sign in sign up
<<
Home , Charisma, Pentecostalism

A Dialect of Doctrine:

Pentecostalism and the Positive Tension between and Tradition

By

Joseph J. Vasquez

Introduction

It has been said that, “the only thing spreading faster tha is the growing body of Pentecostal studies, journal, texts, and literature.”n 1 It is a fact that Pentecostalism is the fastest growing stream of in the world and that when something grows that fast that far, it will be examined. The reasons for studying this phenomenon are vast I’m sure. But I would venture to separate those reasons into 3 categories: explanation, duplication, and causation. The reason for my addition to this substantial body of literature would fall under causation of their growth.

The objective of this thesis is an answer to the question, “What causes

Pentecostalism to be so successful?” In my opinion the answer is that the strength of

Pentecostalism lies in its apparent weakness: its dialectic of doctrine. The tension between the liberal Spirit led charismata and the conservative commitment to certain doctrines. These two should not work together. How can you advocate being

Spirit directed, while at the same time employing rules and order that would seem to limit that freedom? More simply put, the strength of Pentecostalism is that it is open enough to adapt to the changes in culture (through time and/or location) and still be relevant, but restrained enough (in , doctrine, and practice) to maintain itself for over a century.

The tools for this investigation

As a tool, I will be relying heavily on ’s theory of the routinization of charisma. Weber was a late 19 early German sociologist who

1 profoundly influenced the discipline of . He also contributed greatly to the field of sociology of , and it is in this field where we encounter this particular theory.

To summarize Weber’s theory: a religious movement often begins or is founded by a charismatic individual, a . The prophet is usually an outsider who is challenging the status quo and criticizing the powers that be. He might or might not have credentials, which does not matter. What matters is that he has influence…he has charisma. His personality, gifts, and talents have formed a following. These followers are loyal to the prophet. They hang on his words, and sometimes write them down. When the prophet dies, his movement will sometimes continue. How it continues is the known as the routinization process. The charisma that was found in the leader must now be bureacratized to the followers in order to keep the movement going after the death of the original founder. However, the path of routinization comes with compromise, since by definition it results in a formalization and institutionalization of the original movement. This next stage in development will involve the creation of a new "tradition".

A new leader now exercises this “tradition”; he is the Priest. The Priest stands in the place of the Prophet as leader, but he did not achieve that status by way of his charisma, instead by way of tradition. This is a much weaker position, perhaps because he waves a much weaker flag. Whereas the Prophet is about “change”, the

Priest is about “preservation”. He does not promote doing things a new way, instead he advocates doing them the way they have been done. Alas, the progress of this movement has halted and at worse it will be no more. Here we are stuck. The

2 dilemma lies in that you need the charisma of a Prophet to get the wheels turning, but the guarded-tradition of the Priest to maintain what has been started, the tradition that will almost always kill the charisma. Here in lies a tension between charisma and tradition.

Pentecostalism as Prophet and Priest

Between this tension is where we find Pentecostalism. Yet it does not kill, stifle, or hinder the religion in any way. I argue in this thesis that Pentecostalism has reworked Weber’s tension into a positive tension, and that it is in this tension that

Pentecostalism strives. In order to move forward you need to be a challenging force…you need charisma. At the same time you need to preserve your movement and you do that by tradition, which has always been opposed to charisma. So how do you maintain both charisma and tradition? When you make it traditional to be charismatic.

It has solved the dilemma through a dialectic of doctrine. Charisma is the new tradition, and with doctrine like that you allow the leader to have one foot in both offices. He is permitted to operate both as prophet and priest. Throughout this thesis I will attempt to show the role that this dialectic of doctrine has played throughout Pentecostalism’s formation. I will examine three areas and show how the dialectic is present in each of these areas: Pentecostalism’s origins, , and contemporary history, using the global south as an example.

For the purposes of being thorough, I will confine my studies to North

America (except for the last chapter), specifically the . In addition to

3 examining a specific geographical location, I will study a specific Pentecostal denomination as my subject. This is an attempt to grasp a more tangible subject other than the more vague term, “Pentecostal”. This denomination will serve as an

“ideal type” for my research. That is a subject that represents certain characteristics and elements of a given phenomena. It is not meant to correspond to all of the characteristics of any one particular case, but it provides a good comparative tool.

The subject in question will be the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world,

The Assemblies of .2 I will often reference their history and their doctrine as stated plainly in their Statement of 16 Fundamental Truths. This thesis has been divided into 3 chapters. Each chapter will have 2 objectives: to deal with the growth of Pentecostalism and to examine that growth through the reworking of Weber’s theory, which I have proposed above. Again, I argue that Pentecostalism reworks

Weber’s concept of the routinization of charisma. Pentecostalism does not choose one or the other but embraces both: charisma as tradition.

In the first chapter I will introduce the subject. I will present two perspectives on the origin of Pentecostalism: the Pentecostal perspective and a historical perspective. As I present these perspectives I will be returning to the dialectic, and show the role it plays, not only in the formation, but more importantly the sustaining and expansion of Pentecostalism. I will explore early Pentecostal predecessors such as and . In addition I will introduce and examine the origins of the . Also I will set a tone early in this paper as I use the word charismata and charisma interchangeably. I understand that

“charisma” in the Weberian sense means an opposition to authority and a

4 proponent for change. But in this chapter I will argue that there is a decline in the practice of charismata throughout history. The practice of charismata is marginal and not mainline. It pushes for change and challenges the status quo.

Therefore those who practiced it throughout history were for the most part marginalized, making any movement that embraced it a movement of charisma.

In the second chapter I explore Pentecostal theology. I will examine the four core pillars of Pentecostal theology as they are seen in all forms of Pentecostalism even on a global scale: , Divine Healing, Spirit , and the Second

Coming of . I will make an important distinction between doctrine and theology, what is essential (theology) and what is useful (doctrine). This distinction will help to flesh out the tension and relationship between charisma and tradition and serve as a support for my thesis. I will use as an example the Statement of 16

Fundamental Truths, a historic and doctrine-setting document in Assemblies of God history. Through these examples you will see once again the tension of charisma and tradition and how it has worked its way even into the structure of theology.

