Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
36
The
Proceedings
and
of the Leaders’ of the International Pentecostal
Cornelis van der Laan*
Europe
Meetings
Council
(1908-1911) (1912-1914)1
movement
in
In 1912 some
prominent
leaders of the Pentecostal
decided to form an International Consultative Council that would meet once or twice a year. At least four such
meetings
were held before
the First World War
prematurely cause,
proceedings
and
significance
ended the venture. In this article the
of the council will be considered.
Leaders’
Meetings
that
Extensive attention is
given
to the
preceding
were held
during
the international conferences as from 1908 and
the formation of the Consultative Council.
eventually
would lead to
The Leaders’
Meetings
1908-1911
Thomas Ball Barratt is known for
introducing services in
Europe
his
trip
to the United States of America.
spread
to several countries
Switzerland
the first Pentecostal (Oslo), Norway, December 1906,
During
1907 the
in
Europe including
and the Netherlands. The an international
scope supported
and itinerant
of
in Christiana following
Pentecostal movement
Sweden, England, Germany, movement
immediately
assumed strongly by conferences,
preachers. During
1908
the
monthly Confidence
known after 1909 as the International landlord, Cecil Henry Polhill, founded the Pentecostal
periodicals, correspondence
Alexander Alfred
Boddy
started
publication and launched the Sunderland
Conferences,
Conferences. In 1909 the
wealthy began
conferences in London and
Missionary
Union
In Germany the
Hamburg
Conference, December 1908,
brought many of the international leaders
together
for the first time. An extensive
important
the
operation
publication
report
of the discussions between the leaders
concerning
of
spiritual gifts
was
given by Boddy
in Confidence. One direct result of the
Hamburg
Conference was the
publication Pfcngstgrusse,
edited
by Jonathan
Paul, beginning February
1909.
During
the same
year
two
conferences were held in
Mulheim,
led
by
the former businessman Emil
Humburg. Mulheim,
with its
annual, conferences and
publishing
house, became the
center of the German Pentecostal movement. In the
Netherlands, Gerrit Roelof Polman had started
of
Spade Regen
in
April
1908. C. E. D. De
Labiliere, Anglican priest
from
England
who had taken
charge
over the Pentecostal
an
1 This article was presented as a paper at the 4th Conference on Pentecostal and Charismatic Research in Europe, Gwatt. Switzerland: August 12-15, 1987.
*Cornelis van der
Laan,
General
Secretary
of the Brotherhood of Pentecostal Churches, Review Editor for the EPTA
Bulletin, Houten, The Netherlands.
1
37
assembly
in Zurich,
began
the Swiss
periodical Verheissung
des Vaters during
1909.
By
1910,
conferences of some international
scope
were also held Zurich.
These international contacts not
only compensated
for the lack of esteem found
among
fellow-Christians at home, but also
provided ways to address some of the difficulties encountered. The conferences, especially
those in Sunderland and Mulheim, functioned as international meeting places
where
important
issues were discussed. For this purpose,
the leaders held
separate meetings
in the
morning
and after- noon which were not
open
to the
general public.
The
topics
were
mostly of a pastoral, doctrinal,
apologetic
or organizational nature.
Pastoral
Topics
Some serious
pastoral problems
had
apparently
been caused
by allowing strangers
to
speak
at
meetings. Already
in the first issue of .
Confidence., Boddy
had some “Words of Warning”:
To keep this work of the Lord as free from reproach as possible, we ask
Leaders and others to be very careful whom they invite to address their
should make careful enquiries, and
other
especially as to those
who come from
meetings. They
lands. These should
possess strong
letters of
commendation from well-known Leaders, and these should be verified.2 A few months later
Boddy published
an
“important
Pentecostal Mani- festo” drawn
up
at the Pentecostal
Camp Meeting
held at Alliance, Ohio, June 1908, that likewise stressed the
importance
of
carrying papers
of recognition
and
approval
and to
notify
one another of
“travelling
false apostles.”3 Boddy
used the occasion
again
to war
against
“Unaccredited Pentecostal Workers”
coming
to England from other lands.4
Some months later
Boddy
had the
following
more detailed
warning:
A band of veiled women wearing peculiar apparel and claiming to
in
speak
Tongues is said to be likely to visit this country. They and those with
them also administer the Holy Communion with water instead of wine.5 Besides the
apparent
offensive act of
using
water instead of
wine, there were in our
eyes,
other, more serious
problems
caused
by
itiner- ating prophets.
This included the
teaching
that in order to be
ready
for the
rapture
one had to live a eunuch life. Some of these teachers also
2″Words of Warning,” Confidence 1.1 (April 1908), 3.
3″America: Important Pentecostal Manifesto,” Confidence 1.5 (August 1908), 9f. 4″Beware of Unaccredited Pentecostal Workers,” Confidence 1.5 (August 1908), 14.
