Whither Pentecostalism

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

9

Whither Pentecostalism?

22nd Presidential Address Society for

Pentecostal Studies

November 7, 1992

D. William

Faupel

In

preparation

for

tonight’s address,

I took the occasion to look at the

presentations

of several of

my predecessors.

I was struck

by

the fact of how

consistently

these

papers

fit the theme–of the

previous year’s meeting!

I

suspect tonight’s

address will fit this

pattern.

In one sense I have

approached my topic,

Whither Pentecostalism?

through the

perspective

of this

year’s theme, Drinking from

Our Own Wells. However,

I also am aware that last

year’s theme,

Decades of Expectancy,

is a better fit.

I come to

my topic

in somewhat the same

spirit

as Peter

Berger,

the sociologist

of

religion,

when he was asked to

predict

the future of religion

on the occasion of the United States bi-centennial. He noted that the one

thing

that seems to be consistent in our

society

is “its quality

of rapid and

far-reaching change.”

He continued:

It is a source of constant embarrassment to all commentators and forecasters. Just look what happened to the most celebrated diagnoses of our situation

during

the

past

decade:

Harvey

Cox

published

his best-selling

beatification of the new urbanism just before

that American cities had become unfit for civilized

everyone agreed habitation. The proclamation of the death

of God hit the cover of Time magazine just before the onset of a massive resurgence of flamboyant

More

supernaturalism.

recently, those who were betting on the greening of America led the Democratic party to one of its biggest electoral defeats in history. And now when

just

[those

who

have] impressively proclaimed

the

coming

of post-industrial society,

the energy crisis makes one think that we will be lucky

if we manage to stay around as an industrial society.

Berger concluded, “perhaps

the

only

advice one can

give

to the … prophet

is to write his book

quickly,

and then

go

into

hiding.”‘

Although, approaching my topic

in the same

spirit

as

Berger, my purpose

is not an

attempt

to

peer

into the future in order to

predict

the direction Pentecostalism will take in the next decade.

Rather,

I

plan

to address the

major options

which I see to be

open

to the Movement as it approaches

the turn of the

century.

The

path

chosen will

undoubtedly set the future course of Pentecostalism for decades to come. In a real sense,

this address is my

response

to the

challenge

set forth

by

our

*D. William

Faupel

is Professor of Bibliography and Research at Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky.

‘ Peter L.

Berger, Religion

in a

Revolutionary Society (Washington,

D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1974), 1.

1

10

colleague,

Mel

Robeck,

in his 1985 Pneuma editorial

entitled,

“Where Do We Go From Here.” Mel

suggested

that Pentecostalism had come to a crossroads. “It is time,” he

contended,

to assess past experience, to take stock of

and

present strengths, weaknesses,

resources, and to plot future direction … to not take the for reflection and self-evaluation is to miss a

opportunity

precious

moment for continued growth and a chance to make informed decisions. 2

I

agree

with Mel. I think conditions in the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements

today

are such that

assessment,

reflection and self-evaluation must be made.

Indeed,

it is clear that such has been going

on for some time

now,

and that this

Society

has been

playing

a key

role in the

process. Tonight,

I wish to continue this

process by probing

two

questions.

The first to is to ask: “Who are the Pentecostals?” It is a question of self-identity. This

question,

I believe, should be

explored

for at least four reasons:

(1)

Pentecostalism’s identification with

Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism

since the

1940s; (2) the

appearance

of the Charismatic Movement within the historic churches since the

1960s; (3)

the rise of the

independent

“third wave” churches in the

1970s; and, (4)

the

explosion

of

indigenous

churches springing up throughout

the two-thirds world.

The second

question

flows from the first. What are the

defining moments in Pentecostalism’s

history

that should

help

inform its decisions as the Movement stands at the crossroads

facing

its future?

L Who are the Pentecostals?

To address the first

question

of Pentecostal

identity,

I

begin

as an historian

by looking

at the late nineteenth

century religious

context in North America.

Investigation

into this

background

of the

movement,

of course,

is a much worked over area

by

historians of Pentecostalism. All are

agreed

that the

changes

which followed the American Civil war such as

rapid industrialization, growing urbanization,

and the Eastern European immigration

had a

profound

effect

upon

the

religious

life of North America. In

addition,

such intellectual

developments

as Charles Darwin’s

theory

of natural

selection,

William James’

theory

of education,

the

challenge

of

philosophical

idealism to the

prevailing Scottish realism and the rise of

higher

criticism in

Germany wrought great change upon

the

religious

scene as well.3 These forces and

many

2 Cecil M. Robeck, “Where Do We Go From Here?,” Pneuma 7 (Spring 1985): 1. ‘ See for

example, Joseph

H.

Campbell,

The Pentecostal Holiness Church; 1898-19.J8: Its Background and History (Franklin Springs, GA: House of the Pentecostal Holiness Church,

Publishing

1951), 6-10 ; Charles W. Conn, Like a AIighty Army A-loves the Church

oj

God, 1886-1955 (Cleveland, TN: Church of God Publishing House, 1955), xi-xxi;

Carl Brumback, Suddenly… From Heaven: A History of

the Assemblies of God

(Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1961), 2-6; and William W. Menzies,

Anointed to Serve: The

Story of

the

2

11

others,

as Robert Anderson

contends,

made a

great impact

on

early Pentecostal adherents.4 In

many respects,

Anderson is correct in stating that

although

the initial Pentecostal leaders were unaware of these forces, they

are the most

significant

factors in

explaining

how the Pentecostal Movement came into

being.5 However,

in

asking

the question,

“Who are the

Pentecostals?,”

I shall focus our

thinking

this evening

on the conscious concerns of the initial Pentecostal

leadership. A. The Nineteenth

Century

Context

At the

beginning

of our examination of

early

Pentecostal

identity,

I direct our attention toward two books that bracket the “Decade of Expectancy”

of the 1890’s. I believe these two works serve as exemplars

when

interpreting

the historical context in which the Pentecostal Movement

emerged

at the turn of the twentieth

century.

