The Plausibility Of The Independent Origins Of Canadian Pentecostalism Winds From The North

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

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

Pneuma 33 (2011) 417-425

Review Essay

Te Plausibility of the Independent Origins of Canadian

Pentecostalism: Winds from the North

Steven M. Studebaker McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

studeba@mcmaster.ca

Abstract

Winds from the North showcases the role of early Canadian Pentecostals in the development of the global movement. It adds to the recent polygenetic thesis that challenges the popular notion that Pentecostalism originated largely in American revival centers, principally Azusa Street, and makes the case for diverse global points of origin. Canadian Pentecostalism exhibits unique characteristics, and its leaders made seminal and independent contributions to world- wide Pentecostalism. In addition to presenting a case for the independent origins and unique features, it highlights the role of women leaders in the early phases and spotlights the history of the Oneness and the Latter Rain movements of Canadian Pentecostalism. Tough a vital addition to the field of Pentecostal research, the plausibility and necessity of independent origins and autonomous characteristics of the Canadian contribution to global Pentecostalism needs examination.

Keywords

Canadian Pentecostalism, Pentecostal origins, Hebden Mission, Aimee Semple McPherson, Zelma Argue, Beulah Argue, Charles Chawner, Oneness Pentecostalism, the Latter Rain, Spirit baptism

Winds from the North: Canadian Contributions to the Pentecostal Movement, edited by Michael Wilkinson and Peter Althouse (Religion in America Series 10, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010), significantly advances the scholarly study of Canadian Pentecostalism. Previous studies on Canadian Pentecostalism have mostly been popular and denominational histories that adopted the narrative that Canadian Pentecostalism had largely derived from American centers of revival, such as Parham and Topeka, Kansas and Seymour’s Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, California. Tis book challenges that historiography

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/157007411X592710

1

418

S. M. Studebaker / Pneuma 33 (2011) 417-425

by detailing unique points of origins and contributions of Canadian Pentecos- talism. Tree features that reflect its independence from the movement in the States are: 1) religious innovation, 2) transnationalism, and 3) the emphasis on following the leading of the Spirit. Canadian Pentecostals developed adapta- tions contextualized to the distinct nature of the Canadian culture and church. Transnationalism means that Canadian Pentecostalism emerged indepen- dently from the revival centers in the States in important ways and, by sending out missionaries, influenced the worldwide growth of the Pentecostal move- ment. Te rich transformational and empowerment images of biblical pneu- matology provided the theological inspiration for the new movement. As a whole, the book fortifies the work of scholars such as Walter J. Hollenweger, Allan Anderson, and Douglas Jacobsen, who argue that the origin of Pentecos- talism was polygenetic or polynucleated and not dominated by American revival centers and that diversity and not homogeneity characterize early Pen- tecostal theology and ministry practice.

Te sections and individual essays effectively achieve the overall goal of the book to highlight the overlooked Canadian contribution to the Pentecostal movement. Te first section, “Origins,” contains four essays on early Pentecos- tal leaders and centers of revival, which emerged independently from those in the States and made a transnational impact on the movement worldwide. Michael Wilkinson covers early Canadian missionaries, especially those sent out from the Hebden Mission in Toronto and Charles Chawner in particular. He argues that the early Canadian Pentecostal movement shares some com- mon features with Pentecostalism in the States, but also has notable differ- ences. Unlike their southern counterparts, the Canadian Pentecostals often did not consider tongues as the ability to speak a foreign language (xenolalia) for missionary purposes, nor did they accentuate speaking in tongues, but rather gave prominence to an encounter with God’s love as the purpose of Spirit baptism. Randall Holm outlines several myths that characterize Cana- dian Pentecostalism. A. H. Argue’s story of receiving the Pentecostal experi- ence after tarrying for twenty-one days at William Durham’s Mission in Chicago evolved into a legendary icon for later Pentecostals. Argue’s Calvary Temple in Winnipeg is an uncharacteristic Pentecostal church and challenges a common myth; it represents stability in contrast to the Pentecostal myth of charismatic spontaneity. Adam Stewart and Peter Althouse have essays here too, but I discuss them in more detail below.