5″Further Warnings,” Confidence 1.9 (December 1908), 13. A little later once more
Boddy
repeated his warning against receiving strangers without letters of recom- mendation from well-known workers. These letters had to be received
separately
the post. It was beuer to wait even for weeks for a
reply than to get led into difficulties. London and
through
places
on the continent seem to have been most in danger.””Warning
to Friends on the Continent and in Great Britain,” Confidence 2.3 (March 1909),
65.
2
38
instructed their listeners to
quit working
since the curse of Gen.
3:19, “In the sweat of
your
face
you
will eat
your bread,”
had now been abolished.6 This
teaching
caused difficulties in
England
and
Germany (and
in later
years
also in the
Netherlands).
One other matter of
pastoral
concern that was
repeatedly discussed, dealt with the
danger
of
being
led
by prophetic messages
or
mystical experiences.
Barratt
gave
a rather
lugubrious example
from
Norway,
of someone who was
seeking
the
Holy Spirit,
but was deluded
by
a voice telling
him to
go
and kill his uncle!7
Prophecies, interpretations
of tongues
and visions
generally
carried
messages,
often
by
means of images
and
figurative speech,
in which God
directly (first person
sin- gular)
addressed an individual or the
assembly.
After obvious failures in the divine communication the trustworthiness of these
prophetic
utter- ances was
extensively
discussed
by
the leaders
during
the
early
interna- tional conferences. The initial tests of
“pleading
the blood”
(i.e. calling upon
the blood of Jesus for
protection)
or
quickly asking
those “under the
power”
to affirm whether Jesus Christ had come in the flesh
(after 1 John
4:1-3),
had
proven
to be unreliable.
In these discussions about
“trying
the
spirits,”
it is interesting to note how
plain
common sense
played
a dominant role: “Great caution is needed where
messages
have to do with
persons.
These should not run contrary
to common sense.”g The leaders
agreed
that
personal messages were to be
discouraged
because of the
problems they
had caused. Mrs. Polman said: “If we had
accepted every prophecy
that has been sent to us,
we should all have been dead, but such are all
put
in the
waste-paper basket. “9 In
short, prophetic messages
had to be
grounded
in
Scripture, aimed at edification, exhortation or comfort and to bring honor to Jesus. Next
they
had be
spoken by
“sanctified souls” and to be affirmed in the hearts of the
Spirit-filled
listeners. 10 This caution
concerning prophetic messages
was one reason
why
William Oliver Hutchinson of Bourne- mouth
separated
and formed the
“Apostolic
Faith Church” in 1910.
6″Declaration,” Confidence 6.7 (July 1913), 135f. Cf. “The
2.6
Marriage Question,” Confidence (June 1909), 139. The Berlin Declaration also made reference to this kind of teaching, which was denied by the Pentecostals in their counter-declaration.
and their Trustworthiness,” Confidence 2.2 (February 1909), 44. 7″Prophetic Messages
8″Prophetic Messages…,”
42. Barratt repeatedly warned
in
against
matters of
seeking personal messages ordinary
life instead of using common sense. Barratt also spoke
about a most terrific persecution in Norway partly owing to mistakes made
their
by some people who were being guided by dreams, visions, or signs ONLY; not by
the Word of God. Confidence 1.8 (November 1908), 21f. and 1.9 (December 1908),
17.
9″Personal Messages: Their Dangers,” Confidence 5.2 (February 1912), 31. In his editorial, Boddy fully endorsed Mrs. Polman’s warning against personal messages ; Confidence
5.2 (February 1912), 31 ff.
10Confidence
2.2 (February 1909), 42ff.; 2.7 (July 1909), 160f.; 5.2 (February 1912),
30-33.
.
3
39
Apologetic Topics
Fiery
condemnation
by
fellow-Christians soon
compelled
the Pente- costals to defend their
position.
In the notorious Berlin Declaration of September
1909, signed by 56
leading figures
of the German Gemein- schaftsbewegung,
the Pentecostal movement was
repudiated
as diabolic. It was condemned as
being
“from below, not from
above,”
because it came from Los
Angeles (!);
it had
many
manifestations in common with Spiritism;
it allowed female
ministry;
it
taught perfectionism;
and it accepted
Jonathan Paul as leaders 1 The
amazing argument
that the Pentecostals should be
repudiated
on the basis of the Los
Angeles
con- nection was
probably
an allusion to the black
origins
of the revival.12 Friends of Jonathan Paul
immediately
called another conference at
llFor a discussion see: Paul Fleisch, Die
Pfingstbewegung
in Deutschland (Hannover: Heinr. Feesche Verlag, 1957), 92-116; Ernst Giese, Jonathan
Paul: Ein Jesu Christi, 2nd ed. rev. (Altdorf:
die
Missionsbuchhandlung und
Und Flicken
Verlag, 1956, 1965), 158-170; Idem, Netze, 2nd. ed. rev.
Walter J.
(Metzingen, Wurttemberg: Ernst Franz Verlag, 1987);
Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (London: SCM Press, 1972), 218-230.