Both books were written

by prominent Presbyterian clergymen.

Both men had edited

significant journals

for more than

twenty years.

The first,

Charles

Augustus Briggs,

was a post-millenialist and a theological liberal. The

second,

Arthur

Tappan Pierson,

was

premillenialist

and a theological

conservative. Arthur

Tappan Pierson,

editor of the Missionary

Review

of

the

World, published

the second book in 1900 under the title Forward Movements

of

the Last

Half Century.

The book chronicles some

thirty missionary

movements and

evangelistic organizations

that

emerged

in the last half of the 19th

century. Optimistic

in tone, Pierson concludes that these

developments point

to the second

coming

of Christ which he believes will take

place

before 1920. He

predicts

that this event will be

preceded by

a

mighty

revival of world-wide

proportions.6

In

looking

at the

theological developments that

undergird

the

organizations

cited in this

work,

it is

easy

to recognize

them as the

precursors

which led to the

emergence

of Pentecostalism.’

It is to the first book

published

in

1889, however,

that I focus our attention this

evening.

Written

by

Charles

Augustus Briggs,

then Davenport

Professor of Hebrew and the

Cognate Languages

at Union Theological Seminary

in New York

City

and editor of The Presbyterian Review,

he entitled his book: Whither? A 8

Theological Question for

the Times.

Assemblies oJGod (Springfield, MO:

Gospel Publishing House, 1971), 19-22. 4 Robert Mapes Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited: The

Pentecostalism

A-faking of American

(New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 8.

‘Anderson,

Vision of the Disinherited, 8.

6 Arthur Tappan Pierson, Forward A40vements of the Last Half Century (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1900).

‘ See my analysis in “The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the

Development

of Pentecostal Thought” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Birmingham, 1989),

179-183.

8 Charles Augustus Briggs, Whither? A Theological Ouestion for the Times (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889).

3

12

Briggs

took his

graduate

studies in

Germany

and is attributed as the person

who first introduced North America to

Higher

Criticism. Although

a postmillenialist and

optimistic

about the ultimate

triumph

of Christianity,

he takes a much more sober and

pessimistic

view of the condition of the church in the nineteenth

century

than does Pierson. Briggs

concludes that

only

a

mighty

reformation will save the church from its malaise and

put

it back on tract to

accomplish

its mission in the world. He

confidently predicts

that this will

happen

but leaves the “how”

question

to the

sovereignty

of God. His focus in this book is on the “what”

question.

“What” is wrong with the Church in 19th

century North

America,

and “What” is needed to fix it.

Although primarily addressed to

Presbyterians,

the

implications

for the Church at

large

are always

within the

peripheral

vision.

The tone of Briggs’ analysis can

quickly

be

gathered

from his chapter titles:

Drifting, Shifting, Excesses,

Failures, Departures, Perplexities, Barriers,

and

Changes. Only

in his final

chapter

“Thither” does optimism emerge.

l.

Principle for Critique Briggs

contends that

throughout

its

history the Church has fallen into a

recurring pattern, moving

from “Orthodoxy”

which he sees as

good,

to “Orthodoxism” which he thinks is bad. Whether it be Greek

Orthodoxy,

Roman

Catholicism,

the Reformed

tradition,

the

Wesleyan

revival or the

Anglo-Catholic renewal, Briggs argues

the

pattern

was the same. Fresh

insight, spiritual renewal and

theological

reformation

resulted,

but not without a

price. The “old

orthodoxy”

resisted the new

truth, labeling

it “heresy.” Those embracing

the “new

orthodoxy”

on the other

hand,

soon fell into an “orthodoxism” of their

own, feeling they

had

experienced

the full revelation from God and thus resisted

just

as

fervently any subsequent new

insights.’

As he defines

it,

Orthodoxism:

assumes to know the truth and is unwilling to learn; it is

haughty and arrogant, assuming

the divine

prerogatives of infallibility and inerrancy; it hates all truth that is unfamiliar to it, and persecutes it to the uttermost. 10

He describes

orthodoxy,

on the other

hand,

as a commitment to follow truth whereever its leads in much the same manner that Ruth followed

Naomi.

It

recognizes

that the truth of God transcends human knowledge.

Because we know in

part,

the

proper

attitude is to be meek, lowly, reverent,

full of

charity

and love toward others who do not see truth as we do.

Orthodoxy,

he

maintains,

has

only

one teacher and

master,

“the enthroned Saviour Jesus Christ–and

expects

to be guided by

His

Spirit

into all truth.””

Throughout

the

book,

he

argues

9Briggs, Whither?, 16. 1° Briggs, Whither?, 7. “Briggs, Whither?,

7.

4

13

that the Church must

adopt

this

open

humble commitment to be receptive

to new

truth,

if it is to be faithful to her Lord.

Briggs recognized,

of

course,

that because humans have

partial knowledge, they hoeestly

see

things

in different

ways. Orthodoxy, therefore,

must have an

objective

standard

by

which the “relative orthodoxy”

of humans can be measured. For

him,

this

relationship

is worked out in a complex and

progressive way.