In the third and final chapter I will explore Pentecostalism’s growth in the global south. The global south is a term that generally refers to the more underdeveloped nations of our world. In the last decades Pentecostalism has found much growth and success in these areas. I wish to understand this growth and discern whether or not the dialectic argued for in this paper can apply to these nations and cultures, as well as what other factors might be present. I find there to be three reasons for the influence Pentecostalism has in these nations: 1. Charisma as tradition (I will explore Neo-Pentecostalism at this junction) 2.

5 Animism/ (the neumatological indigenous of the area) 3. Finally, the socio-economic conditions. On this the third point I will introduce various religious scholars such as E.P Thompson, Karl Marx, and Gustavo Gutierrez.

Finally, I will conclude with a prediction of Pentecostalism’s future. Where I see it going considering it’s contemporary history, Neo-Pentecostalism, and the delicate balance of charisma and tradition. I will not claim to know where

Pentecostalism will fall in the upcoming decades, but I do feel a certainty in the sense of being familiar with what factors will lead to either their success or demise.

NOTES

1 Whacker, Grant, Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture Harvard, University Press, 2001, p. 2 2 World Christian Database.

6 Ch. 1 – What are the origins of Pentecostalism?

The Pentecostal Perspective

I should state at the onset of this thesis that I write from an insider’s perspective. I am unsure whether that works against or for me, though I presume that will be decided by those evaluating. However, I don’t acknowledge this for acknowledgment’s sake. I do so because I understand the subjectiveness of the question. Pentecostalism’s origin? Well that just depends on who you ask. Recognizing the lens through which I view the topic, I can tell you that Pentecostals, whose trends are restorationist in nature, long for a return to the apostolic/primitive church as well as a return to the book of Acts.

Therefore if they were asked to identify the “origin” of their movement, they might be inclined to point to the book of Acts in the Christian , specifically Ch. 2.1

In an “upper room” 120 followers of (recently ascended) were praying and waiting for “the gift [God] promised” (Acts 1:4). While praying, “Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” (Acts 2:2-5). These events took place during the

Hebrew festival known as Shavuot, which is traditionally observed to be 50 days (Pente- in the ) after Passover, this is where the Greek translation of Shavuot derives it’s name: . Pentecostalism strives to be defined as a reflection of this day, a seminal event in their religious history. This is important to note because while the modern Pentecostal movement is just a little over 100 years old, in the mind of most

Pentecostals, their is not “new” or “original”, but a return.

7 It’s easy to see this when first-hand accounts of some of the original Pentecostal reports are reviewed. Bystanders at an early Pentecostal meeting reported “tongues of fire and a light over T.B. Barratt’s head.” (Barratt was a British-born

Norwegian and the founder of the Pentecostal movement in ) Immediately,

Barratt said “I was filled with light and such a power that I began to shout as loud as I could in a foreign language…a sermon so loud that 10,000 might easily have heard.”2

You can see in the choice of words here that there is an obvious cerebral connection and direct correlation between the experience of this witness and the Acts 2 account. In many ways, this particular view of origin is founded and centered on the idea that something in their primitive history had been lost and now rediscovered. Why emphasize this detail? The insight is paramount to the support of my thesis.

Where does the Dialectic fit in?

Let’s take a look at another Abrahamic religion for more support: . 1st century BC–CE Judaism was aggressively monotheistic. Accounts of the execution and exclusion of anyone in Jewish society promoting other deities is common knowledge, and we don’t need to cite specific examples. Now while such extremism is not currently present in today’s Judaism, it’s important to note that Jewish society was not always so vigorous in their defense of “one god”. When compared with Judaism of the earlier BC centuries, you find a society much more open to or at the very least the existence of other celestial figures. In the Hebrew Scriptures themselves you will frequently find, at different times, a majority of the people seeking counsel or even worshipping other deities.3

8 At this point I wish to emphasize that I am not advocating that early Judaism was in any way poly or pantheistic, only that the heavy conviction and critique of such views, evident in later Jewish society, were not as dearly held among the majority of ancient

Jewish peoples. This idea is not novel, and has already been posed by other biblical scholars.4 This then begs the subtle but central question: What caused the shift in perspective to aggressive Monotheism (a main “tradition” in Judaism)?

Most religious scholars will point to the Babylonian captivity as the tilting point.4

During this time of diaspora, shame caused the now confused Jewish society to reflect and find out what went wrong. According to Jewish scholars and even recorded in the books of the , “the pursuit of other ” was the reason for their plight.

This newfound revelation would now shift Jewish theology over to a more convicted and aggressive stance on monotheism.

But it only answers half of the question. The Babylonian captivity might answer,

“What caused the shift?” But I ask, “What sustained the shift?” After all, the question we really want answered isn’t what caused Pentecostalism to emerge. Who cares? The vast amount of study in this arena isn’t a testament to the interest in how it got started. New religions are birthed all the time and will continue to be, yet few are under the microscope that Pentecostalism is under. The heightened state of interest is there because people want to know, “How is it that it is still going on for over 100 years…and growing?

What has sustained its growth?” In my opinion the answer to that question is the thesis I propose: that charisma, the element usually regarded as an important factor in religious growth, has become tradition: the necessary but weakening element that is usually

9 regarded as an important factor in the stunting of religious growth. But how has charisma become tradition? The following is an argument for that thesis.

A strong conviction in Monotheism was considered to be a return to true Judaism and at the same time an escape from captivity. I want to emphasize, it was monotheism that carried the utmost importance and principle element to this idea of “deliverance from captivity”. So we see the powerful effect of the combination of two ideas: 1. a deliverance from captivity 2. with the rediscovery of an ancient truth as the key to that deliverance. Monotheism now became an unwavering tradition in this religion. Let us not take for granted that many things in Judaism have changed since the time of the second temple period through the destruction of the temple till now. However this is the one thing that has remained and will likely always remain.

A look at and the devotion to Ala as the one and only god will yield similar results. The “lost” revelation of the Koran has liberated them from centuries of darkness.