.
l2ln the letter of invitation to the Berlin conference, where the declaration would be made, it was written: “The Tongue movement of 1907 has come to us by way of Christiana-Hamburg
from Los
Angeles.
Los Angeles has, however, in an article brought by
the movement’s own organ…, been drawn as a rendezvous of spiritistic spirits
and as an area that has become fatal for the movement. This
origin
also explains
the mournful character the movement wore with us.” Ernst Giese, Jonathan Paul, 155.
It is not clear to which paper the “movement’s own referred, but it could well have been Charles Parham’s paper, also called
organ”
Apostolic Faith,
since Parham presented
himself as the founder of the movement. The description of the revival as becoming overpowered by spiritistic spirits
is typical for whites like Parham, who condemned the revival because of its interracial character.
In a clear attempt to refute the repudiation based on the Los
Edel in Die
Angeles origin, Eugen
Pfingstbewegung im Lichle der Kirchengeschichte (Brieg: printed by the author, 1910) wrote: “Often one finds the view represented as if the origin of the Pentecostal movement lies in Los Angeles in America. From this the rumor about the ‘Los Angeles spirit’ has been constructed. But the earthly origin of the Pente- costal movement was actually in Topeka, Kansas” (66f.). When the Dutch historian G. A. Wumkes introduced Parham (in the rough draft of his book on the Pentecostal movement)
as the founder of the movement on the basis of Edel’s
Polman corrected him
description,
by letter,
Parham has indeed said that he was the founder of the movement but that
.
‘
was a
political
move
by
him and later it became
apparent
that his motives were not sound … the Pentecostal movement has her origin in Los Angeles (1906) in a circle of converted colored who came together and prayed for the
received it in the
baptism with the Holy Spirit as the first disciples had
beginning. Their prayer was answered and from there it has spread itself. (Letter of G. R. Polman to G. A. Wumkes, Amsterdam, 27.2.1915.)
As a true historian Wumkes presented both versions in his final draft side by side: G. A. Wumkes, De Pinksterbeweging ‘
voornamelijk in Nederland (Utrecht: G. J. A. Ruys, 1916), 4.
4
40
Mulheim,
where a counter declaration was issued. The Pentecostal movement was declared to be a
gift
“from
above, not from below,” although
it was admitted that as in
any
other movement not
everything that occurred was divine. The accusation of
teaching perfectionism, which in fact was directed
against
Jonathan
Paul, was said to
misrepre- sent Paul’s
teaching
on
every point.13
As the Berlin Declaration was translated and
published
in British and Dutch
religious periodicals
its negative
effects went far
beyond
the German borders. Yet
compared with
Germany
the British
allegations against
Pentecostalism seem to have been
relatively
mild.
They usually rejected
the
importance
Pente- costals attributed to
tongues
or warned
against
the
dangers
inherent in seeking
a special
Spirit baptism
with
signs.14
When British
representa- tives of the Pentecostal movement in answer to the Berlin Declaration issued “A London Declaration” (November 1909),
they briefly
stated the Pentecostal
teaching
on the evidence and the results of the
baptism with the rather than
reacting against
the German
5 Holy Spirit ,..
argu- ments.15
Doctrinal
Topics
Since the Pentecostal movement was
composed
of
people
from various denominational
backgrounds,
it is not
surprising
that differences in doctrine occurred. Barratt in “An
Urgent
Plea for
Charity
and
Unity” (February 1911)
wrote:
At the commencement of the Revival this was scarcely noticed, but
many
who formerly were Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, and
so on, still retain their old views regarding various
The Revival has not
important questions.
changed this. The object, value, time, and method
of observing water baptism is still a matter of discussion, likewise the
.
necessity, meaning,
and importance of the Lord’s Supper, and the
method for conducting it. Besides this, there are other questions on which proper
many
do not 6
agree. .
Even in the matter that interest us all so greatly: the
Tongues.16
The most debated doctrinal issue
during
the Leaders’
Meetings concerned the
question
whether
tongues
were the seal of
Spirit baptism. Barratt, Boddy and Polman
stressed the
significance
of tongues as
being the
regular sign
of Spirit
baptism.
J. Paul
propagated
in the first issue of Pfingstgrüsse
a different
emphasis,
if not a different
position:
13p, Feisch,
Mutheim
Pfingstbewegung,
143-148. For an
English
translation of the
declaration see: Confidence 2.10 (October 1909), 228-230.
l4Cf. Desmond Cartwight,
“Everywhere Spoken Against: Opposition
to British Pentecostalism 1907-1930,” Paper presented to the Conference on Pentecostal and Charismatic Research in Europe, Birmingham, April 1984.
15″What we Teach,” Conjcdence 2.12 (December 1909), 286 ; “A London Declara- tion,” Confidence 2.12 (December 1909), 287f.
16T. B. Barratt, “An Urgent Plea for Charity and Unity,” Confidence 4.2 (February 1911), 31.