He writes:

The absolute standard of human

orthodoxy is the

sum total of truth revealed by God. God reveals truth in several spheres; in universal in

nature,

the constitution of mankind, in the history of our race, and in the sacred Scriptures,

but above all in the person of Jesus Christ our Lord. ‘2

In

spelling

out this authoritative

standard, Briggs approximates the Wesleyan quadrilateral

of

Scripture, tradition,

reason and

experience.

He

begins by asserting

that the sacred

Scriptures

are the infallible standard of

orthodoxy

in all

questions

of

religion,

doctrine and morals. He

contends, however,

that all

theological systems

which have been developed

to date have not been able to take the whole of

Scripture into account. The

Reformers,

for

example,

built their

systems primarily on the

epistles

of Paul to the Romans and Galatians. The rest of Scripture

is then

interpreted

in

light

of this “canon within the canon.” “Until it has

comprehended

the sum total of the

theology

of the Bible both in its

variety

and

unity,”

he

insists,

“our

orthodoxy

cannot be Biblical

orthodoxy.”‘3

Furthermore, Briggs maintains,

the Bible does not answer all the problems

raised

by science, philosophy

or

history.

Each of these disciplines

sheds

light

on how we understand the Bible. As our comprehension grows through

increased

knowledge gained

from these disciplines,

our

understanding

of what the

Scriptures

teach will

change as well.

What often

happens

within a theological

tradition, Briggs argues,

is that the

prevailing philosophical understanding

of any given age is fused with the

interpretation

of

Scripture. Infallibility

is

subsequently

claimed for hermenutics as well as for the

Scriptures

themselves. This claim is usually

made without those

making

the claims aware of the fusion.”

Briggs

also contends that

theology

is incamational. As he

wrote,

the missionary enterprise

to Africa and Asia was

getting underway full-steam. He maintains that as the

Gospel

took root in those

cultures, new

insight

should be

expected.

We should not

impose

our “Teutonic” type

of

Christianity upon

“the Oriental and the African”

any

more than we allowed the “Greek” and “Roman”

type

to be

imposed upon

us. At the same

time,

he

argues,

such “incamational

specifics”

as to race and

12 Briggs, Whither?, 8. “Briggs, Whither?,

13. 14 Briggs, Whither?,

10.

5

14

culture also contain universal dimensions.

Thus,

we should

expect

an “Asian

theology”

or an “African

theology”

to inform and transform our “Teutonic”

theologies

as well.”

that the move

Finally, Briggs

maintains

tradition becomes more therefore

always apply.

From

frem

“orthodoxy”

to

to closedness. The

“orthodoxism” is

inevitably

a move from

openness

narrow and

rigid.

The Protestant

principle

must

time to time it is

necessary

to return to the roots of

any given

tradition in order to recover

insight

which had been discarded and

forgotten.

Presbyterian

Church

by using

have made true advances

that there are still

However,

he

2.

Applying

the

Principle. Briggs applies

this

principle

to

critique

the

the Westminster Confession as his

point of reference. In so

doing,

he is abundantly clear that he does not believe this Confession to be infallible. He does not hold that

any departure from the Confession is a departure from the faith. Indeed he confesses that in some

instances,

it is less than Christian. He notes other instances where

subsequent theological developments

in

understanding

of the faith. He

anticipates

additional areas where further

light

will be revealed.

believes that the

major problem

with the 19th

century

church was first and foremost a failure to live up to the

light

of truth that it already had. He believed that the Westminster Confession stood in advance of the Church of his

day. Only

when the Church came to

approximate

would it be able to. move forward.

He,

applies

this

principle

to several

specifics

where he felt the Reformed tradition was

drifting

from its roots and in the

process

was

to “orthodoxism.”

Confession’s therefore,

ideals,

he

argues,

moving

from

“orthodoxy”

a.

Infallibility

verses

Inerrancy. ground

has shifted

by “sharpening position.”

the

Briggs

first outlines areas where the

and

narrowing

the ‘orthodox’

forth is a move to narrow the

of

religion, doctrine,

and

has laid claim that the

The chief

example

he sets

doctrine of the

infallibility

of

Scripture

to one of

inerrancy.

He

argues that

“orthodoxy”

has

consistently

maintained that the

Scriptures

are the inspired

word of

God,

and as

such,

are the Church’s infallible standard and

guide

with

regard

to all

questions

morals. 16 On the other

hand,

“Orthodoxism”

Scriptures “having

been

given by

the immediate and

plenary inspiration of

God,

are both in meaning

”

and verbal

expression”

the inerrant word of God to man.

Briggs

has

problems

with this definition both at the

point

of “verbal

He

notes,

that neither of these

appear

in the creeds of the ancient church nor in the

which flow from the Reformation. The

expression”

and of “inerrant.” expressions

confessions and catechisms

“Briggs, Whither?, 16. ‘6Briggs, Whither?, 9. “Briggs, Whither?,

64.

6

15

teaching

is rather one of more recent

origin,

and as such, the

narrowing and

sharpening

of a broader definition.

Briggs

is

deeply

concerned with the

proposition

that not

only

is the meaning

of the text

inspired by

God

(a

doctrine he fully embraces), but that the exact words are

inspired

as well. The

problem

he sees is that this

emphasis

on verbal

precision

calls into

question

the

inspiration

of the

Scriptures

we have before us since it is

impossible

to translate perfectly

a set of words from one

language

into the exact set of words of another. It cuts off Christian

people

from the real word of God giving

them a human substitute.

Only

those who are able to read the Scriptures

in the

original languages

have direct access to the

inspired Word of God. The

problem

is further

compounded by

the fact that human errors have

obviously crept

into the texts of

subsequent copies, and the

original autographs

are no

longer

extant.