Section two, with four essays on Zelma and Beulah Argue and Aimee Sem- ple McPherson, elevates the important role of women in the development of

2

S. M. Studebaker / Pneuma 33 (2011) 417-425

419

the movement in Canada and beyond its borders. With males dominating the leadership positions of the developing Pentecostal denominations, the women who were key leaders in the early Pentecostal movement were often forgotten and then marginalized from official leadership roles. Drawing on gender stud- ies, Linda Ambrose shows that the success of early Pentecostal women, such as Zelma and Beulah Argue, arose from complex layers of theological ideas and gender relations and roles. Pamela Holmes focuses on Zelma Argue. Argue was a key leader in the early Pentecostal movement in both Canada and the States. She promoted an egalitarian theology of ministry based on biblical pneumatology and the eschatological expectation of the imminent return of Christ. Michael DiGiacomo examines the catalytic influence of Aimee Semple McPherson’s meetings in Montreal during December 1920 for French- Canadian Pentecostalism, especially through the healing of Louis Roussy Dutard’s wife. After the healing of his wife, Dutard, a Baptist minister, became the key leader in Francophone Pentecostalism in Quebec. DiGiacomo also argues that McPherson’s ministry helped reverse the falling tide of the French- Canadian evangelical movement, which by the 1970s was the largest group within Francophone Evangelicalism in Quebec. Traditional views hold that Pentecostal and mainline churches largely repudiated each other and did not cross-pollinate. In contrast, David Michel argues that McPherson’s ministry shaped the spirituality and ministries of the Canadian Methodist Episcopal Church, Methodist Episcopal Church South, and the other Methodist groups. McPherson was able to integrate Pentecostal experience and themes with the Wesleyan heritage. Te Pentecostal emphasis on the empowerment for witness brought by Spirit baptism helped to revitalize Methodist ministries. Te third section, “Controversy,” presents four essays that discuss Oneness Pentecostalism and the Latter Rain revival of the early 1950s. Te Latter Rain, largely forgotten, and Oneness Pentecostalism, mostly ignored by the Classical Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, have unique points of origin and contribution to Pentecostalism in North America and around the world. David Reed charts the contributions of R. E. McAlister, Franklin Small, and John Paterson in the growth of Oneness Pentecostalism. Te Oneness move- ment, especially through Small’s theology, refined and extended the Christo- centrism of William Durham. Small founded the Apostolic Church of Pentecost, which was for many years the only uniquely Pentecostal denomina- tion. Shane Flanagan showcases the ministry and leadership of Wynn T. Stairs in New Brunswick and the Atlantic Northeast. Jesus Name (Oneness Pente- costalism) and personal transformation, which took the form of interpersonal

3

420

S. M. Studebaker / Pneuma 33 (2011) 417-425

reconciliation and moral renovation, characterized Full Gospel Pentecostalism in this area. It also developed with important connections to its counterpart in the States, especially in Maine, and missionary efforts in Latin America. William D. Faupel presents the New Order of the Latter Rain revival that began in 1948 in New Battlefield, Saskatchewan, at Sharon Bible College under the leadership of George Hawtin. Sharon became a revival center and the revival spread throughout North America and eventually around the world as people traveled to Sharon, and later as organized traveling ministries were sent forth by the Latter Rain leadership. Te revival emphasized a cluster of ecclesiastical themes — the nature, mission, and worship of the church. With respect to its goal to restore unity to the church, Faupel concludes that the Latter Rain was a failure, since by 1955 the revival had dissipated. Yet, though formally short-lived, the movement’s themes and emphases significantly shaped the Charismatic movement and continue to influence Pentecostal churches. Using the concept of global return, Mark Hutchinson covers the global and ongoing influence of the Canadian Latter Rain movement. Global return is the mutual and adaptive influence of and on the Latter Rain, which originated in Canada and then shaped worldwide Pentecostalism through international networks. In this globalizing process, he argues, energetic centers of Latter Rain revival took root in New Zealand and Australia. Trough missionary activity, they helped forge the nature of Pentecostalism in Southeast Asia — the most striking case being Yoido Full Gospel Church. Te ongoing impact of Australia in particular continues to be seen in Hillsong’s global effect, whose youth worship band, for example, toured Canada to sell-out crowds and was the top-selling Christian band in the States and Canada in 2007. More broadly, the Latter Rain decisively shaped the Charismatic movement by transcending denominational particularities, which characterized the first generation of Pentecostal denominations. Tough technically spent by the mid-1970s, the Latter Rain left a lasting imprint on Pentecostalism by playing a key role in the global interchange of leaders and ministry styles and themes.