5
.
speaking
41
Nobody should think that speaking in tongues is a shibboleth for us, and that we would depreciate any child of God who does not receive this gift; this is certainly not the case. We are not of the opinion that only those
in tongues have received the Likewise
in
Holy Spirit. speaking tongues the
is for us no evidence itself that someone has been filled with
Holy Spirit. We know that by the fruit we can see with whom we deal (Matt.7:16). Therefore the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22) are the main issue for us. Wherever, these are found, there the Spirit dwells in the heart We should not in any way value speaking in tongues more highly
the Bible does, 17
than
“According
to 1 Cor. 12:13 the death of Jesus and are to be considered
the
Germans, Boddy moderated,
Baptism.”19
deny any Spirit baptism love.21 At the Sunderland discussed
among Tongues
as
exclusively
participating
,
had This
brought
him to
by
divine
Council would come to a
In December 1910 the German leaders went even further
by declaring:
all true children of God who have
gone
into
have commenced His life
through
the
Holy Spirit
as
Spirit baptized (Rom.
6 and
8).”18
Influenced
by
his view. First
Mary Boddy
stated: “to speak
in
Tongues only
is not, as I can see, a sufficient
sign
of the
Then
Boddy
himself admitted that at first
tongues received a too
prominent place
in Sunderland.2?
if the
tongues
were not
accompanied
conference in
1911,
the matter was
again
the leaders.
Boddy
observed: “Not all insist
upon
the
sign.”22
The Polmans
acknowledged
some had received the
Spirit baptism,
without
tongues,
while others
spoke
in tongues
without
having
been
Spirit baptized.23
One
year
later the leaders
in the International Pentecostal
doctrinal
agreement.
In contrast to the
development
did not
go through
a great controversy
concept
9f
sanctification. Sanctification was
generally
condition for
receiving
“Pentecost.”
Name Issue” that divided
many
Pentecostals in America was not an
Water
baptism certainly
was contro-
The discussions on this
topic, however,
have been
carefully
in his
reports
for
Confidence.
The
subject
has
Pentecostal movement
.
issue on this side of the Atlantic. versial.
omitted
by Boddy
ruary 1909),
(November 1909),
ance,” Confidence
in North
America,
the
early European
around the
accepted
as a
Similarly,
the so-called “Jesus
‘
.
1911),
tongues,
17(J. Paul), “Was sollen und wollen die Pfingstgrüsse?,” Pfin gsigrlisse 1.1 (Feb-
31.
18″Erklärung,” Pfngstgrusse
3.12 (December 18, 1910), 89-91.
l9Mary Boddy,
“The Real
Baptism
of the
Holy Ghost,” Confidence
2.11
260.
20A, A. Boddy, “Speaking in Tongues: What is it?” Confidence 3.5 (May 1910), 104.
21A, A. Boddy, “Tongues: The Pentecostal Sign; Love, the Evidence of Continu-
3.11 (November 1910), 261.
22″The Place of Tongues in the Pentecostal Movement,” Confidence 4.8 (August
176.
23The Polmans did not
try
to find answers as to why some did not speak in
but left it to the Lord.
Confidence 4.8 (August 1911), 177f.
‘
6
42
likewise been avoided in the German
Pfingstgrüsse. Boddy,
Paul and Barratt
simply kept
to their
respective Anglican,
Lutheran and Methodist traditions.
(Though initially defending
infant
baptism
Barratt would change
his
position
to the
Baptist
view
during 1913). During
the later Sunderland conferences
independent
Pentecostal
preachers
like Smith Wigglesworth
caused some tension
by leading separate baptismal services at sea. Barratt wrote in 1911:
Although,
as we have seen, our
opinion may vary concerning
the
meaning
and importance of the Lord’s Supper, or Breaking of Bread, there
seems to be no barrier, on that account,
in social communion on such occasions. Neither do the different meeting
preventing
us from
together
opinions concerning tongues need
to cause any ill-feeling amongst us, or
other question; but it does seem that when we come to the subject of
WATER-BAPTISM the case is different. This ought not to be so, but the
any
opinions
are so decided and the methods so different, that nothing but the
grace
of God and brotherly love will be able to keep us together as ONE
BODY.24
–
Barratt’s solution’to this
problem brings
us to the
organizational topic.
Organizational Topics
Barratt’s “An
Urgent
Call for
Charity
and
Unity,” published
in Confi- dence in
February
and March 1911 contained a fraternal
proposal
to form an international union or alliance. In his
introductory
remarks Barratt
expressed
his earnest desire for the
Holy Spirit
to be poured out upon
the
churches,
but
proceeded
to remark that due to
opposition, Pentecostal centers had been
springing up
outside the churches in every country.
Barratt was on the
point
of
presenting
his
thoughts
of a “fellowship
between the Pentecostal centers on
practical
lines” at the first
Hamburg
Conference, but after
discussing
it with
Boddy
and Paul felt the time was not
ripe.
Barratt continued to discuss the
subject
in private
conversation and in correspondence. The
general sympathy
he eventually
received from the
acknowledged
leaders of the revival
gave him the
liberty
to make a public call for charity and
unity.
