The Search For Pentecostal Identity

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

| PentecostalTheology.com

1

The Search

for Pentecostal

Identity

When the Pentecostal Movement first burst on the

religious

scene at the turn of the twentieth

century,

the

early participants

in the revival self-consciously

wrestled with the issue of Pentecostal

identity.

At times

early

Pentecostals seemed almost fixated on the issue of identifying

what was distinctive about their movement and their particular

brand of Christian

experience.

Frank

Bartleman,

one of the eyewitnesses

at the Azusa Street

revival,

for

example, creatively constructed an

apologetic

scheme from Protestant church

history

in order to herald the

eschatological significance

of the Pentecostal experience

for world

Christianity.

In his

writings

and

ministry Bartleman

argued

that the modem Pentecostal

outpouring

of the

Holy Spirit signaled

the

culminating

events in a

process

which was

readying the church for the Second

Coming

of Jesus

Christ,

a historical

process of divine

preparation

that started with the Reformation.

Through Martin Luther and his

recovery

of the biblical truth of justification

by faith,

God restored to the church the

personal experience

of salvation. Then

later, through

John

Wesley

and his

recovery

of the biblical truth of

sanctification,

God awakened the church to the life of holiness and Christian

maturity. Finally, through

the modern

day

Pentecostal

revival, God was

restoring

to the church the

power of Holy Spirit baptism,

the miracles of divine

healing

and the

supernatural gifts

of the

Spirit.

This restoration was

designed by

God to

empower

his

people

for the task of world-wide

evangelization

as the few

remaining grains

of sand were sifting through

the

hourglass

of human

history.

How

widely

Bartleman’s historical

apologetic

was known and accepted by

other

early

Pentecostals is a matter of

speculation,

but the conception

of the full

gospel

shadowed in this rationale

pervasively shaped

the

religious identity

of those who were

swept

into the movement. Those who

experienced

the

early

twentieth

century outpouring

of the

Holy Spirit

conceived of themselves as God’s end-time

people who, by

God’s

grace,

were

saved,

sanctified and baptized

in the

Holy Spirit.

Pentecostal

psychology

was

shaped

at its core

by

an

eschatological intensity

and an existential identification with “the full

gospel”

of New Testament

Apostolic Christianity.

To be Pentecostal was to be

shaped by

the New Testament narrative in its fullness.

Of

course,

the small band of Pentecostal faithful at the

beginning

of the

century

could

hardly

foresee the different historical

forces, theological developments,

socio-cultural

changes,

ecclesial

political alliances,

and Christian renewal movements that would

transfigure Pentecostalism into a global movement of some

significance by

the end of the

century.

At the end of the twentieth

century

there is little doubt that

Pentecostalism,

like the

proverbial “grey mare,”

ain’t what she used to be. Little

scholarly

debate can be generated over whether or not

1

2

the Pentecostal movement has

changed

in its

identity

over nine

decades, but the debate is fully charged over what kind of continuities in identity, if

any,

link the Pentecostals of

today

with the

pioneers

of the

articles and review

essays

in this issue

probe

various

what the Pentecostal movement

was,

what Pentecostalism has become

today

and what

challenges lay ahead

for the

movement. The

aspects

of the

questions

of

Pentecostal movement in the future.

Address,

delivered last fall at the 22nd Pentecostal Studies. Professor

The lead article in this issue is Bill

Faupel’s

Presidential

Annual

Meeting

of the

Society

for

Faupel’s

address,

“Whither

The other vision locates

Pentecostalism?” articulated two alternative visions which are

currently competing

for the soul of the movement in the United

States, although the

implications

for Pentecostals world-wide can be readily discerned in his

analysis*

One vision views Pentecostalism

historically

as an offshoot of Fundamentalism and links its current

identity

and mission with the fortunes of a

reinvigorated Evangelicalism.

Pentecostalism

historically

with the

pietistic

and

experiential

forms of faith associated with the more liberal

wing

of

Christianity.

Within this latter

vision,

the current

identity

and mission of Pentecostalism is linked with the

experiential recovery

of its

pietistic

roots and its future service of Christian renewal within the

many expressions

of the Christian

community.