That is why the first pillar we find in Islam is the shahada. In Islam it is monotheism and the Koran that take on this central and guarded role of tradition.

What I propose is that for Pentecostalism, pre-Azusa is considered to be an era of

“drought”, even a type of captivity.5 The baptism of the Spirit then, is understood as that lost revelation rediscovered. Therefore here we find the similar formula: an element is considered to be a lost ancient truth and at the same time the key to deliverance from an era of captivity. What was this element? The charisma of the Spirit. And just like monotheism became the central tradition in Judaism and Islam, Charisma became equally valued, central, and guarded in Pentecostalism. The fathers of this movement would vow never to enter into that “Dark Age” again. The charisma of the Spirit (the forgotten truth

10 that delivered them from captivity) did for Pentecostalism what monotheism and the

Koran did for the other . However in this case charisma became the guarded tradition.

In addition, Judaism, the ancestor to Christianity, has been a religion with a history of the prophet-priest tension. In the Hebrew Bible many kings were rebuked by the like of such as Elijah, Nathan, and Isaiah. What we sometimes fail to realize is that this tension is not lost in Christianity, and in a way it’s inherited. The most notable example is the connection make between Jesus and . John the

Baptist was a consistent thorn for traditional power structures, whether they were religious (teachers of the law) or political leaders (King Herod). This position would eventually lead to his execution.

John was opposed to heartless devotion to the law and oral traditions. He promotes a new baptism, “a baptism of fire”. John can be considered to be a personification of the need to renew and guard that charisma force in religion. The fact that he appears to promote a baptism of fire is a highlight of Pentecostalism. It provides a basis to promote “renewal” as a traditional element to exercising faith. We are beginning to see now the theological ancestry of revivalism and the modern Pentecostal thought, how some tensions are not only inevitable, but also productive. This new idea becomes key to growth as we will see in the formulation of the Assemblies of God.

11

Early Charismata

Before we take a look at the formative process of the Assemblies of God. I must provide a brief overview on the origin of Pentecostalism from an historical perspective.

As it is essential in grasping the roots of the movement and as we venture through this timeline, I hope you see that the highlighted tension in this paper has always been present, even from onset of Christianity. However even from this position I will attempt to show how the dialectic I propose is present and active.

I will also be using charisma and charismata interchangeably. I feel this is a justified exchange since charismata as we will see in the early Christian period was often viewed as being a challenge to the traditional structure that was so guarded by the hierarchies in the church. This “challenge” to the established structure is at the core of the charisma force that Weber describes. So for the majority of the early church period charismata is charisma.

The primitive first century church, according to the book of Acts, was obviously and undoubtedly charismatic. They emphasized the charismata and regularly stressed topics such as healing and prophesy. However we see that after the first century, the practice of spiritual gifts began to decline, and in the second century there seems to be some confusion or at the very least uncertainty. We can already feel that structure and tradition is wanting.

Origen (185-254CE), an early and influential scholar of the second century church, denied that still occurred in the church and implied that Paul’s was the ability to speak Greek and Latin, although he saw spiritual gifts like

12 healing and exorcism as evidence of the validating power of Christ as did Novatian (200-

258CE) [a well known 2nd century Christian scholar, priest, and theologian].6 Augustine

(354-430CE), who some consider to be the architect of Western Christian , was of a similar unsure thought. He said that occasions of speaking with tongues in the

New Testament were ‘signs adapted to the time’ that had passed away. “For who expects in these days that those on whom hands are laid that they may receive the Holy Spirit should forthwith begin to speak with tongues? Nobody!” Yet at the same time he acknowledged that the miraculous was necessary to bring the ‘ignorant men and ’ to salvation, not by man’s choice though, only by God’s divine will.7

Some however were not so uncertain, and embraced enthusiastically the spiritual gifts reported by the apostles seeking a of this phenomenon. Specifically I refer to Montanus and the Montanist movement. Montanism was an early Christian movement of the early 2nd century, named after its founder Montanus. In order to not delve too deep into a subject that might deviate us from the thesis of this paper, it will suffice to summarize Montanism as a highly charismatic of Christianity.

Due to it’s emphasis on prophesying and speaking in tongues, some even refer to

Pentecostalism as Neo-Montanism. Scholastically of course it is easier to define a movement as a product of another, but such a definition is innately disadvantaged, as it will overlook the differences for the sake of emphasizing similarities. This is an argument that the renowned JZ Smith, the historian of religions so adequately made. He criticized

Mircea Eliade, another renowned historian of religions because Eliade was inclined to overlook the anthropological, historical, and contextual differences of religious societies

13 for the sake of finding similarities. Through my thesis I will attempt to draw a thin yet ever present line of distinction and difference between Pentecostalism and Montanism.

The early records of Montanism that we have indicate to us that the movement would have never allowed itself to become as structured, or for the sake of this thesis,

“traditionalized” as modern Pentecostalism has become. In a sense, Montanism was an anti-tradition. For example, prophecy was considered to supersede doctrine, and they considered charismata to be of more importance then apostolic-led tradition.8 This is charisma without structure.

Pentecostalism however, while it similarly embraces charismata (prophecy and tongues), their strategy has not been to reject tradition, but to rework tradition. That is to say that for the Montanist tongues and prophecy superseded doctrine. But for the

Pentecostal, tongues and prophecy must fall in line with doctrine. We will see this as we continue to observe the formation of the Assemblies of God. Though we are not done observing this tension throughout Christian history.

Through the until Methodism’s emergence

So we see in the post first century church a tension, unresolved, carried throughout the centuries. For the most part though, the decline of charismata continues.

By 1000 CE the Church had denounced spiritual gifts altogether, and in the liturgy book Rituale Romanorum, speaking in tongues is considered to be a sign of demonic possession.9 Sporadically throughout centuries instances or isolated experiences of charismata would occur, but no one claimed for it to be a regular occurrence. That is no one had yet claimed it as traditional.