Thus,

in an effort to

get

back to the

inspired

words of the

original text,

reliance on the

findings

biblical criticism is

necessary.

This need for biblical

criticism,

he

notes, gives

rise to a great irony. Most of those who advocated the

theory

of verbal

inspiration

in

Briggs day

were systematic theologians

who did not know the

original languages. By holding

to the

theory

of

inerrancy, they

made biblical critics the

“only real

priests

of the

Bible,

the mediators of the divine

mysteries,

who alone have real access to the

originals.”

This same

group

of biblical critics,

the

systematic theologians insisted,

were

destroying

the Bible.”

Briggs

then turns his attention to the doctrine of

inerrancy.

He notes that those who hold this

position

state

forcefully

that “a

proved

error in Scripture

contradicts not

only

the doctrine of

inerrancy

but the Scripture’s

claims and therefore its

inspiration

in

making

those claims.”” Those

holding

to the doctrine

freely

admitted that the then present

texts of

Scripture,

even in their

original languages,

contained significant

errors.

They applied

the doctrine of

inerrancy only

to the original autographs.

This

assertion, Briggs charges,

cannot be made on the basis of evidence,

that

is, through

the

comparison

of

existing

texts. In the absence of the

original autographs,

it can

only

be made a priori from an elaboration of the doctrine of verbal

inspiration. Despite

claims to the contrary, Briggs quotes

the Reformers and Westminster divines to demonstrate that while

they

did adhere to the

inspiration

of

scripture, they

did not hold to its

inerrancy.

Advocates could not claim Christian tradition in defense of their

position.

Briggs

shuttered at the

prospect

of an

original autograph being discovered in some Near Eastern cave. On the basis of

inerrancy,

a single proved

error would

bring

the whole doctrine of

authority

of

18 Briggs, Whither?, 66. 19 Briggs, Whither?,

68.

7

16

Scripture

crashing

down.

b. Other Doctrinal Concerns.

as the infallible

guide

for

religion,

correct

interpretation

theology.

The doctrine of

doctrine and morals

Briggs

next turns to a number of

which he maintains have

set forth as the

only

of God

other doctrines in the Westminster Confession

been

sharpened

and narrowed and

subsequently

of orthodoxism.

1) The doctrine of God

had been

greatly

narrowed in 19th

century

a

personal living

God had been

passed

over in favor of a bundle of abstract attributes and a mechanical

conception of His decrees. The

immutability

had been elaborated at the expense

of His

activity

in history. His

sovereignty

had been stressed at the

neglect

of His

personhood. Briggs argues

that the time has come to reassert the idea of the

living

God into its

supreme place

in biblical

theology

election went too orthodoxy,

argues

for the

sovereignty

Father, and,

above

standards were

“sharp,

the same

time, apologetic,

at

every point.”

He notes that it is not

exclusively but also that of “a

Creator,

a

Briggs

2)

In the one

point

in the book where

Briggs

takes serious issue with the Westminster

confession,

he

argues

that the doctrine of divine

far. In an effort to exclude Arminians from

the definitions of the Westminster

hard, polemical,

and exclusive; and, at

defensive and

guarding

themselves from

objections

of

God,

but

the

sovereignty

of a

reigning monarch,

all of a

infinitely holy

and

loving

God.” continues,

“the attribute of Love is

wrapped up

in

every decree,

and Holiness is at the root of

every

divine act. ,,21

3) Briggs

that Christ the sacrifice is

emphasized

of the

living

enthroned Christ our mediator and

great high

expense

priest.

He contends:

at the

We do not

worship

a dead Christ; we are not redeemed by a buried Redeemer. The Lamb of God who taketh away all sin, is a lamb that was slain, but has ever since lived and will live for ever. To the living and enthroned Saviour we look for salvation. 22

has been

virtually ignored

he

rejects

the Holiness

doctrine

of sanctification as an

4)

In a move that was a total

surprise

to

me, Briggs argues

that the doctrine of sanctification is one of the finest

expressions

articulated in the Westminster Confession.

However,

he

contends,

it is a doctrine that

in the Reformed tradition ever since. Although

immediate act of

God,

he likewise

rejects

the notion that entire sanctification cannot be achieved in this life. His view

appears

to be closely aligned

with John

Wesley

in that he believes sanctification to be

entire sanctification the

goal

toward which the

progressive,

and

2° Briggs, Whither?, 93-94. 97-99. 21 Briggs, Whither?, 22Briggs, Whither?, 116.

8

17

Christian moves. It is a

goal

which can be obtained in this life. He states:

The time is

coming,

as we

believe,

when the Church and individual Christians will be able to attain that ideal of holiness in this life. Entire sanctification is commanded and held

we must

up as the ideal of Christianity; and

recognize

that it is a

possibility under divine grace; and that possibility

will ultimately be attained.”

He

argues

that the

neglect

of this doctrine within the Reformed tradition resulted from a reaction to Methodism’s

overemphasis

that led them to a form of

works-righteousness.

This

development,

in

turn, caused

Presbyterianism

to retreat to a Lutheran

position

of salvation

by faith alone. This

tendency

he

strongly

attacks. He writes:

The can be no real revival, no solid progress in theology, that does not begin

with

repentance. What is faith alone worth at

the of a Christian life, if it is not followed

beginning

by repentance that governs the whole life? What is the benefit of justification if it does not

open

the door to sanctification?