Barratt’s
plan
was said to be similar to the methods used
by
some free missions in
Norway,
Denmark,
Sweden and
America,
giving
their members
perfect
freedom
concerning dogmatic questions. Joining
these missions was not
possible,
because
contrary
to their
dogmatic
freedom as a rule
they
withstood the Pentecostal revival. After
pointing
out the diversity
of
opinions among
Pentecostals, Barratt
posed
the
question, “What are we to do? Are we
again
to be broken
up piece-meal
as in former
days?
Is not this Pentecostal Revival
capable
of bridging over the difficulty
In
answering
this
question
he saw two
options,
“We
must either find some form of union, or stand as
separate bodies,
and aim at
‘
24B?a?? “An Urgent Plea,” Confidence 4.2 (February 1911), 31; Confidence 4.3 (March 1911), 63.
25Barratt, “An Urgent Plea,” Confidence 4.2 (February 1911). 3 1.
7
43
some form of alliance
between these.”26 Barratt’s
fraternal, proposal
aimed to attain a union between
free Pentecostal assemblies and Pente- –
costal centers
operating
within the churches. Since water
baptism
was
regarded
as the most controversial
subject, everyone
was allowed to act
in accordance with his or her
personal
view on the matter without
being
criticized, judged or
condemned
by
the others.
Every
center was free to
work out its
plan
and was not under
any obligation
to obey the
authority
of another center. Those
already recognized
as leaders in the revival
were to continue to travel from
place
to place “not as
haughty
overseers
to lord over the flock of Christ,” but to strengthen the faith and build
up
the church of God. The relation with Christians of
every
denomination
was to be one of tolerance and
goodwill. Lastly
the
proposal
contained a
list of standard truths, which abbreviated came down to the
following:
1. The Bible is the
inspired
Word of God.
2. There is a triune God.
3. Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God come in the flesh.
4. His
atoning
work on
Calvary
is the
hope
for the fallen human
race.
5. We are justified
by
faith. This salvation is a personal experience.
6, The Christian can
experience heart-cleansing
and be kept pure.
7 .” All
may
be filled with the
Holy
Ghost and Fire.
8.
Tongues
and all other
gifts
are now
being restored,
more so than
in any time previously.
9. Gifts without love are of no account.
‘
10. The of our
King
draweth
°
coming nigh.27
It would be
interesting
to examine the letters Barratt must have received from various leaders in answer to his
proposal,
but for the moment we have to
rely
on the
printed
sources.
Boddy,
in his editorial titled
“Unity,
not
Uniformity,”
endorsed Barratt’s
plea
for doctrine tolerance,
but did not
agree
with the formation of free churches.
The Editor of Confidence does not feel that the Lord’s leading in these
.
days
is to set up a new Church, but to bless indi-viduals where they are.
There is just as much danger, sooner of later, for a “Pentecostal Church”
(so-called),
as for any of the churches that have risen or fallen.28
Barratt did not attend the Sunderland conference of June 1911 which explains why
the issue, at least
according
to the
printed report,
was not discussed
during
Leaders’
Meetings.
In an
apologetic
editorial in August 1911,
entitled “Where We Stand”
Boddy stated,
..
.
We can pray for one another, and in some measure help one another by
our influences; but the so-called “Pentecostal Movement” is not an
organization.
Therefore we cannot be responsible for one another. We are 26Barratt, “An Urgent Plea,” Confidence 4.2 (February 1911), 31. … 27Barrait, “An Urgent Plea,” Confidence 4.2 (February 1911), 64. 28″Unity, Not Uniformity,” Confidence 4.3 (March 1911), 60.
8
44
far from
endorsing
the
practices
of some “centers” which seem so
unscriptural,
or so out of scriptural proportion. These things,
alas, do
reduce fellowship to a minimum, and the Enemy rejoices.29
Before
moving
to the
meetings
of the International Pentecostal Council where the
subject
of
fellowship
between Pentecostal centers was considered further, an
important development
in
Germany
must be mentioned.
The German Pentecostal movement arose within the Gemein- schaftsbewegung,
an orthodox counter-movement in
protest against modernism
largely operating
within the Lutheran or Reformed sections of the state church. As a result of the Berlin Declaration, the Pente- costals were cut off from
fellowship.