14 The Protestant Reformation furthered the decline. (1483-1546CE) himself said that tongues were given as a sign to the Jews and had ceased, and Christians no longer needed .10 I want to pause the timeline here for a moment to point something out that will help later in this paper. It’s important to note that not only does

Luther see no need for spiritual gifts, but by challenging the priestly “god-given” authority, he also challenges the mystical and esoteric power of the priest, and by relation, that aspect of Christianity. This will eventually serve to disenchant or de- mysticize Christianity, and in the future will make Pentecostalism that much more different, which as some scholars note, re-enchants Christianity.11 Some versions of post- reformation Christianity would reject any supernatural inclinations altogether. This is seen in the emergence of Deism introduced through the and emboldened by the newfound embrace of reason.

Moving through the centuries most Protestant churches would now abide by their founders’ doctrine. However this was not without exception. In the 17th Century “radical” groups would form, of these groups, most notably the . Groups like this would jerk (hence their name), faint, and even speak in tongues. I hesitate to repeat again however, that this experience was from time to time and not considered necessary or regular in . The need for a regular personal and emotional “experience” with God was initiated by interpretations of , the founder of Methodism, and who in many ways had an influence on early Pentecostalism.

15

Methodism’s Influence on the formation of Pentecostalism

Wesley is the father of Methodism. He reintroduced and popularized what one may call “enthusiastic” forms of conversion and worship. One of Wesley’s main contributions to the tenets of Pentecostalism is the outward “evidence” of salvation. What he called “perceptible inspiration”.12 Perceptible inspiration is the idea that when one is saved he should show outward evidence of this salvation. This is where some say that

Pentecostalism strays from Wesley, and I agree. By this Wesley did not mean speaking in tongues or any form of charismata. Rather he instead explicitly referred to the fruits of the Spirit such as love, joy, peace, and patience which were laid out in Galatians chapter

5:16. These are more or less traits that should be displayed in everyday life.

However, he did not abandon charismata either. In fact he reestablishes its credibility. He says, “charismatic gifts were withdrawn when dry, formal, orthodox men had begun to ridicule them, these gifts have returned to some of my fellow men”.13 He did not care to expound on the when and how, but simply that it was a biblical idea to occur either presently or near the end times. That is important to state, since it would be an error to say that Wesley was overt about his stance on gifts. He seems uncertain yet positive. Still this is an out of the ordinary position and showed a shift in theology of the church.

This position relied heavily on the Holy Spirit and it’s transforming power over a man’s life. The point was that it was the Spirit that enabled this change. And it is here where we begin to add even more to the base of Pentecostalism. Wesley believed that there would come a point in a man’s life where he is “sanctified”, meaning void of

16 completely. He did not say when and left it all very vague. Therefore what was left for contention was whether or not the Spirit would do this over time, or in an instant. This theology would be become paramount. For some would call this moment of : baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Wesley himself would resist this development, but his designated successor, John

Fletcher would not. This would become a crucial divide in the theological developments of the Holy Spirit. Wesley would divide the timeline of History into 2 categories, the

“Jewish dispensation” (before Christ) and the “Christian dispensation” (after the resurrection). Fletcher however saw history divided into 3 dispensations, each identifying with a person of the : The dispensation of the Father (), the dispensation of the Son (/Life of Christ), and finally the dispensation of the Holy

Spirit (Day of Pentecost/Upper Room).14 This new emphasis highlights the book of Acts and brings it into prominence. This development is key, as it is only a short leap from here to what Pentecostals will understand to be the “baptism”.

Now if Methodism were an isolated and culturally insignificant factor, then perhaps it would not merit a claim to be the influence in a “shift” in American protestant theology. However take into account that by 1840 Methodists outnumbered the by a ratio of ten to six and by “a similar ratio the combined membership of Presbyterian,

Congregational, Episcopal, Lutheran, and Reformed churches”15 and you can see that what was happening in Methodism in 19th Century America was in some ways a reflection of the nation’s religious life itself.

It was these factors that lead Alan Anderson, a scholar of Pentecostalism to make the following statement “By the end of the 19th Century, the idea of a ‘baptism with the

17 Spirit’ as a distinct experience giving power for service was the major them in North

American revivalism. The groundwork was laid for the birth of Pentecostalism.”16 As people sought out the “baptism of the Spirit” they were being more drawn away from

“traditional” and “structured” Christianity. Something new was forming, but how would it last?

The Assemblies of God

The Assemblies of God have recently released a publication entitled “Heritage”.

And in this magazine you will find a man who is considered to be one of the forefathers of this Pentecostal denomination, Charles Fox Parham. The Assemblies of God is not exclusive in their claim to Parham as forefather. He must be mentioned though because the origin of the Assemblies of God begins with the origin of modern Pentecostalism, which some scholars attribute to the Azusa St. Revival, and therefore it begins with

Parham.17

Charles Parham was a traveling evangelist and the first of two figures you must discuss when studying modern Pentecostalism. Throughout his career he came into contact with a man named Frank Sanford. Sanford had a school named “Holy Ghost and

Us”, the name of the school implies Sanford’s intentions.

As I stated in the introduction of this paper, there are two forces acting on religion: tradition and charisma, and Pentecostalism is a blend of both and that is its strength. As I quote a description of the early school’s format, I hope that by reading this

18 next quotation, you the reader, will have a better understanding of the distinctions I make when I refer between charisma and charisma as tradition. The school’s motto is as follows, “ ‘Curriculum’ there is none: it is the Bible. ‘Faculty’ there is none: it is the

Holy Ghost. ‘Length [of] course’ there is none: students go when the Director sends them. This is the Holy Ghost’s work. This is real teaching. This is supernatural.”18 This opposition to organization and structure is key to the positive affect charisma has on emerging religions. One can understand how refreshing this might be because of its anti- orthodox nature, not to mention that such an approach will likely be more relevant to the current culture. However, without structure it cannot last, there enters tradition. I have and will continue to use the words “tradition” and “structure” interchangeably.