Why should a man be regenerated if

he is not to grow in

the agonies of conviction of sin if he is not to battle against sin until it is entirely put away? …

grace? Why go through

Progressive must overcome these faults of

Christianity

orthodoxism,

and

by a

reaffirmation of repentance begin

a new reformation that will take up the work which the earlier reformations left incomplete, and carry it on to perfection.2′

5) Briggs

concern that Protestantism in general and

Presbyterianism

in

particular

had come to

accept

division in the visible Church and that some went so far as to

deny

the

unity

and catholicity

of the visible Church. He

quotes

one

Presbyterian

divine to the effect:

while of assistance, is not essential to the Church. You add Organization, church to

may

church;

these are but the incidental forms which the universal Church of God assumes on different occasions under the guidance of the Spirit. 25

Such an

understanding,

he

maintains,

is a direct

departure

from the creeds and from the confessions

flowing

out of the Reformation. As long

as the church was

visibly divided,

he

argues,

it is failing to live

up to the ideal God intended it to

experience.

God works

through

the Church in

spite

of its

divisions,

not because of them.

Christians,

he believes,

are under a mandate to strive to visible

unity.

6)

He is

deeply

concerned that in the midst of growing urbanization there was a failure

by

the church to

evangelize

the masses in the growing population

centers. He notes that the most effective efforts

“Bfiggs, Whither?, 148. 24 Briggs, Whither?,

153-154. 25 Briggs, Whither?, 175.

9

18

and Christian

7)

held

branch of Christendom.

appeals

to the Westminster

it is clear that he

or at least how

were

being

done

by

the Salvation

Army

and

by

the

campaigns

of D. L. Moody.

He

applauds both,

but felt

they

failed to

provide

the education

nurture

necessary

to sustain a long term effective

ministry in these areas. 26

Although Briggs continually

confession in

support

of much of his

argumentation,

an ambivalent attitude toward creedal

statements,

these confessions tended to be used. Creeds

inevitably

were

forged

in the heat of

controversy

and have been used either to exclude some Christians as

unorthodox,

or to

help gain

the

right

to exist as a valid

Although

in

many

cases these creeds

express an advance of

insight, they

are not to be considered infallible.

They should be seen as

lampposts, landmarks,

became the

greatest

barrier to Christian

unity.

It should be

recognized, he

argues,

that

just

as the

Scriptures

contain a

great diversity yet

an essential

unity,

the church also can contain diverse

theologies

within its essential

unity. “Accordingly,” Briggs

concludes:

guides.

Too

often,

creeds

comprehending

the Church of Christ, like the Scriptures, should comprehend them all and not exclude any of them. There can be no true unity that does not from

spring

this The one Church of Christ is more

than one denomination. diversity.

vastly comprehensive

any

If the visible Church is to be one, the to

pathway

unity is in the recognition of the necessity and the great advantage of

the types in one broad, catholic Church of Christ. 27

8) Briggs

concludes his book

by bringing

into focus the

purpose

for which the Church was called into existence. He declares that a

world-wide conflict… is now upon us … that will advance the religion of our Saviour in a new reformation that will conquer the world for Christ, consecrate it,

sanctify it, and prepare it for His advent in glory. Such a world-wide conflict will give us the unity for which Christendom yearns.

Gospel, overlaying it, my

By and by, men will be looking back and wondering at us Christians

in these last years of the nineteenth century, that we so understood the

some of us with ritual, others with

poorly

dogma. Lament it,

brethren. We have much to be ashamed of. But let not your heart be troubled. More Pentecosts than one have come already. And more are to

yet

come, with rushing pinions and tongues of flame.’

A The Pentecostal

Response

Although Briggs

would not have

recognized

it at the

time,

I believe his call for a new reformation was fulfilled. With the

hindsight

of history

I contend that the first answer to his

question

“Whither?”

Early

Pentecostals

the Pentecostal

Movement.

26 Briggs, Whither?, 2-3. .. 27 Briggs,

28 Briggs, Whither?, 297.

recognized

was that their

10

19

movement was not

simply

a revival of

spirituality,

but was also a thorough-going

reformation of doctrine. Morton

Plummer,

editor of Word and Work declared in 1910:

We are not as many suppose, wholly taken up with the mere matter of individual

experience and personal blessing, solely with reference to the in

baptism

the Holy Spirit…. This revival is much of the nature of a Reformation. The Protestant Reformation was only a

resulted in the of the foundation of

partial reformation. It

recovery Scriptural teaching, but did not

bring the church back into the

from which she had been cast out. Bit by bit we have been

possessions back

our lost inheritance, until now the Spirit is

winning

stirring up the church to a great forward movement for the full recovery of the “faith once delivered unto the saints. “29

Donald

Dayton,

in his

work, Theological

Roots

of Pentecostalism, has shown the heart of this

theological

reformation to be the

particular gestalt

of the “five-fold

gospel”

of Jesus as

Savior, Sanctifier, Baptizer, Healer and

Coming King.3° Elsewhere,

I have shown how this

gestalt

of doctrines

represented

a radical

theological

transformation when

placed within a conceptual framework that can be observed when

explicating the four names that the initial adherents

assigned

to their Movement: Full

Gospel,

Latter

Rain, Apostolic Faith, Pentecostal;

and the two names

they assigned

to the

message:

This

Gospel

of the

Kingdom,

and The

Everlasting Gospel.3′

What is

important

for this address is the central thrust of the theological

reformation that Pentecostalism

brought upon

the scene. It can be summed

up

in Briggs’ call for a doctrine of the

living

God. For him,

this call was not

simply

a plea for a new

understanding

of God, but rather a call for a new

experience

of God’s

presence among

His

people. In the words of

Jesus,

“the God of

Abraham,

Isaac and Jacob is the God of the

living

not of the the dead.” For

Briggs

and for the

early Pentecostals this call for the

presence

of the

Living

God had

personal, corporate

and

global

dimensions. In terms of the

personal,

God’s presence

meant the transformation of the

individual,

the

expectation

of growth

in

grace

and the

possibility

of

attaining

Christian Perfection in this life. In terms of the

corporate,

the call for an

experience

of God’s presence

envisioned a

Spirit-filled

church that was

visible, united, growing

and which manifested

apostolic power

as well as

apostolic authority.

