faith, thank God for what he had already received. If the argumentation didn’t hold up here, it couldn’t be used for salvation or healing either.

As Flower struggled with his doubts, he concluded that he would act upon that truth from that time forward. In fact, he claimed that he told the Lord that he had done everything that was expected of him and it was now within his “rights” to receive this gift. Flower testiﬁed that he stood up, turned 180 degrees, and knelt down again in an act of what scholars might describe as a “symbolic action,” an act that demonstrated from that moment he had, in faith, already received the baptism in the Spirit.57 There

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” This quota- tion is from the Authorized Version.57

Flower, “How I Received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit [Part 2],” 6.

188

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 189

An Emerging Magisterium

would be no more pleading so far as Flower was concerned, and for the remainder of the morning he said he “sat on the ﬂoor in the corner and praised the Lord for the baptism in the Holy Ghost, having been received.” When others confronted him at lunch about whether he had received the baptism and noted that he even looked different, he responded, in his words, “with a hearty ‘Yes!’”

While Flower was unshakably convinced that he had received the bap- tism in the Holy Spirit, others at the Faith Home were not in the least con- vinced that he had received the baptism. Later that day a young man asked to lay hands upon Flower, and after some inner struggle, Flower agreed to submit himself to this young man’s wishes. The result was another spirit- ual experience, but this time it came in the form of joy and laughter. “How long this continued, I do not know,” he wrote, “all I do know is that when I arose to my feet, it was after midnight. Still I had not spoken in tongues.”58

The next day, Flower left to take a job in Kansas City. Once again, he wrote, “to all who questioned me, I afﬁrmed positively that I had received the baptism. In spite of the fact that I had not spoken in tongues my testi- mony was accepted. There were evidences of the Holy Spirit in my life.”59 He spent part of the summer in Kansas City, then spent two months in Lincoln, Nebraska before returning to Indianapolis. His comment at the time of his return to Indianapolis was still the same. He still contended that he had already received baptism in the Spirit, but “I had not spoken in tongues.”

Following his return to Indianapolis, he entered into what he called “a Pentecostal ministry.” He preached. People were saved. Others were ﬁlled with the Spirit. He even described an incident in which he cast out “evil spirits” from an epileptic woman. In spite of all this activity, he continued to assert that while he had received the baptism in the Spirit, he had never received “the initial physical evidence of the Baptism, the speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.”60

It was only following the incident in which he cast out evil spirits from the epileptic woman that someone else claimed that they had heard him speak in other tongues at the time he cast the spirits out. When others suggested that they had heard him as well, Flower wrote, “This gave me

Ibid.59

Ibid., 7.60

Ibid.

189

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 190

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

some satisfaction, but my assurance of faith continued just as strong as ever. I had not yet heard myself speaking in other tongues.”61 It was not until he held a camp meeting on the outskirts of Indianapolis in July 1910 that Flower ﬁnally heard himself speak in tongues. When it happened, it came without fanfare, easily and naturally, while he interceded for a young woman.

Flower’s testimony concerning his experience of the baptism in the Spirit is indisputable. He had told God that he wanted the baptism. He had accepted the fact that by faith he had received the baptism when he went through the symbolic action of getting to his feet, turning 180 degrees, then kneeling again. When confronted by others who were skeptical of his experience precisely because he had not yet spoken in tongues, he told them without any hesitation on his part that he had already received the baptism in the Spirit. Flower claimed that, because his life showed other evidences of the Spirit’s presence and power, many were ultimately con- vinced, as he was, that he had received the baptism in the Spirit in spite of the fact that he had not yet spoken in tongues.

Such a testimony is problematic to anyone who holds to a dogmatic position regarding the necessity for all who receive the baptism in the Spirit to manifest speaking in tongues at the instant that they receive it. For J. Roswell Flower, it posed no problem at all. He wasn’t developing doc- trine here; he was relating his personal story. In fact, Flower twice goes out of his way to say that he seldom shared his personal testimony. His reasons for not often sharing his testimony had nothing to do with the fact that he did not believe the doctrine he had agreed to uphold as a minister of the Assemblies of God any more than he doubted the reality of what had hap- pened to him. He was convinced that his experience was genuine and valid. The reasons he gave for why he normally did not share his testi- mony, however, are very signiﬁcant First, he said, “Some may misunder- stand the way that the Lord led me.” He went on to explain that he had in mind here those who might be content never to expect the manifestation of tongues and/or those who stopped expecting the evidence once they believed they had received the baptism. For Flower, that would be an un- acceptable conclusion to draw from his testimony, especially given the position the Assemblies of God had adopted.

Ibid.

190

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 191

An Emerging Magisterium

Flower’s second reason was even more telling. As a leader in the Assemblies of God, he was fully cognizant that the Assemblies of God had adopted a theory on baptism in the Holy Spirit by which they believed the Holy Spirit would regularly act. What was difﬁcult for him in light of these words was the fact that many assumed that the Holy Spirit always and inevitably acted this way. And their assumption, which they believed to be based upon the Bible, did not comport with J. Roswell Flower’s personal experience. They had concluded that a testimony such as his was unac- ceptable. They would dismiss the legitimacy of anyone’s claim to be bap- tized in the Spirit before she or he spoke in tongues. They would deny the possibility that Flower could have experienced the baptism the way he believed and testiﬁed that he had. Just as his friends in St. Louis had done to him many years before, he knew that those who made decisions within the Assemblies of God would reject or at least seek to reinterpret his testi- mony in order to make it compatible with the position they had adopted.

On the one hand, Flower’s concern was pastoral. He didn’t want to expose others to the awkward questioning of those who were unwilling to accept the genuineness of their testimony regarding their experience of baptism in the Spirit. This pastoral concern should not be taken lightly. My own experience of coming to faith differs substantially from the norm. Having been reared in an Assemblies of God home by parents who were ministers of the Gospel, I cannot remember a time when I didn’t believe. Yet, when I was licensed to preach, I remember well the grilling I received regarding my “conversion” experience. Those who pressed me on the sub- ject wanted to hear me testify to a conversion experience based upon some clear crisis or encounter. It never happened that way with me, and that left some with grave questions about my faith. I, on the other hand, saw no rea- son to deny my experience as the result of what conceivably might be understood as the logical outcome of good Christian nurture.

Flower also had a pragmatic reason for not sharing his testimony. Why raise unnecessary questions by telling his story? The less he said about his own experience, he thought, the better it was for everyone. As a result, Flower had chosen to remain silent on this issue instead of telling others of his experience. Flower’s honesty regarding his experience is extremely rare, and his pastoral concern is to be admired. The fact that Stanley H. Frodsham, editor of The Pentecostal Evangel, published his testimony at all, and this without revision or apparent embarrassment, is a testimony to his integrity as well.

191

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 192

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

Nearly twenty years later, this same article was published again in The Pentecostal Evangel.62 Once again, the testimony was published in its orig- inal form. It would be fascinating to know why Robert C. Cunningham, then the editor of The Pentecostal Evangel, chose it for republication, given the problems it could raise. It would also be interesting to know what conversations may have gone on between Flower and Cunningham that led to four additional paragraphs. What is interesting in the republication of this testimony in The Pentecostal Evangel is that Flower did not take the opportunity to deny what he had said earlier, nor did he rewrite his testi- mony so that it would coincide with the accepted language of Assemblies of God doctrine. He simply appended four short paragraphs at the end of the article.