Parham is marked by his encounter with Sanford, and as a result he founded

Bethel Bible School. And it was here in class that he proposed the question, “What is the evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit?” His students responded, according to their study and interpretation of scripture, “Speaking in other tongues”. It was from this class and an experience on January 1, 1901 that Parham is the first to make the connection between glossalalia (speaking in tongues) and Spirit baptism. This conclusion would follow him throughout his career and be passed to Richard Seymour, an African-American student of

Parham who carried his theology to .

Seymour is the second figure mentioned earlier and the central figure of the

Azusa St. Revival in Los Angeles, begun in 1906. There he openly preached baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. People from all over the world visited this mission and brought back the message. Azusa is commonly referred to as the birthplace of modern Pentecostalism. From this event Pentecostalism spread throughout

19 and the rest of the world. By 1914 there were many Pentecostals in different states across the country. Some wanted to organize their efforts and maximize their resources. A loosely organized, and predominantly white network of Pentecostal churches, called the Churches of God in Christ had initiated a call for a meeting, or

“council”.19 In 1914, in Hot Springs , Pentecostals from across the country met to form this loose organization. This council would become the governing body of the

Pentecostal denomination known as the Assemblies of God.

The Assemblies of God (continued.)

I continually and purposefully use the term “loose” organization for a reason. And that is because throughout the formative years of the Assemblies of God we see the opposing tensions of charisma and tradition. I will again repeat that charisma is very free and liberal. By it’s nature it is anti-structure and anti-tradition. This can be both refreshing, but at the same time unstable. You cannot reproduce your movement if there is no model, no , and no structure. But in order to preserve the religion over time you must filter, by means of definition, doctrine, or dogma what is not and what is.

The collection of these things makes up religious tradition. Early Pentecostalism was faced with this issue.

On the one hand you had those who noticed some of the issues the movement was facing and realized that in order to preserve their faith they must organize.20 But on the other side of the argument there were those who refused to allow what they considered to be the direction of the Spirit to be tamed. Edith Blumhofer notes that there were,

“Intransigent leaders, disinclined to make themselves accountable to anyone, who

20 strenuously insisted that Pentecostals could only fulfill their destiny in God’s restorationist scheme by resisting the urge to structure [bring tradition into] their movement.”21 William Durham, an early Pentecostal leader warned, “[organization] would ‘kill the work’ because ‘no religious awakening…has ever been able to retain its spiritual life and power after man has organized it and gotten it under his control.”22 I’m not sure if Durham read Weber, but he just made an excellent theological version of his argument. In other words Durham knew that charisma was the strength of their organization. Charisma was key to their growth, and if they give way to structure/tradition it would die.

In 1914 those who wished to bring structure to Pentecostalism were successful in forming such an organization. They appeased some of their critics by insisting that they did not want to form a denomination. Blumhofer writes, “It disavowed sectarian intentions as ‘a human organization that legislates or forms laws and articles of faith’ through which to exercise ‘unscriptural jurisdiction’ over members”.23 They created a statement of purpose, in tact till this day, and it is in this statement that I believe we see another great example of the tension. I will cite the statement in most of its entirety. It declared:

“Be it resolved, That we recognize ourselves as a GENERAL COUNCIL of Pentecostal (Spirit Baptized) from [different organizations and churches], whose purpose is to neither legislate laws of government, nor usurp authority over said various Assemblies of God, nor deprive them of their Scriptural and local rights and privileges, but to recognize Scriptural methods and order for worship, unity, fellowship, work and business for God, and to disapprove of all unscriptural methods, doctrines and conduct, and approve of all Scriptural truth and conduct, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace, until we all come into the unity of faith, and to the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, and to walk accordingly, as recorded in Eph. 4:17-32 and to consider the five

21 purposes announced in the Convention call…in the Word and Witness publication.”24

This statement would become the Constitution for the newfound Assemblies of

God. And in this Constitution we can see that they have two opposing desires: 1. Not to legislate laws of government or usurp authority from local churches. 2. To disapprove of unscriptural doctrines and conduct. Here in lies the dialectic I have been discussing, and the reason I chose to examine the Assemblies of God.

Tradition says, we need structure, we need rules, and we need doctrine – properly approved. But Charisma says there should be no structure; we should all feel free to be led by “the Spirit”. This document leads us to believe that Pentecostalism wants both. Yet they are opposed to one another, and if you carefully observe this document, you realize there is no proposed resolution between the two. Sounds like a problem? Nope. It turns out that’s its strength.

This is Pentecostalism’s unique position. It was founded as a rediscovery of an old truth, and as stated earlier that truth must never be forfeited, compromised, or forgotten. Yet it is by that very truth that it is required to be open to new revelations

(charisma). E.N. Bell, the first chairman of the Assemblies of God stated, “We must keep our skylights open, so as not to reject any new light God may throw upon the old

World. We must not fail to keep pace in life or teaching with light from Heaven.”25

This is charisma as tradition. Open to change, because change is the norm. Yet not everything can change, there must be structure in order to preserve the movement.

And there must be doctrine, in order to maintain its structure. Is it the same across the world for all Pentecostals? No, of course not. But that’s okay. And the Assemblies of

God is an example of that and how that can be a strength. In order to join their

22 organization you must sign a statement of truth (we will observe this statement in the next chapter on doctrine). And in that statement you do not need to declare your stances on women in ministry, tattoos, or proper church attire. Each church is left to govern itself.

They are members of what AG refers to as a “Voluntary Cooperative Fellowship”. This is an interesting idea. It means that you can choose to be involved and cooperate on a macro scale, but your local affairs and constitution are governed by the local body. There are only four core doctrines you MUST subscribe to.

The Assemblies of God is growing at a fast rate in foreign countries. In this last decade it grew by 30% in , 10.9% in the -Pacific, and a staggering 53% in

Latin American countries. There are AG churches in 217 countries and an estimated 64 million adherents worldwide.26 These statistics are a reflection of what we see in

Pentecostalism as a whole.

The dialectic leaves Pentecostalism open to cultural and social idiosyncrasies, yet it maintains it’s traditional distnctive. It is open to change because change is the norm. It looks forward to charismatic newness (as noted by E.N. Bell) and does not fear it as past religious structures have done. Yet it does not leave it unleashed. Remember, it is charisma as tradition, not charisma without tradition.

