Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274
“In Jesus’ Name”1: A Key Resource on the Worldwide
Pentecostal Phenomenon & the Oneness,
Apostolic, or Jesus’ Name Movement
Talmadge L. French
First Pentecostal Church (Worldwide Pentecostal Fellowship),
Durham, South Carolina 27705, USA
Abstract
The review summarizes the implications of David Reed’s excellent study of Oneness Pentecostalism as a major treatment of the movement in which the sections regarding its background, history, and theology are equally comprehensive. Reed’s work sets the movement, not in the context of its global expansion and impact, but within the context of its historical development amidst an array of Evangelical-Pentecostal tensions. It characterizes the movement as a sect, rather than a cult, and as a worldwide expression of Pentecostalism in its own right. This review, therefore, explores Reed’s argumentation in which he explains its historical development as a movement rooted, first and foremost, in pietism, especially Wesleyan, which used Jewish categories, similar to the practice of early Jewish rather than Nicene Christianity. Reed contends that a tendency towards a Jesus-centric ‘reductionism’ in Evangelicalism shaped the movement and most of its patterns of doctrinal ‘imbalances.’ The specifi c setting for this infl uence is seen as the theology of William Durham, specifi cally, and the restoration impulses of Pentecostalism, generally.
Keywords
Oneness Pentecostalism, Trinitarianism, Pietism, Evangelicalism
David A. Reed is currently Professor Emeritus of Pastoral T eology and Research at Wycliff e College, Toronto, Canada. His 1978 Boston University dissertation, “Origins and Development of Oneness Pentecostalism in the United States,” was certainly a landmark study of the movement which evalu- ated, for the first time, its history and theology in necessary depth, and more importantly, from a balanced perspective. Now, after thirty years, the dissertation
1
David A. Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”: The History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals , Journal of Pentecostal T eology Supplement Series 31 (Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2008).
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/027209609X12470371387921
1
268
T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274
has fi nally been greatly expanded and released under the title “In Jesus’ Name”: The History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals , although the revision is so exten- sive that the fi nal product is more a new work than a revision. The expanded materials are welcome additions, especially to the historical detail. Like the original, “In Jesus’ Name” is a must-read, being among the most signifi cant of the few academic studies produced regarding Oneness Pentecostalism.
Many scholars and observers of the movement, in fact, have derived their basic understanding and perspective of Oneness Pentecostalism, especially concerning its origins and its context ‘within’ Pentecostalism, from Reed’s works. In addition to the rather comprehensive treatment of “In Jesus’ Name”, he has written numerous articles and papers covering varied aspects of the movement, including the “problems and possibilities” relative to Oneness theological positions.2 And like his many related articles and papers, and his earlier dissertation, “In Jesus’ Name” continues to argue for the theological legitimacy of the movement, yet from the perspective of a former participant within the movement.
Reed’s introductory discussion handles the customary sect-cult challenges to the movement in his usual fashion, arguing that “Oneness Pentecostalism is a sectarian movement within the wider parameters of the Church rather than a cult, as popular anti-cult groups and writers contend.” He continues: “It will be argued that theologically it is a heterodox rather than a heretical move- ment,” citing the sociological framework of Hexham and Poewe’s New Reli- gions as Global Cultures.3 But he leaves the evaluation of these issues to the fi nal chapter which is entitled “Whose Heresy? Whose Orthodoxy?” The exodus of other Oneness scholars from the movement during and after the period in which Reed produced his original dissertation has not always resulted in such
2
David Reed, “Origin and Development of the T eology of Oneness Pentecostalism in the United States” (PhD dissertation, Boston University Graduate School, 1978). Reed was raised in New Brunswick, Canada, within the United Pentecostal Church (now “International”), the larg- est U.S.-based Oneness Pentecostal organization, with 237 churches currently in Canada. Cf. also, David Reed, “Oneness Pentecostalism,” in Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Maas, eds., The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal Charismatic Movements (Grand Rap- ids: Zondervan, 2002), 936-44, and “Oneness Pentecostalism: Problems and Possibilities for Pentecostal T eology,” Journal of Pentecostal T eology 11 (October 1997): 73-93.
3
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 9, 344; cf. Irving Hexham and Karla Poewe, New Religions as Global Cultures (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1997), 27-40, as well as, Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, “Of Churches, Sects, and Cults: Preliminary Concepts for a T eory of Religious Movements,” Journal for the Scientifi c Study of Religion 18:2 (1979): 117-31.