What is

fascinating

Briggs’ understanding

of

orthodoxy

pietistic

traditions of

Christianity. shared

by early

twentieth

Faupel’s

articulation

of this

between

and late nineteenth

sought

to

about Professor

challenge

is his

analysis

of what

brought

the Pentecostal movement to this fork at the crossroads.

Utilizing

the

theological thought

of Charles Briggs, Faupel

seeks to show the

ideological compatibility

and the

theological

convictions of the

early

Pentecostals. From a

conceptual perspective,

Pentecostalism is the

logical

outcome of liberalism–both share an

identity

with the

This common bond with

pietism

century

Pentecostalism

century

liberalism is

significant, Faupel notes,

because Pentecostalism emerged

when the Fundamentalist-Modernist battle was

heating up. The leaders of the

early

Pentecostal movement felt a sense of dissonance with both

groups.

Pentecostals chart their own

their

independence

from the

theological

constraints of the Fundamentalist-Modernist

controversy,

Pentecostals conceived of their

identity

as “Fundamentalists

plus.”

The

“plus,” however,

was the experience

of

Holy Spirit baptism,

belief in

present-tense

miracles and the

practice

of

walking

with the

living

God. such

that Pentecostals

way. Expressing

qualifications, Faupel

underscores neither

ideologically

nor

historically Fundamentalists; instead,

By making

linked themselves with the “Orthodoxism” of the

demonstrated that their they

knew it or not–with the

the Pentecostals convictions were

compatible–whether brand of “orthodoxy” described

by Briggs.

2

3

In his discussion of the

history

of Pentecostalism’s

development, Faupel

notes that

key “defining

moments”

brought

about a new Fundamentalist

identity

in the movement. These moments of definition consolidated in 1942 when some of the

major

Pentecostal

groups became charter members of the National Association of

Evangelicals. However,

the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960s and 1970s within the mainline Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic church served as

a

challenge

to this

newly

found

Evangelical identity

of Pentecostalism. Standing

at the crossroads while

approaching

a new

century, Faupel hopes

that the Pentecostal movement will remember its

origins

and take the

route, though

less secure and

clear,

of

defining

its own

identity

and its own mission on its own terms. To be

sure, Faupel’s

address raises crucial

questions

of

early

Pentecostal

identity, especially

the issue of historical

origins

versus

ideological compatibility

in

socially locating and

defining

a

theological

movement. But

standing

at this end of the century, Faupel’s challenge

is

surely

the watershed one

facing

the Pentecostal movement.

When

Faupel’s analysis

is

compared

with Bartleman’s

rationale,

at least two

interesting

factors about the self-definition of Pentecostals can be identified.

First,

Bartleman’s

apologetic

from church

history

at the

beginning

of the

century

shows the exclusive Protestant character of

early

Pentecostal

self-understanding. Faupel’s analysis

at the end of the

century

discloses the broader context of Christian

community

in which Pentecostals face the issue of who

they

are and what the purposes

are for the movement. In this

context,

the

conception

of Pentecostalism as an off-shoot

of Evangelicalism

functions to freeze the understanding

of the movement in terms of its

mid-century

Protestant character. After the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960s and 1970s Pentecostals

surprisingly

found themselves

sharing

their distinctive experience

of

Holy Spirit baptism

with Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians. And

equally surprising,

the Third Wave of the

Holy Spirit has more

recently brought Evangelical

Christians into the

supernatural experience

of the

Spirit’s empowerment

for Christian mission. These liberating

movements

provide

a more inclusive

community

for theological

reflection on Pentecostal

identity,

an

identity

now formed not

only by

its

origins

but also

by

its historical evolution.

Appreciation of the

Holy Spirit’s

work over the

span

of this

century

is crucial for Pentecostals to understand the raison d’être of the movement of which they

are a part.

A

comparison

of

Faupel’s

own answer to the current

identity

crisis with Bartleman’s

apologetic

for his own time reveals a second

point

of importance.