This
process
was finalized in January
1911 1 when the
remaining
neutrals within the Gemein- schaftsbewegung agreed
with a definite condemnation of the Pentecostal movement. The same month the excommunicated Pentecostal leaders came
together
for the first
Brfdertag
to discuss the
“unity
of all
bought by
the blood and, according to I Cor. 12:12-14
baptized
into one
body,” and to
“fight heresy
and disorder as well as
discipline
those who
give the movement a bad
reputation.”3o
About 60 leaders assembled in Berlin for this confidential
meeting. Proposals
to come to an
organization
were
discussed,
but not
accepted in order not to hinder the work of God and to respect the
independence of the assemblies. It was decided to come
together
on a regular basis as leaders of the revival for a Hauptbrüdertag. From then on,
only
those with letters of recommendation were allowed to speak in the assemblies and centers of the revival. The
responsibility
to issue these letters was entrusted to the
recognized
leaders
among
whom Jonathan
Paul, Eugen Edel and Emil
Humburg
were foremost. The
Hallptbrüdertag
also divided the work into areas,
although
some considered this a threat to the freedom of service and had
spoken against
it. Under the national Hauptbrlidertag
existed the
Brüdertag, organized by districts,
the Provinzialbrüderrag
and the even smaller
regional Bezirksbrlldertag. Soon some of the leaders were to be
expelled
while a few
left,
desiring more freedom.31
Although
the Pentecostals had been excommunicated by
the
Gemeinschaftsbewegung,
a number of the leaders and some of the centers still remained within the state church.
Major
leaders such as Jonathan
Paul,
who remained Lutheran and Carl Octavius
Voget,
who pastored
a
large
Reformed church in Bunde, tried to maintain the Pentecostal
message
and
experience
within the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.
29″Where we Stand,” Confidence 4.8 (August 1911), 180.
30Leonard Steiner, Mit’folgenden Zeichen, (Basel: Verlag Mission fiir das volle Evangelium), 58.
31p. Fleisch,
Pfingstbewegung,
194-201. Walter 1. Hollenweger, ed., Die Pfingstkirchen,
Die Kirchen der Welt, Vol. 7 (Stuttgart
Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1971),
64-68.
1
9
45
The
International
Pentecostal Council
(1912-1914)
Consultative International .
May
1912
Pentecostal
Council, Sunderland
.
. ‘
At the Fifth Sunderland Convention,
May 1912,
it was felt that the time was
ripe
to move
beyond
the
already existing
Leaders’
Meetings and to form a so-called “Consultative International Pentecostal Council.” II The declaration of the council,
published
in
Confidence,
June 1912, explained,
“in order to protect this work from,
wrong teaching,
or false teachers,
the chief Leaders in different lands should meet
together,
once or twice a
year,
to take counsel
together.”3Z
Hereafter followed a doctrinal statement about
Spirit baptism starting
with:
.
‘
We believe that The
Baptism
of the
Holy Spirit
and Fire is the
coming upon
and within of the Holy Spirit to indwell the believer in His
fulness,
and is always borne witness to
by the fruit of the Spirit and the
outward manifestations, so that we
may receive
the same
gift
as the
disciples
on the Day of Pentecost.33 ..
The declaration was
signed by
Barratt from
Norway, Boddy
and Polhill from
England,
Polman from the
Netherlands, Paul, Schilling
and Humburg
from
Germany
and
Joseph Hillery King
from the U.S.A. Not all of the leaders
present participated
in the council. Several
speakers
at the
convention,
like Smith
Wigglesworth,
did not take
part. Apart
from the declaration no further information
concerning
the council was
given. The next
meeting
was to be held in Amsterdam.
International Pentecostal Consultative
Council, Amsterdarn, December 1912
.
The second session of the International Council resulted in the most significant
declaration the council was to make. This time
Boddy
added some
personal
observations in
Confidence,
while
Pfingstgrasse
also published
a report together with a German version of the declaration. In
addition to
Boddy,
Polhill, Barratt, Polman, Paul and
Humburg,
who all had
participated
in the first session, C. O.
Voget
from
Germany
and Anton B. Reuss, who
represented
Richard Ruff from Zurich
(Ruff being
the successor of De Labiliere) were
present.
Not
present
were King
and
Schilling;
the latter was about to be expelled from the
Haupt- brüdertag.34
Because the council
meetings
were not attached to a large conference like Sunderland, the leaders could devote all their attention to
‘
.
32″A Consultative International Pentecostal
Council,” Confidence 5.6 (June 1912), 133.
33″ A Consultative International Pentecostal Council,”
133;
In the German translation “the outward manifestation” read “eine entsprechende Kundgebung oder Offenbarung
des Geistes.” “Erklirung,” Pfingstgrasse 5.15 (January 12, 1913), 114f. 34p. ?eisch,
Pfingstbewegung,
195.
r
10
46
the issues at stake.
Meetings
were held on December 4 and
5, 1912,
at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., each session
lasting
three hours. While the council meetings
in Sunderland would
always
be presided over
by Boddy, upon the invitation of Polman, this session was
presided
over
by J. Paul. Barratt had
again put
forward the idea of a union or
alliance,
but it would seem he found no
support. Boddy wrote,
Pastor Barratt introduced the thought of alliance, and even of formation
of Churches. Pastor Paul preferred the thought of an “Organism” to that
of an
Organization.
The so-called “Movement” is really not a movement,
but the Gift of the Holy Ghost, enabling many to be blessed in Churches
or outside them. An “Organism” is a living thing; an organization may
be living, but we have many organizations which have not much life.35 The actual declaration stated:
.