I want to interact more closely with Adam Stewart’s and Peter Althouse’s essays because the former deals with the central historical and the latter with the theological thesis of the book. In “A Canadian Azusa? Te Implications of the Hebden Mission for Pentecostal Historiography,” Stewart argues that the independent emergence of Pentecostalism, from Azusa Street and/or other sources in the States, at the Hebden Mission in Toronto undermines the com- mon notion that Azusa Street was the primary source for the rise of global Pentecostalism and instead supports the case for multiple sources of Pentecos-

4

S. M. Studebaker / Pneuma 33 (2011) 417-425

421

talism. He rejects the “ahistorical and Americentric myth of Azusa Street” and favors in its place “a polygenetic theory of Pentecostal origins” (18). James and Ellen Hebden, English immigrants, founded the Hebden Mission on May 20, 1906. Originally intended to be a faith-healing home, Ellen and soon others received the baptism in the Holy Spirit in November 1906. Te mission soon became a site of spiritual pilgrimage for people seeking Spirit baptism and a staging area for missionary ventures in Canada and eventually around the world. Tough Stewart’s is an excellent essay that details the unique features of Canadian Pentecostalism and particularly the role of the Hebden Mission, I want to investigate its central thesis, and thereby also that of the book. First, Stewart is correct that Pentecostalism has “polygenetic” points of ori- gin, but this fact does not preclude predominant centers of revival. Te United States (for example, Azusa Street) does not have exclusive claims on being the source of the Pentecostal movement. Although not stated in the essay, the tendency of Pentecostals in the USA to see the movement radiating from their homeland to bring the blessings of the Spirit to the rest of the world may be the Pentecostal version of American colonialism and triumphal imperialism. Nevertheless, granting Stewart’s point that Pentecostal historiography has invested too much theological and historical significance in Azusa and USA- based missionaries does not entail the rejection of the historically key role Azusa played in the emergence of the global Pentecostal movement. In other words, one can accept the polygenetic thesis and at the same time recognize that the early history of Pentecostalism suggests that Azusa Street was the epi- center of Pentecostalism and the key, though not exclusive, source of the rise of the global Pentecostal movement.

Several considerations support this point. Te earliest Pentecostal mission- aries who were responsible for spreading the Pentecostal message and experi- ence typically participated in the Azusa Street Revival or came into the Pentecostal experience through figures who had visited Azusa and brought its charismatic renewal back to their local areas. Furthermore, the message popu- larized at Azusa and by its missionaries was the experience of Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues, which became theological emphases of most, though not all, Pentecostal groups. Additionally, the leaders in the global sites of the Pentecostal revivals of the early twentieth century often had prior genetic links with the Azusa Street Revival. In this respect, Azusa Street functioned as a clearinghouse that facilitated the international Pentecostal revivals. Moreover, the largest and most influential Pentecostal denominations have clear historic ties to Azusa Street.

5

422

S. M. Studebaker / Pneuma 33 (2011) 417-425

Again, my purpose is not to reject the polygenetic thesis, but to suggest that the recognition of the polygenetic origins of Pentecostalism does not mean that all the points of origins are equivalent in terms of their relative influence on the development of the movement, nor does it exclude the possibility that one or several revival centers played a central role in shaping the early move- ment. In other words, although popular and blinkered histories may have ignored the global points of origins or have favored their local origins (for example, Americans favored Azusa and Topeka), that fact does not imply that certain revivals in the USA did not play a relatively more defining and influ- ential role in the emergence of the global Pentecostal movement. Furthermore, to recognize that certain points of origin had a more prominent role relative to others does not commit one to a single-source theory of the Pentecostal movement.

Second, did Hebden arise independently of Azusa, and does it matter? Stewart argues that “an examination of the historical material available reveals that the Hebden Mission in Toronto originated independently of any influ- ence from the Azusa Street Mission in Los Angeles, or indeed, from any other centre or individual associated with the Pentecostal revival” (24). Te first problem with this statement is that sufficient historical sources are unavailable to support the claim. He points out that “there is no historical evidence to suggest that Ellen Hebden had any previous knowledge of what was happen- ing at Seymour’s Azusa Street at the time of her baptism in the Holy Spirit” (24). Te problem is that absence of evidence does not disprove a connection to Azusa. Without a direct affirmation of the Hebdens’s or documentary evi- dence of some sort, how would one prove a connection? Te issue is one of plausibility. Is it plausible that the Hebdens were entirely bereft of knowledge of Seymour and Azusa Street, given the following factors?