NOTES

1 It’s important to note that this is only one perspective of the Acts account. It is possible that the church is presenting an idealized version of their history, and scholars do debate the historicity of the Acts accounts. However for the purpose of this thesis, such claims will not affect the logic of my argument. For while historicity may be argued most scholars will agree that the early church was charismatic by nature – and that is the relevant truth. For other perspectives see The Church of the Roman Empire Before AD 170 – William Ramsay.

23

2 T.B. Barratt, in Apostolic Faith [Calif.], December 1906, p.3. The sentences beginning “On November 15” and “Eventually he asked” in B.F. Lawrence, The Apostolic Faith Restored (St. Louis: Publishing House, 1916), p. 107. 3 Numbers 25:1-8, Judges 10, 1 Kings 11:4. There are many other passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that allude to this cultural reality of the time. 4 Michael D. Coogan, "A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament" page 335-336, , 2009. 5 This assumes again that Azusa is the starting point for Modern Pentecostalism. This idea is not universally held. 6 Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 21 7 Kydd, Healing, page 21-22, 29, 71-74, 79; Burgess, ‘Ancient Fathers’, p. 735 8 of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History Book v. Chapter xvii 9 Kelsey, Morton, Tongue Speaking: The History and Meaning of Charismatic Experience, : Crossroad 1981, p. 46 10 Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 23 11 Vasquez, Manuel 12 Wesley, John, Letters to Mr. John Smith p. 76 13 Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 25 14 This outline is from Fletcher, The Portrait of St. Paul, p.166-69 15 Winthrop S. Hudson, “The Methodist Age in America,” Methodist History (April 1974) p. 12 16 Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 29 17 This is again not a universally held perspective. It is the perspective held in Heritage magazine vol. 6, NO,3, FALL 1986. 18 Quoted in Murray, The Sublimity of Faith, Kingdom Press, March 1982, p. 162. 19 Word and Witness, 20 March 1914, I. 20 ibid. 21 Blumhofer, Edith W., Restoring the Faith, University of Illinois Press, 1993, p. 115 22 Durham, William, “Organization,” Gospel Witness I (ca. 1913): II. 23 Blumhofer, Edith W., Restoring the Faith, University of Illinois Press, 1993, p. 116 24 General Council Minutes, 1914, 14. 25 Word and Witness, 20 March 1914, 2. 26 This statistics are taken from the statisticians office of the Assemblies of God, and the pdf of this research can be found for download at: http://agchurches.org/Content/Resources/AGWMCurrentFacts.pdf

24 Ch. 2 – The Dialectic of Pentecostal Theology and Doctrine

Should theology matter?

Whenever a religion is being studied, a good scholar should always make it a point to learn as much about the subject as feasibly reasonable within the context of the purpose of his or her study. I cite Weber’s use of “Verstehende”, as an example of such an approach. Instead of explaining from the outside, you put on the shoes of the insiders and empathize. You share the internal world with this person, studying them through a process of methodological individualism. This does not mean that you become a practitioner. It just means that you must be religiously musical, careful though not being a musician yourself. Therefore I argue that having a perspective of theology is crucial as it helps to establish a better understanding of your subject.

In this chapter I will introduce the vocabulary and theology of Pentecostalism, so that we can better understand the reasons for its growth. Through this process we will again see how the tension between charisma and tradition (which is charisma as tradition) can be seen from the theological perspective.

Does Pentecostalism have theology?

There are some who in the search of factors to explain the growth of

Pentecostalism, claim that a central key to its success is the lack of theology found within this stream of Christianity. As stated in the last chapter, The Assemblies of God claims at least some presence in 217 different nations. If true, that’s 217 different cultures, filled with people whom speak different languages and have different histories. It is therefore

25 logical to assume that only a tradition with porous boundaries and no structured theology could be adaptable enough to survive in such different environments. While I admit that this line of reasoning stands the test of reason, I would argue that it fails many others, modern Pentecostal history for example.

From 1914 (the year the Assemblies of God was formed) to 1916, the Assemblies of God was a very inclusive fellowship. They had loose acceptance policies. Not difficult to understand when you consider that the original intention was not to form a denomination.1 As a result, their ranks grew quickly, and as the numbers of adherents grew so did the diversity. It was a diversity that would lead to a clash, and a clash that would lead to the reduction of the numbers of Assemblies of God ministers by 25 percent.2 What could serve as such a divisive issue? Theology.

In 1915 a California based Pentecostal preacher by the name of Frank Ewert had pioneered the emergence of a new doctrine, known as the “Oneness teaching”.3 This was a theological position that stood in contrast to the majority of Pentecostals, who at the time were Trinitarian. The Oneness teaching stated that God was one spirit who took on different manifestations throughout history, but his supreme identity was at his core

Jesus. The Trinitarian Pentecostals vigorously debated this as they were of the classic

Nicene tradition, meaning they understood God to be One, yet made up of three equal parts: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

To the outsider this subtle distinction might seem trivial or not a big issue, but this is where I implore you to put yourself in a position of “understanding”. For Pentecostals at the time (and even today) this was an emotional encounter. The oneness theology

26 seemed to diminish the importance of the Holy Spirit, and was incompatible with the three-dispensation theology adopted from Fletcher.

As a result, many of those who laid the original groundwork for the Assemblies of

God left and serious changes were to happen in the movement’s history. In 1916 there was a serious drift from the original plan for an inclusive fellowship for all Pentecostals as the AG was becoming more exclusive. Fear of false doctrine and “unscriptural” teaching compelled the movement’s leaders to draft a document known as the “16

Fundamental Truths”.4 This document covers in depth what the Assemblies of God does and does not believe. It is significant in the sense that it is at this point the Assemblies, whether they would admit it or not, “denominationalizes” itself. By that term I mean they makes clear strides to define themselves, and by rule define the “other”.