In those paragraphs, Flower reported that since the publication of his testimony in 1933, he had been conﬁrmed many times in his conviction that “the Holy Spirit in His fullness should be received by faith, and that one cannot enter into a vital spirit of tarrying until he has taken the step of faith.” Christ’s promise would be fulﬁlled through a two-step process. “The ﬁrst step was that of faith in the promise: the act of receiving by faith. The second step was to tarry, yield, praise, worship—waiting before God in conﬁdence that His promise would be fulﬁlled.”63 While he did not deny his experience, and he did not rewrite his testimony, he did attempt to ﬁnesse its acceptance by re-interpreting it in light of what had become the acceptable “Tradition.” It is signiﬁcant to note that even in his appended paragraphs, Flower never said when it is appropriate to speak in tongues.

Five years later, on June 2, 1957, Dorothy Skoog wrote an article titled “Soldier of Faith.” It was based upon Flower’s previously published testi- mony. Her article appeared in Live, the adult Sunday School paper distrib- uted throughout the Assemblies of God to all who subscribed to the standard Sunday School curriculum published by the Gospel Publishing House. She recounted Flower’s realization that he and God seemed to be traveling in parallel channels, and that he was seeking for a manifestation and refusing to believe until the manifestation was received. Finally, he cried, “I do believe”

J. Roswell Flower, “How I Received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit [Part 1],” The Pentecostal Evangel (September 7, 1952), 5–7; J. Roswell Flower, “How I Received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit [Part 2],” The Pentecostal Evangel (September 14, 1952), 5, 12–13.63

Flower, “How I Received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit [Part 2],” The Pentecostal Evangel (September 14, 1952), 13.

192

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 193

An Emerging Magisterium

and in that moment bridged the space with faith. That night, after spending most of the day in praise and worship, the power of God fell and surged through Roswell Flower’s being, from the top of his head out through his feet, “like rivers of water.”

Skoog continued to set forth Flower’s testimony in a manner consistent with his own words, and ﬁnally summarized his reception of tongues in the following words: “The delayed evidence came months later,” she wrote, “so naturally and unexpectedly as not to be recognized by himself at ﬁrst, but clearly evident to others standing nearby.”64

The Testimony of Donald Gee

Donald Gee was a contemporary of J. Roswell Flower, although he lived and ministered as part of the Assemblies of God in Great Britain. Like J. Roswell Flower, however, his ministry was an international one, and many of his articles and books were published repeatedly in the United States by the Gospel Publishing House and in The Pentecostal Evangel. As with J. Roswell Flower, so with Donald Gee it is safe to say that his min- istry was widely recognized and afﬁrmed by the Assemblies of God in the United States.

In 1932, the Gospel Publishing House published Donald Gee’s book, Pentecost. It began with what he described as “My Personal Testimony to Pentecost.”65 In this account, Gee notes that he was converted in October 1905 in a Congregational Church in North London when Seth Joshua, one of the preachers used within the Welsh Revival conducted special meetings at the church. From 1905 through 1912, Gee became an active member of that congregation, immersing himself deeply into its ongoing life, espe- cially the social side of things.

During a communion service in early 1912, he became aware of how lightly he was participating in such a profound act, and he began to pon- der his spiritual condition. When his mother was baptized in a Baptist church about that same time, he followed her and was baptized there in February 1912. Even after he had been baptized, he struggled with what it

The quotations are from Dorothy Skoog, “Soldier of Faith,” Live (June 2, 1957), 2. The article continued through page 4. Italics are mine. This is the ﬁrst known instance that the term “delayed evidence” was used to describe the time difference between Flower’s actual baptism in the Spirit and his experience of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gave utterance.65

Donald Gee, Pentecost (Springﬁeld, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1932), 3-10.

193

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 194

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

all meant. Ultimately he came to peace over the issue of his salvation by “standing in faith upon Rom. 6:4.”66

That spring, Donald Gee’s mother was introduced to a missionary who had recently returned from Pandita Ramabai’s mission in Mukti, India. Her testimony of what God had done in her life as a result of her baptism in the Holy Spirit troubled Gee, but by the summer of 1912 he could be found attending a Pentecostal service. It was in that service that Gee ﬁrst heard someone speak in tongues, and he was convinced immediately that it was a genuine “Scriptural manifestation.”67 By the end of the year, Gee’s mother was attending Pentecostal meetings regularly, but Gee had begun to shun them out of fear.

In January 1913, Gee attended a meeting with his mother at 73 Highbury, New Park, London. When it concluded, he could not wait to return. “Though now fully convinced of the truth of the Pentecostal testi- mony, and thoroughly enjoying the meetings,” he wrote, “I made no imme- diate attempt to seek the Baptism of the Holy Spirit for myself.”68 In a Wednesday evening service during March 1913, the man who had been conducting the meetings confronted Gee, asking him why he had not yet been baptized in the Spirit. Donald Gee responded that he did not wish to participate in such long tarrying sessions. The man told him that it was not necessary for him to do so, and he proceeded to read Luke 11:13 and Mark 11:24 to Gee. He then asked Gee if he believed what he had just read to him. Gee responded afﬁrmatively, and later testiﬁed,

As I declared my faith it seemed as if God dropped down into my heart from heaven an absolute assurance that these promises were now being actu- ally fulﬁlled in me. I had no immediate manifestation, but went home supremely happy, having received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit “by faith.” I clearly realized, however, that the experience I had believed God’s Word for involved a Scriptural manifestation of the Spirit as in the book of Acts and so I fully expected this, and had no thought of anything else.

Gee went home, convinced that “God had indeed fulﬁlled His promise in me.” Each time he prayed, he found it more difﬁcult to ﬁnd words that were adequate to express what he was feeling. Once again, in Gee’s words, we have the following testimony:

Ibid., 4.67

Ibid., 6.68

Ibid., 7.

194

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 195

An Emerging Magisterium

This went on for about two weeks, and then one night, when praying all alone by my bedside before retiring, and when once again ﬁnding no English adequate to express the overﬂowing fullness of my soul, I found myself beginning to utter words in a new tongue. I was in a condition of spiritual ecstasy, and taken up wholly with the Lord. For the ﬁrst time I personally tasted the experience referred to in 1 Cor. 14:2.69

Later that same year, Donald Gee preached the Eureka Springs Camp Meeting in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. His sermon, “He Shall Baptize You with the Holy Ghost,” was published by The Pentecostal Evangel the fol- lowing January.70 Taking Mark 1:8 for his text, Gee declared it to be a “a real Pentecostal text!” He then began an exposition of the text that spoke about two baptisms, one in water, the other in the Holy Spirit. About half- way through his sermon Gee told the congregation of his own experience.

In an old Bible at home written on the ﬂy leaf I have two dates; Baptized in water, Feb. 5, 1912; Baptized in the Spirit, March 13, 1913. I do so love to go to our Missionary Rest Home in London. Sometimes we have our mis- sionary councils there, and if the brethren will let me, there is a certain spot where I like to sit. I ask them if I may put my chair on a certain spot in the carpet. I love to sit on that place because it was in that place the Lord bap- tized me in the Holy Ghost and ﬁre. I don’t apologize for making the Baptism of the Spirit as deﬁnite as that.71

In this text, then, Gee reafﬁrmed the fact that he received the baptism in the Spirit at the Missionary Rest Home where the leader of the meetings he was attending had brieﬂy instructed him, and he had accepted the fact that he had already received his baptism in the Spirit. Given what he said about where he ﬁrst spoke in tongues, that is, in his own home when pray- ing alone by his bedside some two weeks later, this testimony can only mean one thing. Gee believed that he had been baptized in the Spirit on March 13, 1913, and on two different occasions he made the claim that it was in the Missionary Rest Home at 73 Highbury, New Park, London. But this was not the place where he initially spoke in tongues, for that was in his own home, at the edge of his bed—two weeks later. The issue is not debatable if Gee’s words are to have any meaning at all.