Te pattern of Hebden Pentecostalism reflects a common paradigm of early Pentecostal experience. A person who feels spiritually empty begins to pray and seek more spiritual vitality from Christ, eventually this prayer is answered in the experience of Spirit baptism accompanied by speaking in tongues and renewed spiritual power and the use of Acts to interpret the experience, and finally this person becomes a catalytic agent in spreading the Pentecostal expe- rience and revival. Te Pentecostal revivals in Topeka and Azusa Street exhibit a similar narrative. Te common pattern of experience among Topeka, Azusa, and Hebden do not prove they are connected, since the common features could be explained otherwise. For example, they were all reading the same Bible. Or, as Donald Dayton and others have demonstrated, the doctrine of Spirit baptism as a second work of grace for empowered ministry and/or holi-

6

S. M. Studebaker / Pneuma 33 (2011) 417-425

423

ness was common among late nineteenth-century Reformed revivalists and the Wesleyan-Holiness groups. Speaking in tongues, however, which Ellen Hebden testifies was a central part of her experience of Spirit baptism, was exclusive to the Pentecostal revivals at this time. At any rate, the similarities between the experiences, combined with their geographical and temporal proximity and free flow of communication between the two countries, does at least raise the likelihood that Azusa or one of the other evangelical and/or Holiness predecessors was known at Hebden Mission.

Stewart argues that Hebden bears distinguishing features that demonstrate Hebden arose independently of Azusa. Te first distinguishing feature is the purpose of the power received through Spirit baptism. Azusa emphasized power to evangelize, whereas Hebden saw it as the power to heal. Yet, “power” is common to both revivals, and clearly, as Stewart’s essay describes, the Heb- den Mission sent out missionaries across Ontario and around the world. Te emphasis on healing, therefore, did not exclude a commensurate concern for missions and evangelism, nor was healing absent from Azusa. Te place of tongues at Hebden also distinguishes it from Azusa. Hebden did not empha- size tongues as the gift of a foreign language for evangelism. Nevertheless, that Hebden and Azusa had differing understandings of the purpose of tongues does not demonstrate that Ellen Hebden was unaware of the Azusa Street Revival. Te logic seems to be that since the view of tongues at Hebden was different from the early-Azusa view, then the two groups had no connection. A connection between the two movements does not mean that Hebden would necessarily follow Azusa in all cases, just as Seymour did not follow Parham’s racial segregation practices, but Seymour’s Azusa was clearly connected with Parham’s earlier revival. Tus, in terms of making a judgment about genetic relationship between Hebden and Azusa, distinguishing features do not prove absolute independence.

Finally, the value of Hebden’s contribution to Pentecostalism does not depend on its independence from the Azusa Street Revival. Te premise behind the argument that the Hebden Mission arose autonomously from Azusa or some other American center of Pentecostalism seems to be that unless Hebden is spontaneous, it does not have anything to offer to Pentecostal his- toriography and theology. But, I do not think that this premise is necessary. Te value of Stewart’s research and, more broadly, of the book project is bring- ing to light the unsung history and contribution of Canadian Pentecostals. Te value and significance of the Hebdens and others treated in the book, such as the Argue sisters, does not rest on their complete independence from the centers of revival in the States or other parts of the world. As Stewart states,

7

424

S. M. Studebaker / Pneuma 33 (2011) 417-425

“Pentecostal historiography would . . . be greatly enriched if, rather than the current obsession with the monogenetical myth of Azusa Street, more atten- tion were focused on uncovering and delineating the rich variety of social and historical conditions, as well as the theological and practical traditions, that contributed to the polygenetical beginnings of the Pentecostal movement” (34). I support the purpose of Stewart’s essay and of the book as a whole to showcase the neglected figures and their unique contributions to the emer- gence of worldwide Pentecostalism, but I am convinced neither of the plausi- bility of Hebden’s total independence from Azusa nor of its necessity in order to recognize the value of its unique contribution to the Pentecostal movement.