… we believe that the Holy Spirit seeks to bring about true unity all the
among
people of God, according
to the valedictory prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 17). Not a unity in which uniformity prevails as to methods of work and doctrines that have long divided the Church, but a unity
in spirit 6 and
fraternity
which
recognizes
the vital doctrines of Christianity,.36
In the
introductory
remarks of the final declaration the council
empha- sized its position as an advisory body, not as a legislative council. As an advisory
council it was to be self-elected and not
subject
to the control of the votes of assemblies. The declaration stated the convictions of the participants concerning
God’s
plan
for this revival. The
present
out- pouring
of the
Holy Spirit
was seen as a preparation for the
“Rapture,” in.light
of which the above statement about
unity
in spirit and
fraternity was
made,
added
by
an
urgent appeal
for
evangelistic
and
missionary efforts. Next the declaration contained some
important paragraphs
about the
baptism
with the
Holy Spirit;
a call for a deepening of God’s
work; and a call to follow
scriptural principles
in the exercise of
spiritual gifts, which meant to recognize the offices
appointed
in the
body
of Christ. The
paragraphs
about
Spirit baptism began by repeating part
of the previous
declaration and were extended with further
teaching.
With Paul as
president
and
Voget
as
secretary,
the German
tendency
to minimize
the
significance
of tongues
prevailed.
The sole direct reference to tongues was in the
negative:
“We do not teach that all who have been
baptized
in the
Holy
Ghost, even
if
they
should
speak
in
tongues,
have
already received the fulness of the
blessing
of Christ
implied
in this
Baptism. “37 While
encouraging
believers to seek the full
baptism, warnings
were given against “merely seeking
soulish
experiences
or
fleshly
demon- strations,”
and
against delighting
“in
feelings
and
mystical experiences.”
‘ .
35 °Session of the International Council at Amsterdam,”
Confidence
5.12 (December 1912), 284.
36″Declaration,” Confidence 5.2 (December 1912), 277.
37″Declaration,” Confidence 5.2 (December 1912), 277.
‘
11
47
Edel,
editor of
Pfingstgrüsse,
saw in the declaration a victory of the German
position.
He
repeated
the German statement of
1910,
in which according
to I Cor. 12:13 all true children of God were considered Spirit-baptized,
and which valued the fruit of the
Spirit
above the
gifts of the
Spirit.
In his editorial Edel was
pleased
to note that leaders of other countries had
agreed
to these biblical
principles.38
The
agreement was not as
far-reaching
as Edel had
hoped.
Polman, for
example,
did not translate the declaration for the Dutch
public
and in his
teaching always
maintained a strong emphasis on the
importance
of
tongues.39 The latter can also be said of Barratt, who thereafter did not return to the council
meetings. During
1913 Barratt was
baptized by
immersion and left the Methodist church.40 Influenced
by
the views of the former Baptist
Lewi Pethrus about
establishing
free Pentecostal
assemblies, Barratt
dropped
his
previous
ideas about
working along
Alliance lines. He
organized
the work in Oslo as a free Pentecostal Church and eventu- ally
made
baptism by immersion
a condition for
membership.41
International May
1913
Advisory Council, Sunderland,
.
The third session of the International Council was held
during
the Sunderland Convention of
May
1913. The members met each
morning at All Saint’s
Vicarage
at 8:45 a.m.
Boddy, Polhill,
Polman and Paul took
part
for the third time.
Among
the newcomers were Edel and R.
Geyer,
a German
pastor
in
charge
of the Pentecostal work in Basel. Among
the
speakers
at the convention who did not
participate
in the council
meetings
were
Stephen
and
George Jeffreys,
Smith Wiglesworth,
Thomas
Myerscough,
Frank Bartleman and also the German Heinrich Vietheer, who had disassociated himself from the Hauptbrüdertag.42
The declaration addressed three issues. The first was a
repeated warning
not to allow unknown teachers to address Pente- costal
gatherings
without
proper
letters of recommendation. The second warned
against
an
“unscriptural teaching
as to the eunuch life”
brought from America, while the third was an extensive
repudiation
of Jessie Penn-Lewis’ War on the Saints (Leicester: The
Overcomer; London: Marshall
Brothers, 1912).43
.
‘
38″Nachschrift der Redaktion,” PfingstgriZsse 5.15 (January 12, 1913), 115.
39Cf. Cornelis Van Der Laan, “Gerrit Roelof Polman, Sectarian Against His Will:
Birth of Pentecostalism in the Netherlands,” Ph.D. Thesis (University of Birming-
ham, 1987).
40Thomas Ball Barratt, When the Fire Fell and an Outline of My Life (Oslo:
Alfons Hanscn & Sonner, 1927), 178-190.
41Cf. Nils Bloch-Hoell, The Pentecostal Movement (Oslo:
–
72.
Universiteitsforlaget,
, 1 964),
42p. ?ci?h,
Pfingstbewegung,
195.