In terms of the

global,

the call

expressed

the conviction that the time had come when the

living

God

through

his transformed church would would

fully accomplish

his

purpose

on this earth and Christ would come to

reign.

29Morton Plummer, Word and Work 32 (February 1910): 36-37.

‘*Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism

(Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow 31

Press,

17-28.

D. William

Inc., 1987),

Faupel, “The Function of Models in the Interpretation of Pentecostal Pneuma

Thought,”

I (Spring 1980): 51-71; and D. William

The

Faupel, “Conception:

Pentecostal Message,” in The Everlasting Gospel, 45-82.

11

20

understanding early

conceded

was

powerless,

to

express

the 1895,

he

accepted

the

challenge

to

Dowie

quickly

He concurred that much of

Nowhere is this conviction of the

Living

God

operating

in the midst of His

people

more evident than in the

early

Pentecostals’

of

Scripture.

The most vivid

example

I have found in the

literature

actually

was articulated

by

a Pentecostal

precursor,

John Alexander Dowie.

Always colorful,

Dowie never lost an

opportunity

reality

of his faith. In

November,

debate the noted

atheist,

Robert

Ingersoll.

In the

debate,

Ingersoll’s major point.

Christianity

unable to demonstrate the

validity

of its truth claims. He likened the church of his

day

with the

prophets

in vain for God to answer their

prayers

with fire. Then he invited

Ingersoll

to look at the results of his own

ministry.

In his

Dowie disclosed his

understanding

of

Scripture;

a

point

of view shared

by

all the initial Pentecostals. He declared:

Baal, pleading

summation,

interpretations interpretations

of

One of the troubles today is that many who are professing Christians are fighting, not for truth,

not for Christ, not for the but for human

of those records which we call the

Gospel,

Holy Scriptures. Human

of Divine truths are of necessity most imperfect, and it is ludicrous to me to see men, who declare that truth is infinite, to define the infinite. Why it is just as if I were about to

attempting

put my arms around the

world, or to try to scoop out, with my little

us truth to but for us to receive to believe pail,

the ocean. God did not give define, it, it, to assimilate and to work

it,

it out in our lives as best we knoW.37

orthodoxy.”

Protestant

Reformation,

The consistent

complaint

of the

early

Pentecostals was “the

dry

rot of

Over and

over,

adherents

argued

that since the time of the

God had shed new

light

on the

Scriptures

and had restored to the Church truth that had been lost

during

the dark ages.

But in each instance the restored doctrine had become enshrined in a

humanly-made

creed. New

insight

had been resisted as

heresy.33 Their

critique

of

orthodoxy corresponds completely

with

Briggs’

“Johns Alexander Dowie, “Reply to Ingersoll’s Lecture on `Truth, “‘ The Sermons of John

Alexander Dowie:

Champion of the Faith (Dallas, TX: Christ for the Nations, Inc., 1982), 90.

Apostolic

“See, for example, “Two Works of Grace and the Gift of the Holy Ghost,” The

Faith (Los Angeles) I (September 1906):

3;

F. The and the Bride: A Scriptural Presentation

of the

George Taylor, Spirit and Fruit

Operations, ¡’lanifestations, Gifts

of the Holy Spirit in Relation to His Bride with Special Reference to the Latter Rain

Revival (Dunn, NC: The Author, 1907),

98;

Thomas Ball Barrett, In the Days of the Latter Rain

(London, ENG: and Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent

Company, 1909), 148-149; H. S. Maltby, The Reasonableness of Hell (Santa Cruz, CA: The Author, 1913), 82-83; and Charles F. Parham, “The Latter The Selected Sermons

of the Late Charles F. Parham

and Sarah E.

Rain,”

Parham, Co-Founders

of

the

Original Apostolic

Faith

Movement, Robert L. Parham, compiler (Baxter Springs, KS: Apostolic Faith Bible College, 1941), 75-76.

12

21

definition of orthodoxism. It is a view that Pentecostals have come to call orthopraxy–right living as well as correct belief

Early

Pentecostals

charged

that an

experiential reality among

most Christians had become lost. A “head”

knowledge

of the faith

replaced

a “heart”

knowledge

of the truth. A

relationship

to the

living

God was substituted with a

simple

adherence to “man-made creeds.” The

quest for holiness of heart and life had

largely

been abandoned. The

power

of God demonstrated in

personal

lives and

through

the Church was not evident or

expected.

The

longing

for

unity

of the church seemed to have

disappeared.

In looking at the

emergence

of the Pentecostal Movement

against

the backdrop

of

Briggs critique

of the North American

Church,

I believe we

gain

a clearer

understanding

in answering the

question

“Who are the Pentecostals?” I think most of us tend to believe that Pentecostalism arose in

large part

as a reaction to the

emergence

of

theological liberalism,

of which

Briggs

was a

leading figure,

at the turn of the twentieth

century. I,

for

one,

held this

perspective

as I embarked on

my doctoral dissertation. Most of the histories of Pentecostalism available at that time shared this

point

of view.”