Pentecostalism will define its

identity

and its mission–and thereby

the narrowness or the breadth of its ecclesial associations–through

the construction of a historical narrative. Both Faupel

and Bartleman remind Pentecostals that the movement did not

3

4

provides

pentecostal experience

his narrative of American

manner

arise in a vacuum. Each one constructs a narrative

history

in order to contextualize and

properly interpret

the character of the movement. And as Alasdair

Maclntyre

has

convincingly argued,

narrative

history

the

epistemological underpinnings

for the formation and maintenance of

identity.

Professor

Faupel

has well served the

scholarly interests of the

society,

as well as the Pentecostal/charismatic movement which it

studies, by formulating

in a

compelling

and

thought-provoking and

by including

in his construction a

part

of the Pentecostal

is seldom heard.

story

that

In the next article in this

issue, Harvey

Cox of the Harvard

Divinity School

points

out some

defining

characteristics of Pentecostal

Changed My of

of, Pentecostalism,

Springfield,

Christianity

from the

perspective

of a

sympathetic,

interested observer. After I was

appointed

as editor

of Pneuma,

one of the first

things

I did in preparation for this issue was to

get

in touch with Professor Cox and ask him to share some

personal

reflections on Pentecostalism. Given the lateness of

my request

and his

already

full writing

schedule,

I asked him if he would write his observations in the

genre

of a “How I

Mind”

piece. Having

had consumed his

book,

The Feast

Fools in the

early

1970s and

recalling

the

chapter

on “A Dance before the Lord” which demonstrated his interest

in,

and

appreciation

I wondered how his views of Pentecostals had changed

over the

past couple

of

decades, especially

in light of his new team-taught

course with Eldin Villafane on Pentecostalism at Harvard and his attendance at the last annual

meeting

of the

society

in

Missouri. Cox’s

graciousness

in

taking

on the

assignment was

predictably

matched

by

the

perspicacity

of his succinct observations. The

autobiographical

details

give glimpses

into his own

and make for a delightful reading experience.

Professor Cox

points

out the

positive impulses

resident in

Its

capacity

to

provide

an

experiential

authentic

spirituality;

its celebrative

worship;

its

seldomly-recognized “this

worldly”

where-the-rubber-meets-the-road

spiritual journey

Pentecostalism.

support oppressive

overcoming

center for an

brand of Christian

Pentecostalism. Cox identifies stronghold

in the Pentecostal demonstrated a

proclivity acquiesce uncritically

practicality;

its

impetus

toward social criticism of the distorted

values, beliefs and

practices

that

impoverish people’s

lives and

systemically

structures and evil

practices;

its

power

to

generate the ideals of an inclusive Christian

community

which

aspires

toward

the discriminations rooted in gender, ethnicity and

race;

its identification with the

poor,

the

marginalized

and those who suffer–these are but some of the

positive

characteristics that Cox divines in the Pentecostal movement. But there is a dark side to

several demons that seek to

gain

a

house. Pentecostals at times have also

toward a sectarian

to the status

spirit;

an

ability

to quo;

a

capacity

for an

easy,

4

‘ comfortable culture;

a

tendency political

movement

by

side

resources of their

origins

What

Cox observes

the Pentecostal

for

creating polarizing

for

generating psychological Cox’s article

really provides Pentecostal movement to serious

Bartleman’s,

the sectarian into full view

by

the stark contrast. importance

of Pentecostals Professor

come to see them,

Pentecostals can

redemption.

At

times,

5

reactionary

with the

prevailing social movements and the

co-option

of their

identity

is

prophetically

of diverse

elements,

formulas,

such as

dialogical partners,

such as

and

critical,

and who can

which Pentecostals can

apart from

the Christian

and

economically

mobile

relationship

to

support

positions;

a naivete in

allowing

the new

religious right; and,

an orientation toward a dogmatic

biblicism. Amidst this war of the better

parts

and the darker

of the Pentecostal

profile,

Cox beckons Pentecostals to

tap

into the

and become a people committed to the

praxis of social liberation.

about Pentecostal

instructive. Like most

religious groups comprised

movement has a mixed

identity,

rife with the

potential

tendencies within its various constituencies and

splitting

within its individual

participants.

a

platform

from which to call the

deliberation over the

integrity

of its identity

as a Spirit-empowered

people

of God. When the tone of Cox’s reflections are

placed

in the context of

apologetic

accent of

early

Pentecostalism is brought out

Such a

recognition highlights

the

finding

Cox,

who are both

sympathetic

supply

an outsider’s

looking glass through

themselves more

clearly.