Both quotations are found in Gee, Pentecost, 8. 1 Corinthians 14:2 is a reference to the “gift” of tongues, according to Assemblies of God doctrine.70

Donald Gee, “He Shall Baptize You with the Holy Ghost,” The Pentecostal Evangel (January 7, 1933), 2-3.71

Ibid., 3.

195

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 196

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

In 1941, Gee once again shared his testimony, this time in his book on The Pentecostal Movement. While the words he used are different, in part because he uses the third person rather than a ﬁrst-person narrative, the details are substantially the same. When the leader of the meeting asked him whether he believed what the man had read from the Scriptures, Gee described his response in the following way:

As the young man answers ‘Yes,’ there comes into his heart a divine cer- tainty of faith from heaven itself that clothes his simple afﬁrmation with far more than just mental assent. He walks home on air, saying to himself, ‘Then I am baptized in the Spirit: no waiting: I have received’.72

In this volume Gee does not make clear to his readers that two weeks elapsed before he spoke with tongues. He merely says “But later, kneeling at his bedside all alone, the praise and worship rise up within him in such an unutterable volume that he ﬁnds himself speaking with another tongue as the Spirit gives him utterance.”73 It is still signiﬁcant to underscore that in Gee’s mind, he spoke in tongues at some moment later than when he believed he had received the baptism in the Spirit.

Consistent with Gee’s personal testimony is the way he assessed what God had done in his life. Like J. Roswell Flower, Gee recognized that his experience did not ﬁt the pattern or norm that so many others had experi- enced when they received the baptism in the Spirit; nevertheless, he didn’t deny it either. As he put it,

All do not receive just that way, as many of the testimonies recorded in this history show, but after over twenty-eight years he still has no fault to ﬁnd with the way the Lord graciously chose in his own case.74

What his reﬂections clearly suggest is that he viewed his own experi- ence to be irregular when placed beside the testimonies of others. The norm may have been to be baptized in the Spirit and speak in tongues immediately. But such was not his personal experience, and after twenty- eight years, he could still not fault God for baptizing him this way. Once again, it is important to recognize that Gee was not developing doctrine in any of his personal testimonials. He was simply giving witness to his expe-

Donald Gee, The Pentecostal Movement: A Short History and an Interpretation for British Readers (London, England: Victory Press, 1941), 91. The italics are original with Gee.73

Ibid., 91.74

Ibid., 91.

196

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 197

An Emerging Magisterium

rience, the way he understood that God had worked in his life. He recog- nized that his narrative did not ﬁt that which was described in the doctrine adopted by the Assemblies of God. But he wasn’t going to deny his per- sonal experience of baptism in the Spirit. According to Gee, God had cho- sen the way it took place, and that way was still good enough.

The Continued Growth of the Tradition

Given the changes that had been made regarding the baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues in the Statement of Fundamental Truths in 1918, the testimonies of Flower and Gee might prove to be anomalies, but subsequent changes in the Tradition regarding speaking in tongues as the initial physical evidence of baptism in the Spirit have led to an unneces- sary distancing from the experiences of these two individuals by some in Assemblies of God leadership. In 1925, work began on the Statement of Fundamental Truths that would ultimately yield further changes. Sections were shifted and renumbered, but the most signiﬁcant change probably came in the form of the title to Section 8 [Formerly Section 6] of the Statement. What had been previously called “The Full Consummation of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost” was retitled “The Evidence of Baptism in the Holy Ghost.” It was adopted at the 1927 General Council.75

In 1959, the year that Thomas Zimmerman was elected General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God, the General Council voted to authorize a “representative and deliberative committee” of “seven men of mature experience whose duty it shall be to study and prepare a thorough and inclusive Statement of Fundamental Beliefs.”76 This action would lead to the ﬁrst major revision of the Statement of Fundamental Truths that the Assemblies of God had experienced. Two observations can be made that suggest the need for this committee. The ﬁrst is found in the recommen- dation itself. It was noted that until 1959, the Statement of Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God did not include “mention of some vital doctrinal terms and beliefs which are fundamental to Assemblies of God

Constitution and By-Laws of the General Council of the Assemblies of God including Essential Resolutions Revised and Adopted September 16-22, 1927 (Springﬁeld, MO: Ofﬁce of the Secretary, 1927), 6-7, 69.76

Minutes of the Twenty-Eighth General Council of the Assemblies of God Convened at San Antonio, Texas August 26-September 1, 1959 (Springﬁeld, MO: Ofﬁce of the Secretary, 1959), 46.

197

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 198

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

doctrine.”77 Clearly, there were oversights that had occurred in all earlier renditions of the Fundamental Truths, one of which was that the Fundamental Truths had made no reference to the Deity of Christ. It was simply assumed that all who were Assemblies of God ministers believed such a doctrine, a fact that was surely the case.

The second reason is unwritten, but in the end it may explain best why the committee was requested at this particular time. Thomas F. Zimmer- man had worked extensively with the National Association of Evangelicals prior to his election as the General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God. Within two years he would also become the Chairman of the National Association of Evangelicals, the ﬁrst Pentecostal to do so. Similarly, he was soon to become Chairman of the Pentecostal World Conference. Furthermore, Zimmerman became General Superintendent at exactly the time that the Charismatic Renewal began to hit the historic churches. It is likely that some within the National Association of Evangelicals, or else- where in Zimmerman’s larger church world, had pointed out to him the clear omission of any reference to the Deity of Christ, just as surely as it is that they suggested he look at the statement on Scripture.

Once again, the doctrine of baptism in the Spirit and its relationship to speaking in tongues was reviewed and rewritten. Section 8 of the State- ment of Fundamental Truths regarding the evidence of baptism in the Spirit was left in place, but Section 7 gained some substantial revisions. It now read:

7. The Baptism in the Holy Ghost

All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the Baptism in the Holy Ghost and ﬁre, accord- ing to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experi- ence of all in the early Christian Church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4, 8; 1 Cor. 12:1-31). This [won- derful] experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth (Acts 8:12-17; 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:7-9). With the Baptism in the Holy Ghost come such experiences as an overﬂowing fullness of the Spirit (John 7:37-39; Acts 4:8), a deepened reverence for God (Acts 2:43; Heb. 12:28), an intensiﬁed consecration to God and dedication to

Ibid.

198

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 199

An Emerging Magisterium

His work (Acts 2:42), and a more active love for Christ, for His Word and for the lost (Mark 16:20).78

What changes were made to the now growing Tradition as a whole were changes that spoke largely to the claims that were being made within the Charismatic Renewal at the time. Many were the testimonies of those who had been baptized in the Spirit while remaining within their historic churches, and their testimonies were remarkably similar in wording. It was as if the Statement had been revised for such a time as this.

As if this were not sufﬁcient, Thomas F. Zimmerman began personally to draw up “Position Papers” and by the 1970s the General Council had established an ongoing “Doctrinal Purity Commission.” The “Commis- sion,” working with the General and Executive Presbyteries began to pass a series of “Position Papers” on issues from abortion to transcendental meditation to “initial evidence.” Still, any perceived questions regarding the position of the Assemblies of God on the issues related to baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues were suspect. The example of Russell P. Spittler, to whom this essay is dedicated, is indicative of the mood of many. By the 1970s, even questions with good intentions were looked upon as unacceptable. The ‘Tradition’ was stronger than ever.