2
T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274
269
characteristically favorable treatment overall.4 Nevertheless, with the piqued interest in the expansively growing global presence of Oneness Pentecostalism, evaluations remain mixed, but, scholarly opinion, following Reed, seems increasingly favorable.5
Two specifi c aspects of the discussion related to origins, which had not been adequately explored in any previous historical accounts, have been particularly crucial to the overall understanding of Oneness Pentecostalism. The first of these is the identifi cation of the central theme of Jesus’ Name T eology with early Jewish Christian theology, and, second, the historical precision with which the roots of Oneness identity are linked with the highly “christocentric” milieu of evangelical piety. Documentation of the latter premise demonstrates the nineteenth century roots of the Jesus’ Name movement within, or as a “form” and “product” of, Pietism, especially the “infl uence” of Wesley. For the most part, though, essential links to early Jewish Christianity and explications of the relationships within pietistic Evangelicalism, as critical elements in the understanding of the movement’s emergence, had been largely overlooked in related studies. But in Reed’s work they are rightfully treated as central com- ponents infl uencing Oneness Pentecostal development.
6
Tese precise concep- tualizations of the roots of the movement are examples of the type of research that has made Reed’s dissertation and “In Jesus’ Name” such an enduring land- mark study.
The first of these components, that is, the identifi cation of the Oneness position with that of early Jewish Christian theology, relies heavily on the interpretations of aspects of early Jewish Christian christologies in Danielou’s The T eology of Jewish Christianity and Longenecker’s The Christology of Early
4
See Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), and Joseph Howell, “The People of the Name: Oneness Pentecostalism in the United States” (PhD dissertation, Florida State University, 1985). The pejorative treatment of the movement by Edward L. Dalcour (not a former Oneness Pentecostal), A Defi nitive Look at Oneness T eology: Defending the Tri-Unity of God (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005), is reviewed by Reed in PNEUMA: The Pentecostal Theology 28:1 (2006): 166-69.
5
Examples include works such as Roswith I. H. Gerloff , A Plea for Black British T eologies: The Black Church Movement in Britain in its Transatlantic Cultural and T eological Interaction with Special Reference to the Pentecostal Oneness (Apostolic) and Sabbatarian Movements, 2 vols. (New York: Peter Lang, 1992); Kenneth D. Gill, Toward a Contextualized T eology for the T ird World: The Emergence and Development of Jesus’ Name Pentecostalism in Mexico (Frankfurt and New York: Peter Lang, 1994); and Douglas Jacobsen, T inking in the Spirit: T eologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2003).
6
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 1-76, chapters 1-3.
3
270
T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274
Jewish Christianity.7 Varied tendencies of early Jewish Christianity are noted within nuances of Evangelical theological emphases, as for example, what Reed characterizes as the “strong” Christological “diff erentiation between natures.” And he cites numerous examples within the particular emphases and leanings of the Keswick movement, including E. W. Kenyon’s emphasis on the name “Jesus,” the metaphorical underpinnings of the Holiness movement, and so forth. Although going beyond the scope of Danielou and Longenecker, Reed suggests that such uses of “Jewish categories” in the history of the church “recur in renewal movements,”8 and, thus, it should not be surprising that they would resurface within Pentecostalism. Ultimately, the critical question to be asked is that, if Jewish Christian emphases were legitimate, including varia- tions of Name T eology and suspicions regarding creedal development, in contra-distinction to Greek categories, why can’t such a paradigm “assist in the task of interpreting Oneness Pentecostalism within a larger theological frame- work” today?
The other, perhaps more signifi cant and broader, historical detail is the cen- trality of what Reed refers to as the obvious “christocentric” tendencies of Evangelicalism and the “discernible strand” of “Jesus-centrism” within that tradition which impacted the early proponents of Oneness Pentecostalism. As a practical and devotional focused theology, Jesus-centrism is depicted as a “truncated” view of God which obscures and neglects Christ’s “identity within the Trinity.” In this way, therefore, Reed hopes to explain the source and ratio- nale for Oneness theology, basically, as the “proclivity” toward a sort of “chris- tocentric reductionism” somewhat prevalent within Evangelical Christianity, and most notably within what has been termed early ‘radical’ Evangelicalism.9 What is seen as giving rise to the movement, therefore, are these truncated views within segments of Evangelicalism, which, when taken up, possibly distorted or even misunderstood, and often radicalized, were championed by these early Pentecostals. From this perspective, Oneness theological nuances really weren’t new at all, nor were they, therefore, ‘revelations,’ regardless of
7
Jean Danielou, The Development of Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicea , vol. 1, The T eology of Jewish Christianity , ed. and trans. John A. Baker (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964), 7-9, 148, 151, 407, 46, 154-156; Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, Studies in Biblical T eology 17 (Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, 1970), 41-46, 128. Important references are made, also, to similar thought in works of Wilhelm Bousset, Hans-Joachim Schoeps, and J. N. D. Kelly.