In the

image

reflected back to

affirm the

qualities they

like about themselves and start the

process

of

changing

those characteristics still in need of

in the

dialog,

the

Spirit gifts

us to see in the portrayal

mirrored back to ourselves the

restricting

sectarian cocoons we

spin

in

forming

our own distinctive

identity.

The

magnification

of what

distinctively

sets Pentecostalism

and has

persisted long. But, again,

that’s

only

in the next article identifies another

witness. Some Pentecostals

their

particular

rendition of Christian

experience

of faith.

appraises

the Pentecostal

of Pneuma from 1984-92. Those who have followed the

developments

the

past

nine

years

know that no

single person during

this

period

has done more than Dr. Cecil M.

the work of the

society

and in

promoting

an

Pentecostal movement to the broader church world. The

scholarly maturity

of the

society

has

greatly

accelerated

and Editor Robeck

played

a

key

role in this maturation of the

society through

the

superb job

he did in

and

enhancing

the

quality

of Pnezima. As

community

started

early one side of the coin. Mel Robeck stream of Pentecostal

community

Professor Robeck vantage point

of his

editorship

and its

journal, Pneuma,

over

of time Robeck, Jr.,

in advancing understanding

of the

during

this short time

period

expanding

the content

aim to

dialog

about as

part of the

broader

movement

from the

of the

Society

of Pentecostal Studies

5

6

Professor Robeck’s reflections

recently

exposing

society

he had as a

his

editorship

of Pneuma

of the

show,

the

relationship

dialogical partner

with the Commission on Faith and Order of the

NCC, the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal

Dialogue

and most

with the Commission on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches assisted his efforts in shaping the ecumenical character and editorial direction of Pneuma. In

addition,

gave

him a forum to widen the

conception

of the work of the

society by

the

journal’s readership

to the

range

of concerns

expressed

in the articles he was able to solicit from those with whom he met in his ecumenical

activity.

I know I

speak

for the entire

membership

in

expressing

the

deepest gratitude

to Dr. Mel Robeck for his magnificent

contribution to

SPS, Pneuma,

the cause of Pentecostal and Charismatic

scholarship

in the

academy,

and the task of bridge-building within the broader church world. Based on the

years

he

spent

at the helm of

Pnuema,

I asked Dr. Robeck to share with the

readership

of the

journal

what he had learned about the character of the Pentecostal

movement

during

his tenure.

Three features of Pentecostal Robeck’s

experience.

activity

inception Pentecostalism’s only proliferated

identity

stand out in Professor

identity

of

level,

North American

modem ecumenical

thinking

and

and

indigenous

character has

First,

he

points

out the ecumenical

Pentecostalism. To be

sure,

at the

organizational

Pentecostals

spum

the

“humanly-contrived”

movement. Yet Robeck notes that Pentecostals have formed their own ecumenical coalitions even

though

leaders of the movement do not use that

terminology.

More

importantly,

at the level of

koinonia,

Robeck summarizes a rich

history

of Pentecostal ecumenical

tied to the

Holy Spirit’s

work in

establishing

the

unity

of the church. Thus Robeck makes the

point

that Pentecostals

actually

are ecumenical but

they “just

don’t know it.”

Second,

he draws attention to the multi-cultural

identity

of the Pentecostal movement. From its

the movement was multi-racial and multi-cultural.

subsequent globalization

its multi-racial and multi-cultural

complexion.

Robeck observes, however,

that Pentecostalism’s multi-culturalism has never

understood or embraced as a

strength, although

growth

is a favorite refrain Pentecostals love to

sing

about.

that Pentecostals are multi-cultural but

they

have

yet

to learn “how to act like it.”

Third,

he describes the evangelistic identity

of Pentecostalism.

of Pentecostalism is well known but Robeck observes that the church’s

been

studied, world-wide As a

consequence,

Robeck notes

its

Certainly

the

missionary

thrust

in

disarray.