The Musings of Russell P. Spittler

In 1977, Dr. Russell P. Spittler was among the founding editors of Agora: A Magazine of Opinion within the Assemblies of God. In the ﬁve years that Agora was published, Spittler became known for his insightful editorials that appeared regularly under the title “Agorafﬁti: Marketplace Scribblings by Russell P. Spittler.” But within the ﬁrst two issues of Agora, Spittler contributed an important article intended to be a reﬂective essay on what he called the “theological undercoating” of Pentecostal piety. He titled his article “The Pentecostal Tradition: Reﬂections of an ‘Ichthus’-iast’.”79

Minutes of the Twenty-Ninth General Council of the Assemblies of God Convened at Portland, Oregon August 23-29, 1961 (Springﬁeld, MO: Ofﬁce of the General Secretary, 1961), 22. The bold print is mine and is intended to indicate changes in or additions to the text of the previous year. The word [wonderful] was deleted from the new edition.79

Russell P. Spittler, “The Pentecostal Tradition: Reﬂections of an ‘Icthus’-iast [Part 1],” Agora: A Magazine of Opinion within the Assemblies of God 1:1 (Summer 1977), 8-11;

199

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 200

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

In this article, Spittler made a number of astute observations regarding Pentecostalism in the mid 1970s, three of which are particularly worthy of mention here. First, he observed that the doctrine of the baptism in the Spirit “does not rank in importance with the triune godhead, the deity of Christ, the sinfulness of man, or salvation by faith in a Risen Redeemer.”80 It was not his purpose to demean this doctrine in any way; he was merely noting that the doctrine of baptism in the Spirit paled in its importance or signiﬁcance when it was set next to a doctrine such as the deity of Christ. What one believes about Christ is essential to one’s salvation. What one believes about baptism in the Spirit is not essential to one’s salvation, even though it might contribute signiﬁcantly to the ministry of the believer.81 To say this is not to say that the doctrine of baptism in the Spirit is unimpor- tant; it is to place it in perspective. It is like noting the difference between the Gospel of John and the Song of Solomon. Both are Scripture. But if we had a choice between which of these portions of Scripture we would give to unbelievers, we would always give them the Gospel of John.

As part of this point, Spittler observed that it had taken twenty centuries for anyone to develop the doctrine of baptism in the Spirit, and then the very group that said it had no interest in doing such things, the Assemblies of God, had developed and reﬁned it.82 He went on to note the preamble to the Statement of Fundamental Truths that contained an important dis- claimer that “the phraseology employed in this Statement is not inspired or contended for.” When it was written, this statement was undoubtedly intended to distance its writers from developing a Pentecostal “magiste- rium” that might claim that its work was being led by the Holy Spirit, and that its decisions had become part of the growing “Tradition” that extend- ed from the deposit of faith left by the Apostles. Spittler, however, voiced his nervousness over the relative strength of the next few words “. . . but the truth set forth is held to be essential to a Full Gospel ministry.” He made the point that “the second part of that sentence should not

“The Pentecostal Tradition: Reﬂections of an ‘Icthus’-iast [Part 2],” Agora: A Magazine of Opinion within the Assemblies of God 1:2 (Fall 1977), 16-19.80

Spittler, “The Pentecostal Tradition [Part 1],” 10.81

This argumentation is set out clearly by Executive Presbyter David Argue, “Truth 101,” The Pentecostal Evangel (May 28, 1995), 14-15.82

200

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 201

An Emerging Magisterium

overshadow the ﬁrst.”83 Taken together, they provided balance. If the latter half of the statement overpowered the former half, however, it was clear that the “magisterium” was not far behind.

Second, Spittler addressed the issue of “subsequence,” that part of the Assemblies of God’s doctrine of baptism in the Spirit that distinguished baptism in the Spirit from the new birth.84 His comment was aimed chieﬂy at F. Dale Bruner’s recently published objections to any doctrine of subse- quence.85 As Spittler observed, while the doctrine of subsequence may be “usual,” it is not “necessary” to a Pentecostal theological position. “I have never heard any objections to ‘being saved and ﬁlled’ in the same experi- ence, at the same time,” he argued.86 The way he saw it, the point of the subsequence argument was merely that such an experience was available, even commendable to those who were already Christians, and that the tim- ing of the event within the Christian life was “immaterial.” Besides, for Pentecostals to spend so much time in the discussion of ideas like “subse- quence” or “second work” was for them to betray more interest in chronol- ogy than is reﬂected in the scriptures, which they claimed, deﬁned the discussion.87

Third, Spittler addressed several aspects of the concept of “evidence.” He pointed out that the very notion of “evidence” is not itself even “cen- trally biblical,” and the word evidence is never used in Scripture. He went on to note that in Acts 10:46 the fact that the Gentiles spoke in tongues and extolled God indicated to the ﬁrst Jewish Christians that the Spirit had come upon the Gentiles just as it had upon them “at the beginning.” As a result, the apostles concluded not that these Gentiles now had power for ministry, but that Gentiles could be Christians.

More pointedly for this discussion, however, was Spittler’s observation that “the Bible gives no direct answer” to the question, “May one receive

Spittler, “The Pentecostal Tradition [Part 1],” 10.84

“This experience [of Baptism in the Holy Ghost] is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth (Acts 8:12-17; 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:7-9).” This is part of the Constitution and Bylaws of the General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America and Selected Territories, Article V. Statement of Fundamental Truths, Section 7, in Minutes of the 48th Session of The General Council of the Assemblies of God Convened at Orlando, Florida, August 10-13, 1999, with Revised Constitution and Bylaws (Springﬁeld, MO: General Secretary’s Ofﬁce, 1999), 92.85

Frederick D. Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1970), 61-76.86

Spittler, “The Pentecostal Tradition [Part 1],” 10.87

Spittler, “The Pentecostal Tradition [Part 2],” 16.

201

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 202

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

the baptism in the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues?” This very observation, he noted, may in the end suggest that there is something essentially or basically wrong with the question.88

In subsequent issues of Agora, the editors printed a number of letters they had received from readers around the country. That section of the magazine was titled “Motes and Beams.” While there were a number of individuals who spoke favorably regarding Spittler’s observations on the doctrine of baptism in the Spirit, there were others who were not at all happy. As one disgruntled pastor put it, in his district “such an article aired in such a forum, would be grounds for dismissal, and rightly so!” He went on to serve notice that he was forwarding a letter with a copy of Spittler’s article to Spittler’s Superintendent, hoping that through his action, “as with cancer, the painful operation of amputation can save the entire organism.”89

Someone at the General Council headquarters called Spittler’s District Superintendent, William Robertson, and asked that Spittler’s “theological insufﬁciencies” be investigated on two issues. Did Spittler’s doctrine of Scripture and his teaching on baptism in the Spirit accord with the Assem- blies of God’s position? The District Superintendent had little choice but to follow up on them when confronted with these questions. Spittler was summoned to meet with his District Superintendent, who quizzed him on two issues: Scripture and the baptism in the Spirit. He listened carefully to what Spittler had to say. Satisﬁed that Spittler had violated neither the Constitution and Bylaws of the Assemblies of God nor the integrity of the Fellowship he shared with fellow ministers in his District, the District Superintendent reported his ﬁndings to Springﬁeld and refused to pursue the issue further. What Spittler had demonstrated through his article was that it was possible to be both critical of and at the same time loyal to the Fellowship, a theme that Gordon Fee addressed in the same issue of Agora but which Spittler has lived out in an exemplary fashion throughout his ministerial career.90

What this incident also demonstrated, however, was the edginess of some within the Assemblies of God not merely about dissenting opinions, but about any questions being raised regarding the doctrine of initial evi- dence at precisely the moment when it was most strongly under attack

Spittler, “The Pentecostal Tradition [Part 1],” 11.89

Michael J. Bare, Pastor, “The Editors,” Agora 1:2 (Fall 1977), 15.90

Gordon D. Fee, “Critical Loyalty,” Agora 1:2 (Fall 1977), 10-11.

