Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Book Reviews / Pneuma 34 (2012) 95-159
109
Robin Johnston, Howard A. Goss: A Pentecostal Life (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 2010). xv +231 pp., $19.99 hardback.
History’s tragedies include people being allowed to die as though they never lived. Embar- rassing to some of his spiritual descendants, this fate overtook Howard A. Goss (1883-1964). Johnston has endeavored to rehabilitate Goss. Religious history is often a tale of struggle and polemic. Those who ignore this, reveal themselves more interested in historical ideology than in history itself. That tendency has characterized much Pentecostal historiography. This biography is a revised PhD dissertation. One may argue biography is an inferior means of writing history but that would only obfuscate. Johnston writes from the Oneness Pente- costal perspective. Vinson Synan, who directed the dissertation, suggests in the foreword that Goss be contrasted with the exclusivity of his tradition. Johnston acknowledges Goss rejected the “water and Spirit” doctrine of salvation, was not theologically radical, and sup- ported Trinitarian missionary efforts. This avoids adding to the prevalence of hagiography often burdening Pentecostal historiography. Employing Grant Wacker’s interpretive meth- odology, Johnston recognizes limitations and avoids forcing Goss into false taxonomies. Challenges in writing a biography of Goss include the lack of materials and the severe lacuna within extant sources. Consequently, several chapters are not specifically about Goss. Turning to sources, the bibliographical thinness is puzzling. Goss wrote little but there is more than the ten published sources listed. Johnston refers to “unpublished notes” and dia- ries. In neither case are we provided with analysis. The diaries were long restricted and scholars denied access. The 1907 volume remained sealed for years on account of alleged sensitive material. Despite this embargo it was read as early as 1987. There is nothing sensi- tive therein. Johnston cites the diaries close to thirty times (mainly 1906-7) but the reader would like to know more about content, quality, usefulness, and extent. Goss’ handwriting was deplorable. Particular palaeographical skills are required to penetrate their mysteries. Johnston acknowledges many mistakes in Goss’ recollections but neither clarifies when Goss was accurate nor explains the criteria for adjudication. For many events, Johnston cites Ethel Goss’ The Winds of God: The Story of the Early Pentecostal Movement (1901-1914) in the Life of Howard A. Goss (1958) rather than the diaries. To what extent do the diaries support a narrative written a half century later? We don’t know. My acquaintance with the diaries leads me to believe those brief occasional entries are limited. There are extant letters Goss wrote to Marilyn Gazowsky and C. H. Yadon which Johnston surely knows about but has not explored. Frank Ewart wrote several relevant letters (1945-7). These are ignored. Johnston asserts he talked to many people who knew Goss. His bibliography reveals but a single inter- view. Moreover, there are recorded reflections on Goss by people who knew him before 1945 which appear not to have been used. Johnston acknowledges he has not investigated many aspects of Goss’ life. This reader wonders why.
Johnston follows the interpretative framework of scholars with whom he agrees but rarely explains why. Various points about early Pentecostal history which Johnston repeats might be challenged but my concern is Howard Goss not the derivative scholarship. Goss’ station- ary once read “Howard A. Goss, D.D.” Johnston never refers to this. As a preacher, Goss was less effective than either Millicent McClendon or Ethel Wright (his wives). Chiefly an orga- nizer and administrator, not a theologian, Goss was more reliable on theology than the
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/157007412X621789
1
110
Book Reviews / Pneuma 34 (2012) 95-159
sometimes simplistic Andrew Urshan. Johnston does not query naive assumptions exhib- ited by Goss, for example in the 1907 test-case for evidential tongues in San Antonio. Goss was consistent soteriologically which contributed to his repudiation as United Pentecostal Church (UPC) General Superintendent and subsequent marginalization. Less than six months before his death, Goss wrote sadly that he had little available opportunity for minis- try. He changed his mind on glossolalia. Ostensibly he spoke in Armenian but later rejected the xenoglossic assumption of tongues speaking. Goss was baptized twice in Jesus name, though Johnston is misleading to claim Charles Parham used the Jesus Name formula as understood in later Oneness Pentecostalism. Moreover, Goss’ decision to undergo another Jesus Name immersion eleven years later is curious. Johnson’s explanation fails to satisfy. “Revelation” functions crucially in early Pentecostalism. Johnston polemicizes with Walter Hollenweger over the latter’s use of Goss’ well-known statement on “revelation.” Notwithstanding, innovation characterizes the early movement. Hollenweger did not mis- understand that ethos. Johnston offers a nuanced corrective and while Goss suggested new ideas be vetted before dissemination, there is no evidence this was practiced. David Reed’s argument that “revelation” in Oneness Pentecostalism never appealed beyond Scripture is correct. Still, the Bible could be adapted to suit “revelation” and there was a Pentecostal hermeneutic undergirding doctrines characterizing the UPC in Goss’ latter days. Exegetical gymnastics may not have constituted extra-biblical “revelation” for Andrew Urshan (Goss seems not to have written on the matter) but Luther long ago concluded Scripture had a wax nose. This proved convenient for “New Issue” adherents as well as Christians of every persuasion throughout church history. Interpretation is guided by hermeneutics. No one can deal with texts otherwise. The drawback to the Acts of the Apostles as a hermeneutical key should be obvious. Goss was not as benighted as some of his colleagues insisting the Holy Spirit had not, for example, inspired certain articles of faith. The merger producing the UPC in 1945 was more tenuous and controversial than Johnston reveals. I cannot accept Johnston’s conclusion that differences between Goss and many new birth proponents was simply a matter of emphasis. That ignores fundamental divergences between the merging bodies which many have dismissed but no one has refuted.
Johnston outlines Goss’ life, though one wishes for more analysis to accompany the nar- rative. There is a basic index, few typographical errors, one bibliographical mis-attribution (213) and thirteen photographs. Regrettably their provenance is unrecorded. Howard A. Goss is a foundational Pentecostal figure. While the book is not a critical, academic monograph, readers should join me in gratitude to Robin Johnston for shedding new light on Goss. Hope- fully this book will stimulate further analysis of a man who should not be forgotten.
Reviewed by Thomas A. Fudge Independent Scholar, Portland, Oregon [email protected]
2