However,

as I studied the original

Pentecostal sources it

slowly began

to dawn on me that theological

liberalism was not even in the consciousness of the adherents of the initial Pentecostal revival.

Certainly,

it was not the subject

of their

critique. Rather,

I have come to believe that Pentecostalism

arose,

in large part, as a critique directed at an emerging fundamentalism which was

attaching

itself to the Old Princeton Theology.”

Looking

at

Briggs critique helps

me to confirm this view in my own mind.

Many

of

you

will have

recognized

that the

major

thrust of his argument

is directed

against

Charles

Hodge

and B. B.

Warfield,

the leading proponents

of the Princeton

Theology

and co-editors with Briggs

of The Presbyterian Review.

I am not alone in this assessment.

George Fry,

a Missouri

Synod Lutheran,

for

example,

holds a similar view. “I am

convinced,”

he writes,

“that Liberalism and Pentecostalism are in fact fraternal twins [having]

arisen out of

precisely [the same]

conditions

[and]

are derived from the same sources.” He concludes:

For a

century Liberalism

had

preached experience-then

Pentecostalism

suddenly produced were at a loss when the Pentecostals started

it! No wonder the Liberal and Neo-Orthodox

theologians talking. How could

they

condemn the rampant empiricism and subjectivism of Pentecostalism 34 See references in footnote 3.

“See Ernest R Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Mi//enarianism, 1800-1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), where he

develops the thesis that fundamentalism arose when “future premillennialists” adopted

Princeton

theology

to

support

their hermeneutical

interpretation

of Scripture.

13

22

when that is

precisely

the

approach they

had

previously recommended. Pentecostalism is the

logical end of Liberalism.’6

Fry rightly

contends that both

theological

liberalism and Pentecostalism are rooted in Pietism as mediated

through Wesleyanism.

Looking gains

a

in Pentecostal

History

II.

Defining

Moments

at the Movement in middle of the twentieth

century,

one

different

perception

of Pentecostalism. As historical consciousness has

developed

within the

Movement,

Pentecostals have tended to

identify

with Fundamentalism rather than

critique

it. Most would

agree

with Church of God

theologian,

Charles Conn when he writes:

Pentecost is Fundamental … the

[the] five points of evangelical belief form bedrock of Pentecostal belief. In

every point

our faith is

historic, fundamental Christian faith.”

How has this

happened?

transformed the initial vision

of

course,

is that

I

An obvious

explanation,

my reading

of Pentecostal

origins

is

completely wrong. However, believe that

subsequent developments

in Pentecostal

history

have

in such a

way,

that the Movement has been

shaped by

the

very

forces the

early

adherents set out to

critique.

I therefore direct our attention to some

defining

moments in

subsequent Pentecostal

history

that have caused this reversal in perception.

reformation.

Pentecostals actual

languages

The Movement’s rejected

message Bill Menzies

century,

it would had failed in its

attempt

at

correctly

observes

that

early

on

A.

Subsequent Developments

Looking

at Pentecostalism from the mid-twentieth

be

easy

to conclude that the Movement

In

many respects

the initial Pentecostal vision was not realized. Faith claims such as the conviction that God had

given

to convert the world

proved

to be mistaken and were

subsequently dropped.

to the Church was either

ignored

or

outright.

Pentecostals were

largely ignored by

the liberals.

Fundamentalists, the other

hand, bitterly opposed

the Movement and

charged

adherents with

theological heresy. 38

Rejected by the church which they sought

to

reform,

the Pentecostals were forced create

organizations

formed

denominations,

the

emerging leadership sought

to set forth their own claims to

theological orthodoxy.

It was

only

natural for them to

(March 1976):

of their own. Within these

newly

36 C. George Fry, “Pentecostalism in Historical Perspective,” The Springfielder 39

182, 192.

“Charles W. Conn. Pillars

of Pentecost (Cleveland,

TN: The

Pathway Press,

1956), 26-27.

38 Menzies,

Anointed to Serve, 179-181.

14

23

use the

language

of their

opponents

to establish their

legitimacy. They did so

by stating they

were fundamentalists, but fundamentalists

plus. J. Roswell Flower

spelled

out what was meant

by

that

“plus”

when he addressed the Central Bible Institute

graduation

class of 1925. He described the Fundamentalists and Modernists as “the Pharisees and Sadducees of our

day.”

The Modernists were the Sadducees because they

did not believe in miracles. The Fundamentalists were the Pharisees because

they

believed in miracles but

only

in the

past.

On the other

hand,

Pentecostals could be called “the Fundamentalists of the fundamentalists,”

Flower

claimed,

“because

they

also believe in the power

of God for the

present.”39

The

early

Pentecostals not

only

had to come to terms with the fact that the

larger

church would not

accept

their

message,

but to their dismay, they

also discovered that

they

were divided

theologically among

themselves. Bitter

controversy raged

over such issues as “The Finished Work of

Calvary,”

“The

Unity

of the Godhead” and “the Initial Evidence.” Adherents felt forced to define and defend these issues and to

adopt

statements of faith which echoed of the “man-made creeds”

they

had

only recently critiqued.

Trinitarian

Pentecostals,

in particular, looked to Fundamentalism for the articulation of their faith.

Jerry Sheppard correctly

notes that the Statement of Fundamental Truths which the Assemblies of God adopted

in the

height

of this

controversy

draws

heavily upon Fundamentalist

language, particularly

in the area of Scripture

The internal controversies were settled

just

as the Modernist- Fundamentalist

controversy

was

reaching

the

height

of its debate.