202

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 203

An Emerging Magisterium

from theologians in the Evangelical world. The work of F. Dale Brunner was shortly followed by the work of James D. G. Dunn,91 and the questions they raised for Pentecostal scholars regarding the doctrines surrounding “baptism in the Spirit” demanded a rethinking of Pentecostal argumenta- tion. As a Pentecostal scholar, Spittler had taken the lead in responding to issues being raised to the Pentecostal movement by these Evangelical scholars. Other exegetes and historians since that time have followed his lead in their attempts to rethink the Tradition and to respond to newly formed questions by other scholars in terms that are biblical and consistent with the realities previously described in the history of the Assemblies of God.92

The Unwarranted Revision of History

Several incidents have taken place in recent years that suggest that it is no longer acceptable even to think about certain doctrines in response to new questions that are being asked by critics of the Movement, or to write history in light of recent discoveries. It must now be done within the lim- its set by an emerging magisterium within the Assemblies of God. One of the incidents that points in this direction has to do with the recent use of the testimony written by J. Roswell Flower.

In 1993, after the death of J. Roswell Flower, when he was no longer able to speak for himself, The Pentecostal Evangel once again published

James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Holy Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today, SBT Second Series 15 (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1970).92

Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1984); Robert P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts, JPT Supplement Series 6 (Shefﬁeld, England: Shefﬁeld Academic Press, 1991, 1994); Richard D. Israel, Daniel E. Albrecht, and Randal G. Mc Nally, “Pentecostals and Hermeneutics: Texts, Rituals and Community,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pen- tecostal Studies 15 (Fall 1993): 137-61; Timothy R. Cargal, “Beyond the Fundamentalist- Modernist Controversy: Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age,” Pentecostal Theology 15 (Fall 1993): 163-87; Kenneth J. Archer, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 8 (April 1996): 63-81; Robert P. Menzies, “Evidential Tongues: An Essay on Theological Method,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1 (1998): 111-23; Frank D. Macchia, “Groans Too Deep for Words: Towards a Theology of Tongues as Initial Evidence,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1 (1998): 149-73; Simon K. H. Chan, “Evidential Glossolalia and the Doctrine of Subsequence,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Theology 2 (1999): 195-211; Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition, JPT Supplement Series 21 (Shefﬁeld, England: Shefﬁeld Academic Press, 2000).

203

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 204

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

Flower’s testimony. This time it came while Richard Champion was editor of the magazine, and the testimony appeared in a much-abridged version.93 What is most interesting about this version of Flower’s testimony is what is absent from the account. Gone is any hint that might suggest that Flower believed he had received the baptism in the Spirit while he was still in St. Louis. His testimony leaves the reader believing that he was still seeking the baptism when he moved on to Kansas City and, three years later, to Indianapolis.

The next section deals with his return to Indianapolis. It states clearly that he had not yet received the “initial physical evidence of the Baptism.” Because the crucial part of Flower’s St. Louis testimony is missing, the reader is left with the impression that he had never claimed that he had received the baptism, and that indeed, he had not yet received his baptism in the Spirit. After all, he had not yet received the evidence. Without his own explicit testimony that he had already received baptism in the Spirit, the incident in which he cast “the evil spirit” from the epileptic woman becomes a very different one, for it suggests that only from that time could he have had the baptism. Indeed, one is intentionally left with the impres- sion that he did not really receive the baptism in the Spirit until he became self-consciously aware that he had spoken in tongues. This abridged print- ing of Flower’s testimony made it appear that Flower had always viewed his testimony as being consistent with the currently received “Tradition.” The abridgement was a case of historical revisionism for the sake of an institutional priority.

More recently, a similar testimony-altering incident involving Donald Gee has been undertaken to make it ﬁt this same Tradition. Like Flower, Gee is no longer with us and is unable to speak for himself. Wayne Warner, Director of the Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center, the ofﬁcial archives for the Assemblies of God in the United States, is responsible for an ongo- ing historical column in The Pentecostal Evangel titled “Looking Back.” On March 26, 2000, Warner used this column to tell the story of Gee’s bap- tism in the Spirit, including quotations from Gee’s testimony taken directly from Gee’s volume, Pentecost, that had been published in 1932 by the Gospel Publishing House. Warner quoted what Gee had said when he described his reception of the baptism in the Spirit.

J. Roswell Flower, “How I Received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” The Pentecostal Evangel (July 18, 1993), 18-20.

204

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 205

An Emerging Magisterium

I had no immediate manifestation, but went home supremely happy, having received the baptism in the Holy Spirit “by faith.” From that hour my joy and gladness was intense, until I hardly knew how to express myself when in prayer and praise.

Following this quotation, Warner thus summarized the next part of Gee’s testimony: “About two weeks later just before going to bed, he [Gee] experienced a spiritual overﬂowing,” words that are obviously fully consistent with Gee’s own words. Warner then continued with another direct quotation from Donald Gee: “Finding no English adequate to ex- press the overﬂowing fullness of my soul, I found myself beginning to utter words in new tongues.”94 In short, Warner attempted to be faithful to what Gee had originally written.

When the article was ﬁnally published, Warner was surprised to ﬁnd that a sentence had been added to what he had written, and it changed com- pletely its meaning. The addition read, “Thus the baptism previously appropriated by faith was experienced in reality.” These words appeared neither in Gee’s original testimony nor in the copy Warner had submitted for publication.95 With this one sentence, some unnamed editor had stepped in and reinterpreted what Gee had said. The result was an addition that was unfaithful to Gee’s often-repeated testimony, just as it was unfaithful to the historian who had attempted to write an objective account of what Gee had said and obviously meant. It was an alteration provided without the knowledge or consent of the author of the column, a case of historical revisionism intended to support a politically correct institutional position against a testimony that now proves to be an embarrassment.

In recent years, James Bridges, General Treasurer of the Assemblies of God, has acted as something of a lightning rod on several theological

Wayne Warner, “When God Put the Pentecostal Fire under Donald Gee,” The Pentecostal Evangel (March 26, 2000), 28.95

Ibid. My knowledge of this incident came through personal conversation with Wayne Warner. I could not believe that Warner, who is an excellent historian in his own right, would have come to such a conclusion based upon Gee’s text. He hadn’t. Warner ﬁnally acknowl- edged that he had not written this sentence. It had been added subsequent to submission. This form of “editing” appears to be common in Pentecostal circles. I once wrote an article that conformed speciﬁcally to a request made by the Church of God, and was shocked when I found that 30 percent of my words had been deleted without any consultation with me. Upon its publication, references that I made in the later part of this article made no sense because the points on which they had been based were deleted from the earlier part of the article. Other scholars I know have had similar experiences. In each case the important dis- tinction between an author and a writer for hire seems not to have been observed.