8
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 69, 244, 233ff ; Reed implies that a strong diff erentiation between natures hints of inevitable Nestorianism.
9
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 33-34; cf. Edith L. Blumhofer, The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pentecostalism, vol. 1 (Springfi eld, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1989), 15ff .
4
T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274
271
how they were perceived by the participants. “On the eve of the Oneness ‘rev- elation,’ ” Reed argues, “most of the doctrinal elements were in place. Patterns and themes had already been developed and debated in Holiness, Evangelical and Pentecostal circles.”10
Along with the common historical implication of theological naiveté and, perhaps, innocence, underlying this emphasis, the bottom line is that the movement — like it or not, and as enigmatic as it may seem — is the undeni- able product of Evangelicalism. Whether this is the self-conscious or self- refl ective identity of Oneness Pentecostalism isn’t explored. But clearly, as the early proponents examined the theological horizon, they interpreted the var- ied elements they saw within Christianity as evidence of the Spirit’s work of restoration within sincere, humble hearts, culminating in the Pentecostal out- pouring. In this rudimental fashion they would have considered the events and infl uences which led to the reestablishment of Jesus’ name baptism no less supernatural, and no less biblically accurate, than the Spirit’s leading them back to Pentecost.
As proof of these infl uences upon the Oneness movement, Reed emphasizes the Oneness citation of, and agreement with, key Evangelicals of the period representative of this same proclivity and identifi cation with elements central to the Oneness issue, especially “Name T eology.” Frank J. Ewart, though, is the Oneness proponents who often cited such writers as E. W. Kenyon, William Phillips Hall, John Monroe Gibson, and Arno C. Gaebelein, whereas others rarely did. And he is the Oneness proponent cited by Reed considerably more frequently than any other.11
T ese infl uences are referred to by Reed as the “legacies of evangelicalism,” but are characterized more precisely as imbalances of theology within Evan- gelicalism which Oneness Pentecostals took for the truth and adapted as their own version of “the faith once delivered to the saints.” In other words, they simply were truly and radically christocentric and Jesus-centered, but in a fash- ion which, from their own perspective, was no real, or serious, departure from the subculture of Evangelicalism in which they were submerged and from which they emerged as a distinct movement.
10
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 50, 135. Although these themes are covered throughout the first section (seventy six pages), they’re revisited periodically throughout the research. Also, Reed prefers “Evangelicalism” over “fundamentalism.”
11
Citations from early key Oneness leaders G. T. Haywood and Andrew D. Urshan, as well as regionally infl uential Frank Small in Canada, are substantial. Citations from other early lead- ers are minimal.
5
272
T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274
As Reed presents the theological highlights of the movement later on in the book, these historical insights help the observer make sense of the Oneness logic, especially their view of and approach to Scripture, since the devotional elements which shaped their thinking and their practical theology are seen as deriving, in a rather unsuspecting or uncritical way, from their social and spir- itual immersion in related Holiness and Keswick networks. Of course, caution is essential in avoiding an over-emphasis on intra-movement, socio-cultural factors as determinative in explicating issues, just as deprivation socio-economic theories are inadequate explanations for Pentecostal origins in general.12 It’s also interesting that “In Jesus’ Name” shifts the emphasis from the pejorative, from the typical, ‘from God’ dimension of the Oneness position, and, more signifi cantly and more controversially, from its ‘anti’ and ‘non’ Trinitarian core, to a more ecumenical emphasis of commonality. It may very well be that the result of this approach has had a disarming aff ect which, at the very least, contributes to a greater comprehension, if not an increasing acceptance, of the movement.