43″Declaration,” Confidence
6.7
(July 1913),
135f. Cf. “The International
12
48
Jessie
Penn-Lewis,
known from the Keswick Conventions and editor of The
Overcomer,
had
already annoyed
the Pentecostals
by
her negative report
of the movement,
largely
based on information from Germany,
in a series entitled “An Hour of Peril”
published
in The Christian between
January
and March 1908. Also the Pentecostals blamed Mrs. Penn-Lewis for
preventing
Evan
Roberts,
who
stayed
in her
home,
from
returning
to the
ministry.
In 1912 her
book,
War on the Saints: A Text Book
for
Believers on the Work
of Deceiving Spirits among
the Children
of
God,
appeared,
written in collaboration with Evan Roberts. It contained serious
warnings against waiting
for a special baptism
with the
Holy Spirit
and
against speaking
in
tongues which was seen as opening the door to deceiving
spirits. Boddy
wrote a critical review entitled “A Book about Demons,”
saying,
“Some
may get help,
but
surely
more will
get
into darkness.
“44
The German Pentecostals, who
by
this time had become tired of always being
associated with demons, were
particularly
disturbed
by
the book because of its German translation. The
report
of the Sunderland conference in
Pfingstgrfsse
dealt extensively
with the
publication, calling
it “340
Pages
about the Devil.” 45 After the outbreak of the first World War Mrs. Penn-Lewis dared to write that Kaiser Wilhelm was acting
under influence of demons, the German Pentecostals would react even more
furiously!46
International May
1914
Advisory Council, Sunderland,
‘
The announced session at Amsterdam, December
1913,
did not take place.
The
following
and last session was held at the Sunderland Convention of
May
1914,
with
again only
six members.
Boddy, Polhill, Polman and
Paul
participated
for the fourth
time;
Humburg
for the third and
Voget
for the second time.
Among
the
speakers
and leaders present
who did not have
part
in the
council, were
A. S. Booth- Clibbom,
Thomas
Myerscough,
Essler from
Mülheim, Bromberg from
Advisory Council (Pentecostal),” Confidence 6.6 (June 1913), 111. 5.7
Confidence (July 1912), 162, also
contained a
warning coming
from the Liverpool
district
their
against
a fanatical eunuch life teaching. Married women were removing wedding rings. Certain physical sensations were taken as indicative of the
true “Bride life.” ”
44″A Book about Demons,” Confidence 6.1 (January 1913), 20. When the book was re-issued in 1917, Boddy again wrote against it: “It is so much the best to be joyfully occupied
with our beloved and Victorious Lord Jesus, rather than to be seek- ing
to study the dark ways of demons.” Confidence 10.1 (March/April 1917), 27. 45″Die sechste
Pfingstkonferenz
in Sunderland,”
Pfingslgrüsse
5.37 (June 15, 1913),
290-292. For a solid refutation of the diabolic argument from the Pentecostal side, see J. Paul, Zur Dämonenfrage (Mülheim Ruhr Emil Humburg, 1912). 46″days letze Opfer dcr Damonentheone.” Pfingstgrasse, 7.10 (December 6, 1914), 77.
‘
13
49
Poland,
and Brown from the U. S. A. The declaration was
very
brief and
only
contained a warning
against “spurious
literature”
spread among Pentecostal circles which claimed to have been
given by
direct
inspira- tion
equal
to the Bible.47 No more information about the
meetings
was given.
Due to the war no further council
meetings
were held.
‘
Concluding
Remarks
Having
discussed the
proceedings
of the International
Council,
some concluding
remarks
concerning
its significance can be made. The
simple fact that leaders of several countries came
together
to discuss matter of a pastoral, apologetic,
doctrinal and
organizational nature,
is
already significant
in itself. A forum of this kind is not available
today.
The move from the earlier Leaders’
Meetings
to the International Council had the
positive
result of
producing
four declarations, of which the Amster- dam declaration stands out the most; but, a
negative
result was its accompanying
exclusion of
many
other leaders. From
England only Boddy
and Polhill took
part
and from
Germany only
those associated with the
H auptbrüdertag,
out of which the so-called Miilheimer Richtung
was to
grow.
The Swiss
participants
were
strongly
influenced by Germany (e.g. Geyer’s assembly
in Basel was
governed by Mulheim).
When Barratt no
longer
took
part
in the
meetings,
the
already small basis was even further limited. The council became dominated
by the German and the two
English
leaders. It is this restricted
representa- tion of the wider Pentecostal movement that accounts for its limited success. The more radical
independent
Pentecostal
preachers
who were establishing
free Pentecostal assemblies in England and
Germany
were never involved. Often
they
were
lay preachers coming
from a lower class of
society
than most of the members of the council. When
Boddy and Polhill in later
years
lost their influence
upon
the movement, the doctrinal
agreements
of the council were soon
forgotten.
In
Germany these doctrinal
agreements
have been
preserved only
in one section of Pentecostalism,
the Mülheimer
Richtung.
47″A Warning from the Advisory Council,” Confidence 7.6 (June 1914), 108f.
14