205

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 206

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

issues, but none of them more controversial than that regarding the rela- tionship between baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues. Two of his articles are indicative of something much larger than his own opinion, and will serve to focus this discussion on the developing Tradition and the increasing role of a magisterium. In 1998, members of the faculties from various Assemblies of God schools were invited to participate in a Faculty Seminar in Springﬁeld, Missouri. James Bridges addressed that seminar and his speech was subsequently published in the autumn 1999 issue of Enrichment. In that speech, he attempted to impose limits on what he con- sidered to be legitimate inquiry for Pentecostal scholars.

Bridges used this article to make a number of allegations regarding Pentecostal scholars. He turned his attention ﬁrst to the biblical scholars of the movement. Among his allegations was one aimed at what he called “a popular [Pentecostal] theologian.” He contended that this unnamed scholar espouses “the latest theological or hermeneutical trends,” and alleged that this scholar had written a book, presumably on hermeneutics and/or exe- gesis, that, in his mind, “differs none from that written by a secularist or Buddhist.” Bridges continued his criticism of Pentecostal biblical scholars by turning next to their internal discussion on the relative merits of devel- oping doctrine that is based solely or largely upon narrative rather than didactic passages in Scripture.96 He did not offer any constructive ideas on how to resolve the discussion. He merely criticized it as standing outside the legitimate interests of the Pentecostal movement.

Next, Bridges took aim at Pentecostal historians. He alleged that “arro- gance” was the approach adopted by “a few popular Pentecostal scholars who put their heritage in a negative light,” and accused them of deliberately engaging “in a revisionism of our history, attempting to judge our past in the light of present cultural and social conditions.” Bridges condemned all

This discussion within the Pentecostal biblical and theological community of schol- ars has raised questions about the extent to which it is legitimate to develop doctrine based upon such books as the Acts of the Apostles as over against the epistles such as 1 Corinthians, where the teachings of the apostles and others are generally developed. One obvious question that is yet to be resolved in this debate is clearly related to the subject of baptism in the Spirit and the notion of tongues as the initial physical evidence. The doctrine of the Assemblies of God is substantially based upon its reading of the Acts of the Apostles as well as the contemporary experience of many in the Fellowship. James Bridges appar- ently believes that such a debate is intentionally being held because biblical scholars do not support the doctrine of the Assemblies of God.

206

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 207

An Emerging Magisterium

such activity, noting, “This rarely gets to the truth.”97 Once again, he did not offer any examples of what he meant; he simply made the charges. His concern that some Pentecostal historians have painted a negative portrait of certain people, events, ideas, or denominations, and his criticism of revisionist histories, however, are worth pondering.

Revisionism for the sake of revisionism, and revisionism for the sake of enhancing one’s career are clearly activities in which Pentecostal histori- ans should not participate. But it is also the case that historical revisionism that does not accord with the facts, even when it is done on behalf of an institution, is inherently immoral. It replaces fact and truth with their oppo- sites. Most institutional histories, including the histories of Pentecostal denominations, are difﬁcult to write. They are frequently subject to “conﬂicts of interest” because of the politics of those who happen to be in power, if we can paraphrase G. K. Chesterton here. It is in the self-interest of denominations to make public only what is favorable to their idealized position. The result is often a one sided version of the story, a form of “san- itized” history. If this is among the earliest historical accounts to appear, as is often the case, then any subsequent historical assessment that does not ﬁt the desired institutional interests can be simply dismissed as either “negative” or “revisionist” in nature. Critical loyalty is seldom highly prized by the status quo. Too often, any criticism, even given by a loyal follower, is viewed as a mark of disloyalty. Such charges, therefore, must be carefully weighed. Without clear evidence of intentional wrongdoing, these charges should be avoided altogether.

Finally, while Bridges noted that objective criticism might be useful for the Church at times, he clearly insinuated that the Pentecostal scholars he has in mind are actually employing “destructive criticism with hidden motives intended to hurt, undermine, or subvert.” He lifted up the example of F. F. Bosworth as a man who was “too honorable to act as a subversive and try to push his teaching when the Council voted otherwise.”98 Bos- worth was lifted up as a hero because he left the Assemblies of God when he realized that he differed with them in doctrine. The message that came through in Bridges’ article, however, was that Pentecostal scholars lack the same integrity that Bosworth possessed because they discuss issues that

James K. Bridges, “Assemblies of God Schools and Scholars for the 21st Century,” Enrichment: A Journal of Pentecostal Ministry 4:4 (Fall 1999), 96.98

Ibid., 96.

207

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 208

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

come too close to the Tradition. It is no longer an appropriate subject for examination or discussion.

One year later, in the autumn of 2000, James Bridges wrote another article titled “The Full Consummation of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.” In this article he made further unsubstantiated charges against unnamed scholars in the Pentecostal academic community. He contended that “some of our scholars” are teaching what he called a theory of “delayed evi- dence.” “Those who hold to delayed evidence,” he wrote, “teach that the word ‘initial’ does not include the idea of ‘immediacy’ as well.” He further contended that “those who claim that such teaching can be found in the writings of our early leaders do so because they either misunderstand the intent of their writings or they have anachronistically read their own inter- pretations back into the writings of our elders.”99 Furthermore, those who do so have merely accommodated their doctrine “to justify those who wish to claim they have received the baptism without speaking in tongues.”100 Once again, no evidence was offered for these charges, and no opportunity was offered for the scholars who are allegedly in question here to respond.

While I am unaware of any Pentecostal biblical scholar who ﬁts the charges made in this article, or any bona ﬁde Pentecostal historian who has ever engaged in revisionist history in the manner described, Bridges is cor- rect to note that any attempt to write a revisionist history that does not accord with the facts in light of their meaning when they were originally given is something that any credible Pentecostal historian would avoid. The reader of this article will have to judge whether I have been fair to the testimonies of J. Roswell Flower and Donald Gee.

Bridges’ concerns that Pentecostal scholars must “hold to a high view of Scripture” and “hold a genuine appreciation for our heritage” are very important values, values to which every scholar I know in the Pentecostal academic community is deeply committed. What Bridges appears to mis- understand is that such discussions can go on over time within scholarly communities such as the Society for Pentecostal Theology without them ever leading ultimately to “teachings” on the subject. The nature of theological and historical inquiry involves the free and open discussion of ideas in a process that sharpens our understanding of doctrine. Generally speaking, inadequate arguments die for lack of response.

James K. Bridges, “The Full Consummation of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” Enrichment: A Journal of Pentecostal Ministry 5:4 (Fall 2000), 92.100

Ibid., 95.

208

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 209

An Emerging Magisterium

It is a shame that James Bridges has chosen not to name those scholars he has in mind or to provide a single piece of evidence to substantiate his claims against them. He has simply charged certain scholars in the Pentecostal academy in a public forum with intentionally undermining the Assemblies of God and its Tradition. The sad thing is that there is nothing more harmful within the Pentecostal tradition than to label the ministry of another as compromising. Such public charges, presented in an ofﬁcial publication of the Assemblies of God without the requirement that any demonstrated proof be offered and without any opportunity for the schol- ars he has in mind to present an equally public response, serve only to smear the entire Pentecostal academic community with unwarranted, slan- derous accusations. I have not been able to identify any Pentecostal scholar that has ever initiated the term delayed evidence.101 The language of “delayed evidence” is found ﬁrst, not in any argument presented by a Pentecostal scholar, but in a contribution by a lay person that was pub- lished by the Assemblies of God itself in its adult Sunday School literature in 1957.