Peter Althouse’s “Te Ecumenical Significance of Canadian Pentecostalism” presents the case for a sub-tradition or diversity of theological viewpoints within the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada on the theology of Spirit bap- tism. Tis sub-tradition preferred the terminology of “Spirit infilling” to “Spirit baptism” because it better maintained a sense of continuity with the historic churches, whereas the Classical Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism implies discontinuity (56-57). J. Eustace Purdie, Anglican priest and first principal of Canadian Pentecostal Bible College, and Charles A. Ratz, an important educator in the denomination, were central leaders in the early Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) who desired to connect with his- toric Christianity. Te chief way of doing this was a tempered understanding of the relationship between salvation and Spirit baptism.

According to Althouse, Ratz and Purdie taught that all believers are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ and later can receive the infilling or charis- matic fullness of the Spirit. Althouse suggests that Ratz still saw “infilling” as experientially subsequent to the Spirit baptism of Christian initiation. However, he was “unwilling to make an ontological separation between two distinct acts of grace” (68). Althouse prefers the term infilling to “baptism” in the Spirit because it “bypasses some of the ecumenical difficulties embodied in the term baptism,” and he believes that their view should be recovered in order to augment contem- porary understandings of what it means to be Pentecostal (57-58).

Te ecumenical difficulties surrounding the Classical Pentecostal terminol- ogy of Spirit baptism is not the term per se, but the doctrine/theology assumed when using the term. Most, probably all, Christians can affirm “Spirit bap- tism,” since the notion is a biblical one. Te problem resides in the Classical Pentecostal theology of Spirit baptism that stipulates that the experience is dis- tinct from and subsequent to conversion and, thus, that not all Christians have received Spirit baptism. Te inevitable two-tiered hierarchy of Christians and lurking spiritual elitism that comes with it present the ecumenical problem.

8

S. M. Studebaker / Pneuma 33 (2011) 417-425

425

Te biblical language of “baptized” and “filled” with the Spirit refers to the same experience of the Spirit — e.g., Acts 1:8 and Acts 2:1-4. Tough “infill- ing” may overcome some ecumenical barriers terminologically, theologically the two terms refer to the same experience of the Spirit. Unless the various Christian groups have the same or at least compatible understandings of the nature of the experience of the Spirit indicated by the terms infilling and bap- tism, then the ecumenical challenges remain.

If we grant that Purdie was not a Classical Pentecostal and preferred to use the term infilling because it better suited the purpose of affirming the continu- ity yet distinction of the Spirit’s works in the believer than the discontinuity maintained in the Classical Pentecostal view of Spirit baptism, we can ask whether his view became prominent or whether the PAOC followed the Clas- sical Pentecostal view in terms of its official doctrinal statement and require- ments for ordination. Althouse hopefully wonders, “perhaps Pentecostals in the PAOC were not truncated by a propositional doctrinal formulation, but were open to theological diversity in how the activity of the Spirit was to be understood in relation to Scripture and Christian experience” (75). I hope he is right that the PAOC was opening the door to theological diversity, but how can we know that the PAOC leadership intended to create or at least allow for doctrinal flexibility within the movement? If that were the intention, then would not someone have discussed this in a denominational writing? Would they not have relaxed standards on this doctrinal point for credentialing? But are such documents available, and does the denomination officially allow a range of views on Spirit baptism in credentialing committees? I agree with Althouse that the Purdie-Ratz view of the infilling of the Spirit is more theo- logically sensible and ecumenically fruitful than the Classical Pentecostal view of Spirit baptism affirmed by Classical Pentecostal groups like the Assemblies of God, but I am not convinced of the historical argument that it is an accepted point of theological diversity within the PAOC. Furthermore, the key ques- tions are, does the PAOC leadership agree with Althouse and will they change PAOC doctrinal statements and ordination expectations to reflect the Purdie- Ratz-Althouse sub-tradition and in effect make it the main tradition? I think the odds are long on that bet.

In the end, this volume is an excellent introduction to the contributions of early Canadian Pentecostal leaders. Te individual essays all add to the overall purpose of the book and are each valuable contributions in their own right. Tis book should become a standard reference for people seeking an introduction to Canadian Pentecostalism and starting point for scholarship on the topic.

9