Why make this point? This issue is not unique to the Assemblies. Since it’s emergence in the early 1900’s Pentecostalism has split into many denominations, and in many ways that is the proof of its theology, as well as the presence of structure. I fear that when some claim Pentecostalism has no theology they misconstrue it as a Neo-

Montanism. Remember that Montanism, the early sect of Christianity mentioned earlier, opposed doctrine/structure altogether, emphasizing prophecy as supreme. Pentecostalism however will create doctrines, employ theology, while embracing charismata. Therefore I would argue that it is not the lack of theology that is appealing and adaptive, but rather the stress of a certain “kind” of theology. This will be explored further.

27

The difference between theology and doctrine

An important distinction that I feel should be made before exploring Pentecostal theology is the difference between theology and doctrine. Some scholars might argue that there is no difference, but I feel that there is and I will show why. This is also helpful to understand since I will be citing both Pentecostal theology and AG doctrine. As we will see, Pentecostalism as a whole holds to four theological elements, the four pillars of the

“tent” (denomination or sect). These pillars are crucial and as such will be found in each

“tent”. Doctrine however is much less hegemonic and the exact same formula will not be found in all Pentecostal circles.

Before I expound I will attempt to lay out a simple definition. All theology is in some form doctrine, but not all doctrine is theology. Theology is the overarching umbrella, and doctrine is found within theology. That is not to say that doctrine is what theology is made of. Only that doctrine cannot exceed the limits set upon it by theology.

Theology is held much dearer than doctrine is. That is not to say that adherents do not care about doctrine, they very much do. Only that doctrine is considered to be not as necessary as theology. I will support this distinction now.

The Assemblies of God has stated that they hold to “Four Core Beliefs”.5 These are: Salvation, Healing, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the . Notice in the words they choose that these four issues are “core”. (They are also core to the rest of

Pentecostalism, as I will soon explore). The rest revolves around these four, and you cannot be considered Pentecostal if you do not adhere to these beliefs. This would be an example of theology. They are also referred to as 4 core doctrines, supporting my

28 statement that all theology is a form of doctrine but not the other way around. These four beliefs are elevated to a level above the rest. They cannot be compromised and are considered to be revelation from God.

Now lets turn to doctrine. For the Assemblies of God their doctrine can be found within what they refer to as the “Statement of Fundamental truths”. There are 16 of them.

As noted earlier this was adopted in 1916 and was the organization’s first real steps towards exclusivism. They were issues strongly enough held to promote division, but even so, consider the words chosen in the introduction statement of these issues,

“The Bible is our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice. This Statement of Fundamental Truths is intended simply as a basis of fellowship among us (i.e., that we all speak the same thing, 1 Corinthians 1:10; Acts 2:42). The phraseology employed in this statement is not inspired or contended for, but the truth set forth is held to be essential to a full-gospel ministry. No claim is made that it contains all biblical truth, only that it covers our need as to these fundamental doctrines.”6

The “phraseology” has obviously been chosen quite carefully. What should stand out first is that they recognize their doctrines (outside of the four core beliefs) as “not inspired or contended…but essential to [ministry].” And that “No claim is made that it contains all [truth].” Now you can see an example of the statement I previously made. It’s not that they disregard doctrine, on the contrary they value it, dictate it, and enforce it even when it excludes. However they recognize that some doctrines are core while others are…”not core”. The core doctrines are considered to be sacred, they are central, and they are theology. The other doctrines are not up for discussion, but also not as sacred. But why make such a distinction?

It seems there is apprehension, fear even, to give their “man made” doctrines (if not inspired then what else would you call them?) room to become dogma. Dogma is a

29 dirty word in Pentecostalism. Theology is inspired, doctrine is interpreted. What is inspired is considered infallible, and what is interpreted is considered to be “essential”. I will pause here once again to point out the presence of the charisma/tradition dialectic.

Going back to the last chapter, I cited William Durham, an early Pentecostal thinker, in his opposition to structure. He represents the Pentecostal thought that man should not try to control the move of the Spirit, lest it “kill the work [of the Spirit]”.

Embedded in the Pentecostal tradition is an innate refusal to place man’s tradition/structure above all. Not every Pentecostal has read Weber or is familiar with his theories on tradition’s effect on religious movements. But what they are aware of is the central role of the Spirit’s leading [charisma] which sets them apart. It is their

“Pentecostal distinctive”, as well as the revelation that “set them free” from centuries of darkness.7

However, you can see in the introduction statement above that they are inwardly conflicted. They do not claim their doctrines are inspired, only that they are “essential”.

What are we left with then? You are left with an organization that recognizes a contrast between what is “inspired” and what is “essential”, what is beneficial to growth and what is necessary to maintain it.

As you will see as I discuss Pentecostal theology, it is very much connected with charisma (baptism in Spirit and divine healing). It would not be a leap then, to recognize charisma as a part of Pentecostal theology. Therefore, concerning the Pentecostal, charisma is theology and dearly guarded, while doctrine (tradition/structure) is not as beloved, but necessary (essential) for the maintenance of growth. For the Pentecostal, the

30 tension between theology and doctrine is a reflection of the tension between charisma and tradition.

Pentecostals recognize you to be a Pentecostal based on your theology, a crucial four-fold theology centered on charisma. Doctrines are not universally equal among most

Pentecostals, yet still issues of importance. In addition this theology (charisma) is not a burden, in fact it is considered empowering by some in the global south.8 That is another reason for its success.

Now that the difference between theology and doctrine has been discussed I will venture into expounding upon Pentecostal theology. A landmark work on the subject has already been written, and in my research (albeit a brief and pale comparison) I have come to find myself in agreement with most of what this scholar has posed.

Pentecostal Theology

Donald Dayton, in the Theological Roots of Pentecostalism9, states that there are

4 similarities to Pentecostalism, a four-fold theology (even on the global scale). Before we discuss these though, I would like to briefly discuss what Pentecostalism is not.

Pentecostalism is not centered on glossolalia.