Through his appeal to unsubstantiated suspicions, Bridges has sought to derail all scholarly conversation on the subject of baptism in the Spirit and the initial physical evidence in the ﬁeld of biblical studies and Pentecostal historiography while imposing his own peculiar readings upon the schol- ars who are best trained to evaluate the evidence. He has attempted to insert the term immediate into what he believes was the real intention of the “fathers” of the Assemblies of God, and this despite the term’s absence from any formal statement passed by the General Council in eighty-seven years of its existence. What is more, none of his arguments for inclusion of the term immediate are theological in nature. They are merely linguistic arguments based upon dictionary deﬁnitions of such words as “initial.” His argument for why some kind of “internal evidence” like the fruit of the Spirit is not adequate as a sign of baptism in the Spirit is solely a pragmatic one. “This will only bring confusion to the believer, since the Scriptures do not warrant such and it would be subjectively immeasurable experience

101

The only scholar to use the term that I have been able to ﬁnd is Dr. Gary McGee. He simply mentions the term in the quotation from the article by Dorothy Skoog. See above, n. 63. For McGee’s use of this term see his article on “Joseph James Roswell Flower and Alice Reynolds” in Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee, eds., Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library/Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 311.

209

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 210

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

without a standard by which to judge it.” Furthermore, he notes that if we were to accept such a concept as the fruit of the Spirit as an evidence of the Spirit’s baptism, we could no longer use the term initial. Fruit takes time to grow.102 This sounds oddly like the argument one Holiness preacher allegedly used to deny the legitimacy of the Pentecostal message at the Azusa Street Mission.103 This position calls into question the nature of our teachings on salvation and on healing. Should we not require evi- dences for each of these before announcing that they have already been accomplished?

Richard Dresselhaus, an Executive Presbyter of the Assemblies of God, recently observed that “across the spectrum of leadership within the Assemblies of God is a frequently articulated concern that the academy might be party to compromise on doctrines held as inviolable by the church.”104 Dresselhaus noted that because the Assemblies of God stands in a revivalist tradition, it sometimes does not take as seriously as it ought to the need for serious intellectual reﬂection. “While the church rightly insists that the foundation of all doctrine is the objective revelation of God in the scripture,” he contended, “it also considers experience as a kind of ‘validating hermeneutic’ to anchor its beliefs.”105

This is among the ﬁrst admissions by a Pentecostal leader that the norms established for doctrinal development within the Assemblies of God go beyond the notion of sola scriptura.106 Indeed, one of the arguments posed by James Bridges for why the “delayed evidence” theory must be rejected is his experience of reading The Pentecostal Evangel. He wrote, “Eighty-six years of weekly testimonies in the Pentecostal Evangel of believers receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial physical evidence of speaking in other tongues—and not one occasion of delayed

102

Bridges, “The Full Consummation of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” 93.103

“One Church,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles, CA] 1:2 (October 1906), 3.3. “One of the Holiness leaders said that the church had always taught sanctiﬁcation as the bap- tism with the Holy Ghost, and they could not afford to give it up. Besides, he would have to burn his books and sermons. Brother, on that great day of judgment, how much will those books and sermons weigh as compared to God’s word?”104

Richard Dresselhaus, “What Can the Academy Do for the Church?” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Theology 3 (July 2000): 319.105

Ibid., 320.106

A similar statement is made in the recent position paper adopted by the General Presbytery, “The Baptism in the Spirit: The Initial Experience and Continuing Evidences of the Spirit-Filled Life.”

210

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 211

An Emerging Magisterium

evidence—speaks volumes against such teaching.”107 What is equally im- portant to note, however, is that those in whose interest it is to suppress such narratives or testimonies as might differ from the norm control access to this publication.

Dresselhaus has attempted to be conciliatory toward the Pentecostal academy. With respect to the doctrines I have used to demonstrate how the received Tradition has grown within the Assemblies of God, Dresselhaus has made a couple of signiﬁcant observations. First, like Bridges, he has suggested that Pentecostal scholars must work within appropriate “theo- logical and ecclesiological parameters” that already exist, parameters established by what he calls “church dogma and tradition.” This concern is well taken, for all Pentecostal scholars who serve the Church must work within a confessional framework. Dresselhaus goes on to note that

[t]he question for the academy is not whether or not we embrace [the doc- trine of initial evidence], for that has been established by our mutual con- fession. It is rather how might this doctrine be set forth in the most convincing and deﬁnable way. The academy is positioned well to do this work. It understands Biblical history, denominational concerns, exegetical requirements, and the nomenclature necessary to make the case with clarity and persuasiveness. The academy serves the church well when it functions in this role. It is to the academy that the church must be able to turn with conﬁdence for this important work.108

While much of what Dresselhaus says here is obviously correct and, therefore, helpful, the distinction he makes between the academy and the Church is not. The Pentecostal academy, after all, is part of that Church. It merely serves the Church in different ways than do denominational exec- utives. The lack of trust that currently marks the relationship between these two groups is genuine, however, and in Dresselhaus’s words, it may even be “unfair” to the academic community.109 Those who serve the Assem- blies of God as denominational leaders and as denominational scholars need to build bridges to one another. The propensity for some within Assemblies of God leadership to view the Pentecostal academic commu- nity as always playing an adversarial rather than a constructive role is not appropriate in a truly Christian institution.

107

Bridges, “The Full Consummation of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” 92.108

Dresselhaus, “What Can the Academy Do for the Church?” 321.109

Ibid., 321-22.

211

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 212

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

Conclusions and Observations

The apostle Paul made an insightful observation about human knowl- edge when he wrote the words, “Now we see in a mirror dimly . . .” (1 Cor. 13:12). This side of the consummation is, at its best, only a dim reﬂection of reality. Even our best notions of what constitutes the Tradition must fall into this category. As a result, Paul’s words demand a humble response by all of us as we make theological pronouncements. Some of those who read this chapter will claim that it is really about the doctrine of initial (and/or immediate) physical evidence. I categorically deny that claim. This article has been about the important doctrinal decisions that are made within the Assemblies of God, who has the power to make such decisions, and how that power is exercised. It is about the development of the Tradition. The case study I have used has only incidentally focused on the doctrines sur- rounding baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues, and that is because it is in this area where the developments of Tradition are most easily tracked.

My assertion is that the Assemblies of God has had a growing Tradition and that it has developed a magisterium that is fundamentally determining the doctrinal direction of the Fellowship. My assertion is that those who hold the votes, the members of the General Council, have not had the opportunity to discuss in any open forum whether or not this should be so. The development of a magisterium has been part of an ongoing eighty- seven-year history that has gained ground in recent years.

J. Roswell Flower was reticent to share his testimony because people might not understand it. Gee was convinced that his experience was not the normal experience of so many others, yet he contended that God had not done wrongly in giving it to him in the way He did. I agree with Bridges’ point that both Flower and Gee taught that the baptism in the Spirit was ultimately, even normatively, accompanied by speaking in tongues. As a result, they may be viewed as “fathers” of the faith worthy of citation. But I would contend that this did not negate their experience of something that differed from the norm, or from what they desired to see happen in others. It should not be surprising that their experience differed from their theol- ogy; for, in humility, many of us would have to admit that is the case. These men were not, after all, one-dimensional or monochromatic. They were three-dimensional men who were part of a richly colorful world. All of us are full of contradictions, and at one level the development of the doctrine of the Assemblies of God regarding these issues has been no exception.