More

sophisticated

at work in cross-cultural

evangelistic

efforts are often understanding

ministry, charges

of

proselytism ecclesial

organizations

of the assimilative

dynamics

from different denominations and

in different

parts

of the

globe,

and other

factors, have made the Pentecostal missions

enterprise

less sure-footed.

6

7

Pentecostals are

evangelistic

but

they

seemed somewhat confused about it.

Nearly

a decade of Pentecostal

watching

on a

global

scale and in a variety

of contexts has lead Robeck to his

profound

observation that in reality

Pentecostals have one

identity–ecumenical, globally multi-cultural and

evangelistic–but

in

self-understanding

and

praxis Pentecostals often

play

out another

identity.

Robeck’s anecdote for this schizophrenia

is

tough

medicine but Pentecostals would be wise to heed his counsel outlined in “where do we

go

from here?”

In the final article in this issue Frank Macchia reflects

theologically on the

significance of glossolalia. Speaking

in tongues as a consequence of

Holy Spirit baptism

has been at the core of Pentecostal

identity. Glossolalia has been viewed

by many

as the

essentializing experience

in what makes a Pentecostal a Pentecostal. Some of the most creative and fresh

scholarly

work

being

done

today

on

developing

a

theology

of glossolalia

has come from the

pen

of Frank Macchia. In this

particular study,

Macchia does not shrink from the classical Pentecostal view that connects

tongues-speech

with the

Baptism

in the

Holy Spirit. However,

he

interprets

the connection as a sacramental one.

Speaking

in tongues allows one to

experience

the

presence

of God in the

baptizing power

of the

Spirit through

a visible/audible act.

Analogous

to the sacraments of believer’s

baptism

and the

Eucharist, speaking

in

tongues

is an objective

act which

permits

an individual to

participate subjectively

in the

reality

to which the sacrament

points.

Like a sacrament,

glossolalia mediates God’s

grace

as a

reality objective

to the believer but elicits subjective participation

in God’s

freely given gift.

Macchia uses the thought

of Karl Rahner and Paul Tillich to tease out the

significance

of this sacramental

interpretation

of Pentecostal

experience.

When Professor Macchia’s sacramental

approach

is

compared

with the

early

Pentecostal rationale for Pentecostal

experience,

such as Bartleman’s,

a major shift in understanding can be observed. Macchia’s interpretation places

the Pentecostal

experience

within a

theological context that

explores

its common

significance

for Classical Pentecostals,

Charismatic Catholics and other Christians. Macchia’s approach, then,

overcomes the

tendency

of traditional

Pentecostals, mentioned

earlier,

to view

tongues

as the distinctive

experience

that distinguishes

Pentecostalism from other Christian communions. As

my colleague Jerry Camery-Hoggatt

never tires of

saying

about

Spirit baptism:

“That which is distinctive to a movement

may

not be central to a movement.” Macchia’s

approach provides

a

way

for the distinctive Pentecostal

experience

to be

integrated

into what is central in the

identity

of Christians

everywhere:

the

experience

of God’s

grace in Jesus Christ mediated

through

the

Holy Spirit.

Such a

viewpoint encourages

a self-understanding of Pentecostal

identity

which is formed and maintained

by

the

grace

of God in which all Christians

participate.

7

8

Tongues may

be a distinctive “sacrament” but the

grace

of God mediated

through

the “sacrament” forms a central bond of

identity which all Christians share

together

as God’s children.

Two review

essays

and five book reviews round out this issue of Pneuma. The two review

essays

also fit the theme of this issue: Augustus

Cerillo’s review of James Gof?’s book

explores

Pentecostal identity through probing

the

missionary origins

of Pentecostalism in the thought

and

ministry

of Charles

Parham;

David

Bundy’s

review of Alf Somdal’s book

explores

Pentecostal

identity

as it

expresses

itself in the formulation of

systematic theology.

A

reoccurring

theme

among

some of the

major

articles ‘in this issue is that the search for Pentecostal identity

is at a crucial

juncture

in this

closing

decade of the twentieth century.

As the movement transitions into the

twenty-first century,

Bill Faupel’s question,

“Whither

Pentecostalism?,”

and Mel Robeck’s question,

“Where Do We Go From

Here?,”

both have a

haunting prophetic ring

to them.

Murray

W.

Dempster Editor

8