By this

time,

Pentecostals had become

very

much aware of the issues raised

by

liberalism and

gave

their

strong support

to the conservative side.

Stanley Frodsham,

editor of the Pentecostal

Evangel

wrote:

None of us have the slightest sympathy with the modernists’ unproved and unprovable

theories regarding the evolution of man, nor the foolish denial of the

supernatural

in Scripture. We stand one hundred percent with all who believe in the verbal

inspiration

and the absolute

inerrancy

of Scripture.

But the

support

was not

unqualified,

for he continued: “But more than this is needed. Our Lord Jesus Christ said to the Sadducees, the modernists of his

day,

‘You err not

knowing

the

Scripture

or the

power

“1. Roswell Flower, “The Present Position of Pentecost,” The Pentecostal Evangel, 13 June

1925, cited by Gerald T. Sheppard, “Word and Spirit: Scripture in the Pentecostal Tradition, Part I,” Agora I (Spring 1978): 18-19.

40 Sheppard,

“Word and

in

Spirit,” Agora,

17-18.

Sheppard’s two-part

article appearing

the

Spring

and Summer, 1978 issues of Agora offers a brilliant analysis

of Pentecostalism’s

growing dependence

on Fundamentalism for their formulation of the Pentecostal doctrine of Scripture and their self-understanding as a sub-group of Evangelicalism.

15

24

of God.’ We need to know the

Scripture

these

days,

but we need to know the

Scripture plus

the

power

of God.””

Fundamentalism, however,

continued to feel threatened

by

the Pentecostal Movement’s

emphasis

on this

“plus”

and did not welcome their

support.

Pentecostalism was condemned

by

the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association in 1928 as

“unscriptural”

and “a menace in many

churches and a real

injury

to sane

testimony

of Fundamental Christians.”” Menzies observes that even as they were

losing

their war with the

Modernists,

Fundamentalists

regarded

Pentecostalism an

equal threat to Orthodox

Christianity.43

Another factor which caused Pentecostalism to move toward Fundamentalism was the establishment of Bible

Colleges.

With the passing

of time the

leadership

was forced to

recognize

that Jesus was not

returning

as

quickly

as initially

anticipated.

If the Movement was to survive a second

generation

of

leadership

had to be

equipped. Training schools based on the earlier Fundamentalist model were established. Faculties of the

colleges

looked to the Fundamentalist Movement for their text books as well. Franklin

Small,

a Canadian Pentecostal sums it up:

As the young movement commenced to grow, aspirations for schools of learning developed. Naturally

teachers by appointment went in search of ready

matter to give to student bodies, which material was found on book shelves from the hand of so-called fundamentalists_ .. These books have some good things admittedly, nevertheless, we know they are wrong on a number of

very vital points of doctrine associated with the of the experimental aspect Gospel.”

Over

time,

Small

argues,

much of the fundamentalist

thinking crept

into the Movement via the Bible

Colleges.

By

the 1930s and

1940s, according

to

Brumback,

a sense of “dryness”

settled over the Movement. First

generation

leaders were passing away.

The second

generation leadership, having

risen

through the

ranks,

left

many feeling something

to be desired.

Many hungered for a

recovery

of the initial vision .4′ A. G.

Ward,

a Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada

pastor,

took note of the situation in 1941 and flatly

declared that a new kind of

leadership

was

necessary

if Pentecostalism was to

accomplish

its mission:

Many of our present leaders are men of God, and we believe, men who are their

ably filling respective positions,

but the church must be presented

“Stanley

H. Frodsham, “Fundamentalist Plus,” The Pentecostal Evangel, 12 July 1924, 4’2 2, cited by Sheppard, “Word and Spirit,” .-lgora,

18.

Cited by Stanley H. Frodsham, The Pentecostal

Evangel,

18 August 1928, 7. “Menzies,

180.

“Franklin

Small, Living

Waters: A Sure Guide to 1’our Faith

(Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada:

The Columbia Press, n.d.), 26.

“Brumback, Suddenlv …

From Heaven, 33 l.

16

25

with a more challenging vision than the one she has before her at this hour–a

program

which

only

the most

daring

leaders will venture to advance… leaders who will dare to be reckless adventurers in God… Leaders who will be strategists rather than tacticians.’6

Ward and others went on to call for a revival that would rekindle the initial Pentecostal vision. In response, the New Order of the Latter Rain appeared

on the scene in the late 1940s. It came too late.

Containing the same kinds of excesses and

exaggerated

claims that were witnessed in the initial

revival,

the New Order was

rejected

out of hand

by

the second

generation leadership

who

perceived

it in much the same terms as the initial Pentecostal revival was

perceived by the

Fundamentalists.4′

In

many ways

the Latter Rain revival could not have come at a worse time for the second

generation

of

leadership.

It

represented

a threat to their vision of the next

step

in Pentecostalism’s mission.

Only

a few years before,

a majority of the Fundamentalists had reversed themselves by inviting

several Trinitarian Pentecostal bodies to

join

with them in forming

the National Association

of Evangelicals.

The

way

forward for the

Pentecostals,

these leaders

felt,

was to

join forces, sharing

in the Evangelical

vision and

making

the

Evangelical agenda

their mission. The Pentecostal

Fellowship

of North America

(PFNA)

was formed as a subgroup

of

Evangelicalism

in 1948

just

as the Latter Rain Revival burst forth on the scene. The PFNA statement of faith was stated verbatim in NAE

PentecostalTheology .com

Be first to comment Click here to cancel reply.

Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

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

Be first to comment Click here to cancel reply.

Cancel reply

The Woke Target On Our Children :: By Bill Wilson