212

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 213

An Emerging Magisterium

The General Presbytery, however, has afﬁrmed much of Bridges’ posi- tion without any direct input from those he has accused of duplicity. On August 11, 2000, the General Presbytery adopted an ofﬁcial statement titled “The Baptism in the Spirit: The Initial Experience and Continuing Evidences of the Spirit-Filled Life,” in which they now address the “delayed evidence” theory as though it were a doctrine being taught. Furthermore, all new candidates for ministry must now answer a question to which no current minister has ever had to respond. The question is, “Do you believe that everyone who is baptized in the Holy Spirit speaks in tongues at the time they are baptized in the Spirit?” Those who do not respond in the afﬁrmative are denied further consideration. What this has done is set the stage for a two-tiered ministry. This has precipitated a change in the Tradition without ever bringing the doctrinal discussion to the body that votes on such things, the General Council of the Assemblies of God.

Over the years, the number of people within the Assemblies of God who have claimed to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues has diminished to a currently alleged level in the low 40 percent range.110 This is a major pastoral prob- lem that goes to the core of who we say we are. The reasons that have been given for this steady decline are numerous, though none of them has been studied scientiﬁcally. They include all of the following: (1) the rapid growth of the Assemblies of God due to the admission of people from the Charismatic Renewal who did not believe in the Assemblies of God’s ofﬁcial position, (2) the theological challenges of the Assemblies of God position by such people as F. Dale Brunner, James D. G. Dunn, and others, (3) the fact that some Assemblies of God scholars have been trained in non-Assemblies of God and non-Pentecostal institutions, (4) the inability or unwillingness of professors in the Assemblies of God schools and pas- tors in Assemblies of God pulpits to support the Assemblies of God posi- tion with enthusiasm, (5) the alleged decline of belief among members of the Society for Pentecostal Theology, and (6) the “evangelicalization” of the

110

This ﬁgure was supplied by the Ofﬁce of Statistics of the Assemblies of God, and is based upon a ﬁve-year study conducted in association with the Hartford Seminary. In this study, 9.3% of Assemblies of God ministers reported fewer than 25% of their members had been baptized in the Spirit and spoken in tongues, 31% reported that fewer than 50% but more than 25% had done so, 43% believed that between 51% and 75% had done so, and 16% believed that between 76% and 100% of their members had done so.

213

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 214

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 2, Fall 2003

Assemblies of God through its high-proﬁle participation in the National Association of Evangelicals.

The denomination’s leadership has rightly been concerned about this decline and about the preservation of certain manifestations of the Holy Spirit among its constituents. Leadership has attempted to address the issue by taking speciﬁc actions. Among the actions that have been taken are (1) the General Superintendent’s appeal to get back to the basics, made public in a series of publications, (2) the placement of a strong emphasis upon the reception of the Position Papers by all ministers of the Fellowship, (3) changes that have been made in the application form of applicants for the ministry, (4) attempts to set limits for Assemblies of God faculty members that raise questions of the freedom of inquiry tradition- ally enjoyed by Pentecostal scholars, (5) the development of a revisionist Pentecostal history in keeping with the Tradition that is now in place, and (6) attacks on a perceived “faithless” ministry.111 Only the ﬁrst of these actions is positive in nature. The rest rely upon the judgment of a few, and represent what one observer has called “a further narrowing of identity.”112

The result is that the Tradition is in danger of replacing the Truth; the development of dogma by members of a magisterium apart from signiﬁcant discussion in cooperation with members of the Pentecostal academy is in danger of replacing the genuine quest for truth. The Presbyteries, working with the Doctrinal Purity Commission, now consti- tute what may be described as a magisterium. As I look at the deﬁnition of magisterium given in Dei Verbum, there appears to be no substantive dif- ference between the activities of the Roman Catholic magisterium and that within the Assemblies of God.

If the lines of fellowship continue to grow higher and thicker, then the Assemblies of God runs a number of risks. The numbers of people who manifest certain desired phenomena will continue to decline. The spiritu- ality of those who remain will become stagnant. Some of the best minds that our churches have nurtured through the years will decline to seek ordi- nation with the Assemblies of God. We will lose both pastors and churches

111

“We can lay this present-day condition of the believers at the feet of the ministry. Had full-gospel ministers been faithful to proclaim the ‘whole gospel,’ we would see a strong, healthy Spirit-ﬁlled church. It is a spiritually anemic church that looks for loop- holes.” Bridges, “The Full Consummation of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” 95.112

Edith L. Blumhofer, Restoring the Faith: The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1993), 254.

214

PNEUMA/F2/164-215 2/27/06 5:53 PM Page 215

An Emerging Magisterium

who have “had enough.” And scholars who teach in Assemblies of God institutions or who are ordained by the Fellowship will ultimately be required to receive an ofﬁcial mandatum in order to teach acceptable Bible, theology, or church history.

For the sake of the world, we simply must be more tolerant of and open to one another’s contributions. We must be as positive, constructive, cre- ative, and honest in our work as we are able to be. Together, then, we will be able to provide viable solutions to the current lack of conformity to that which we all believe is genuinely apostolic in the Assemblies of God.

215

1 Comment

Reply August 7, 2025
Troy Day

Desiring to avoid what he sees as contemporary misunderstandings of “Spirit,” John A. Studebaker, Jr., Adjunct Professor at Cornerstone University and Spring Arbor University and Executive Director of Bridge Ministries in Michigan, raises the question of the Holy Spirit’s authority. Studebaker contends that among the proliferation of recent scholarship on pneumatology, the Spirit’s authority — not to be confused with the Spirit’s power — remains largely unarticulated. He states that this is detrimental to both systematic and practical theology and that evangelicals need to recognize the fundamental importance of a theology of the Spirit’s authority, even to the extent of giving it place within theological prolegomena. Studebaker’s inquiry leads to considerations of the Spirit’s role within the larger pattern of divine authority, various aspects of the Spirit’s authority (e.g., “executo- rial,” “veracious,” and “governing”) and their relationship to the authority of Christ, as well as their implications for hermeneutics, church structure and guidance, and Christian spiri- tuality. He proceeds by examining relevant pneumatological debates in the history of theol- ogy, assessing some tendencies in current systematic theology in light of select scriptures, and addressing the import of the Spirit’s authority for church practices. Studebaker’s most consistent argument is that the Spirit is a “person” that cannot be reduced to human sub- jectivity or to an inanimate force or process within the world. In fact, this is a primary reason that he goes to such lengths to demonstrate from scripture that the Spirit acts authoritatively, usually in contrast to ﬁ gures like Jürgen Moltmann and Peter Hodgson, whom he curiously and with little elaboration labels “postmodern.” Decrying the overem- phasis on the Spirit’s immanence in their “panentheism,” Studebaker reasserts the Spirit’s transcendence — wishing to balance the two — by enlisting Colin Gunton, Paul Molnar, and T omas F. Torrance. While this engagement with the Spirit’s personhood is not prob- lematic in itself, it receives inordinate attention in a book devoted to the conceptual rela- tionship between “Spirit” and “authority.” Too frequently arguments return to the rather banal conclusion that the Spirit is a divine person who acts.

An Emerging Magisterium The Case Of The Assemblies Of God

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

PentecostalTheology .com

1 Comment

Troy Day

Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply.

Leave a Reply to Troy Day Cancel reply

Death of Denominations

Haber oku tuzla evden eve nakliyat