Turning to the historical section (Part II), Reed’s presentation of the his- torical detail regarding the emergence of the movement in chapters 6-9 is exceptional and deserves the widest possible reading. He first investigates a key historical question, the relationship of William Durham’s theological innova- tions to the Oneness issue, as introductory background to the understanding of Oneness origins. Durham’s message splintered Pentecostalism and led to the formation of the Assemblies of God, but the signifi cance of his thought for Oneness Pentecostals is often missed. Reed makes some valuable progress along these lines, although further insight into Durham’s impact upon Ewart, Haywood, Goss, and others, remains a primary consideration, as does the signifi cance and priority of individual infl uences upon the movement as a whole. Ewart’s important role, for example, will be better understood only as the content and infl uence of his early, primary source materials are distin- guished from his much later, and more widely available, sources. But Ewart is undoubtedly the one most infl uenced by Durham. And several aspects of Durham’s thought were made to order for the Oneness controversy which followed, notably the prominence of “identifi cation” with Christ which pri- oritized the “pattern” in Acts 2:38, and the linking the spiritual life closely with apostolic precedence and water baptism.13
12
Robert Mapes Anderson, The Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostal- ism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 6, 4.
13
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 88ff .
6
T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274
273
Although Reed has an excellent grasp of the historical dimensions of his study, he pay minimal attention to some issues, such as early Oneness organi- zational development. Reed’s analysis also leaves inconclusive one of the on-going ‘sore-spots’ in the Oneness-Trinity controversy, the ‘Bell issue,’ or the first AG Chairman, E. N. Bell’s fl ip-fl op regarding baptism in Jesus’ name. The challenge is to make sense of Bell’s actions in 1915, first as he strongly resists the movement, predicting that it’s at its “high water mark,” then gets (re)baptized, joyfully joining in with them, only to totally renounce them again before summer’s end.
The major sections of the research, the background, the history, and, fi nally, the theological analysis, are equally comprehensive, with evaluations of early, later, and very recent pertinent theological content. The bulk of the citations are of more recent works, such as those of John Patterson, S. G. Norris, and Gordon Magee, although important samplings of early works are also included, mostly from Ewart, Haywood, Urshan, and Small,14 but evaluated in some- what of a ‘sound bite’ fashion rather than as a whole. But the classifi cation of Oneness theology, including Reed’s discussion regarding ‘modalism,’ is han- dled extremely well, as are the theological issues, the range and signifi cance of which are adequately presented.
The inclusion, though, of an expanded chapter to deliberate Oneness new birth issues is less convincing and commensurate with the overall treatment, being a basic reworking of a recent, much more pejorative and less valuable work by Fudge, Christianity Without a Cross.15 Unfortunately, concluding in this way inordinately shifts attention to more marginal elements within lim- ited segments of the Oneness movement. As Reed comments on the back cover of Fudges’ book, “One of the hoped-for outcomes of this study is that it will assist a minority tradition within the UPC [United Pentecostal Church] to regain its forgotten and suppressed voice.”16 Yet, according to Kenneth Gill, Fudge has failed to substantiate his own hypothesis.17 Nevertheless, the fi nal chapter then moves the discussion along to the fundamental questions with which Reed had started, defi nitional parameters and the ‘heresy’ charge. He summarily rejects the charge and characterization of ‘heresy’ bolstered by deci- sive historical and theological expertise.
14
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 226-337.
15
T omas A. Fudge, Christianity without the Cross: A History of Salvation in Oneness Pentecos- talism (Parkland, Fla.: Universal Publishers, 2003).
16
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 5, 308ff (chapter 14).
17
Kenneth D. Gill, “Book Reviews, T omas A. Fudge, Christianity without a Cross,” PNEUMA: The Pentecostal Theology 26:1 (2004): 149-50.
7
274
T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274
As a comprehensive study of Oneness Pentecostalism, “In Jesus’ Name” is an absolute must-read which clearly sets out the story of the movement as a “third stream of Pentecostalism” (besides the classical and neopentecostal or charis- matic renewal streams) and as an expansive worldwide expression of Pentecos- tal faith in its own right. Although at tension with the broader movement due to its rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity, Reed demonstrates that its theol- ogy cannot rightfully be labeled heresy, nor its signifi cance dismissed out of hand. As an outstanding, landmark study of the Jesus’ Name movement it will remain a key resource for the foreseeable future for observers of this worldwide Pentecostal phenomenon.
8