Glossolalia or “speaking in tongues” has usually been the main feature of

Pentecostalism that has been examined by scholars. While it does hold a significant position within the tradition it seems that it would not be wise to limit Pentecostal theology to this occurrence or to esteem it as a separating factor, mainly because glossolalia is not unique to Pentecostalism. The Shakers and Mormons of the 19th century had experienced this as well.10 Not to mention its presence in modern day charismatic

31 churches that would not consider themselves to be Pentecostal.11 Dayton supports this argument and states, “Even when theological analysis has been attempted, the concentration on glossolalia has foreshortened the theological analysis by restricting the type of questions considered.”12 Finally, a scholar might consider that speaking in tongues is crucial to what he or she to be understanding Pentecostalism, but upon further review, come to find out that it is the baptism of the Spirit that is crucial, which for some is evidenced through speaking in tongues.

Returning to the four-fold theology, certain things should be stated prior. First, this is theology and not doctrine. It is held much closer to the chest than doctrine. Second, because of that, you will find it in Pentecostalism throughout the world. Lastly, much more could be said about Pentecostal theology but for the purposes of this paper the four- fold approach is, I feel, not only appropriate but accurate. Now I will turn to Dayton and borrow from his phraseology.

Dayton argues the four elements or the “four-fold gospel” (I will refer to this later) is: Christ as Savior, Christ as Healer, Christ as Baptizer of the Spirit, and Christ as coming king. This formula is nearly universal in its encompassing of Pentecostal theology.13 We have many examples to support this claim. Stanley M. Horton, a modern

Pentecostal theologian, wrote Into all Truth, which some consider to be a manual for

Pentecostalism. In this work he organizes the theology into 4 teachings: salvation, healing, baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the second coming of Christ.14 When doctrine comes in and divides, even the Pentecostal denominations that branch off will continue this same trend of theology. Aimee Semple McPherson, who was an influential

Pentecostal female evangelist in the early 20th century, also began her career as a

32 credentialed with the Assemblies of God. But in 1922 when she returned her credentials over doctrinal issues, she began her own church.15 It would take on the name the “International Church of the Foursquare Gospel”. This church has become a thriving

Pentecostal denomination. Its “four squares” of course refer to salvation, divine healing, baptism in the Spirit, and the second coming of Christ. I will now examine each element.

Salvation

The four-fold or begins with Salvation. This is the basic Christian idea that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and has died to remove sin from all those who would believe in him and ask him. Pausing here a moment I would like to counter some popular ideas about Pentecostalism’s focus on Christ, or lack of it. There is the idea that

Pentecostals are Pneumacentric, rather than Christocentric. Pneumacentric meaning focused on the Holy Spirit, having him as the center of their faith. Christocentric meaning focused on Christ. I can see how some would assume this since Pentecostalism places a greater emphasis on the Spirit’s work then do other streams of Christianity, but the Spirit is not at the center. Notice Dayton refers to the four-fold gospel as “Christ as…” This is an important detail. Christ never leaves the center for Pentecostals. Even when they refer to baptism in the Spirit they recognize that as a moment of empowerment, so that they may continue to serve Christ. The Oneness variation of doctrine within Pentecostalism, is an overt albeit it different hint of this present inclination.

33

Divine Healing

Divine Healing is also important to Pentecostal theology. Remember that is a significant motif of Pentecostalism. One early Pentecostal writer explained their desire to “restore” Christianity like this, “They have made the New Testament their rule of life…The Pentecostal movement…leaps the intervening years crying, ‘Back to Pentecost’…this work of God is immediately connected with the work of God in New Testament days.”16 One of the reason why healing is valued is because it has such a significant presence in the New Testament.

From the Gospels through the , especially James’ letter hold, what some

Pentecostals consider to be a clear call to a work of healing. As stated in the first chapter however, the presence of charismata (healing would be included in this category) was on a steady decline since the 1st century. Restating again, that Martin Luther and the disenchantment brought on by the Protestant Reformation only magnified this decline.

Luther wrote, “For Christ did not make with oil a , nor do St. James’ words apply to the present day. For in those days the sick were often cured through a and the earnest of faith, as we see in James and Mark 6.”17 Healing was understood to only exist in the time or “dispensation” of the apostles. This idea carried over until Wesley.

John Wesley, like with most Pentecostal theology, can in some form be traced as an antecedent. He was fairly vague, like with the rest of his work on charismata, but did leave it open. There is even record of him praying for the sick and the sick getting well.18

I will establish however that healing was not an intentional pursuit of Wesley. But it’s

34 fair to say he opened the doors for such theological lines of thinking. By the turn of the century, his contributions combined with other factors made the healing message a key theological progression towards baptism of Sprit as a moment of empowerment.19 Yet it was more than just a stance or perspective. For Pentecostals it is the evidence that what they believe is correct. It is “God’s Testimony” as read in 1 John 5:620. It is evidence of

“God also bearing witness with them, both by , and by manifold powers (miracles) and by gifts of the Holy Spirit.”21 That what they preach is true.

Baptism in the Holy Spirit

Baptism in the Holy Spirit has gotten the most “coverage” by scholars. But as we stated earlier is not the sole defining aspect of the movement. It might interest some to know that this theology was not without antecedent. In fact it is the final product of a development process. For a while there was much debate on whether the Holy Spirit baptism was useful for helping the achiever reach a state of “holiness” or perfection, or whether the baptism came to bring “power” to perform supernaturally on Christ’s behalf.

The holiness or perfection themes came from Wesleyan thought, while the power theme was a later evolution of the Wesleyan idea. Some theologians tried to combine them.

A.M. Hills wrote a book called Holiness and Power.22 That would not suffice for most

Pentecostals, as the were still too different. Does the baptism cleanse you of all sin? Or does it give you supernatural power?

Through a process of influential developments, eventually the school that embraced power won out as the majority opinion. And that is what the theology maintains today, that with the baptism you have power to heal others and perform

35 supernaturally for Christ.23 Thinkers like A.J. Gordon and A.B. Simpson would contribute works entitled, The Ministry of the Spirit and The Holy Spirit: or Power from on Higher respectively.24 These works would lay the groundwork for Charles Parham and his students. As stated earlier, it is Parham who will make the first claims of an initial physical evidence of baptism in the Spirit.

The Second Coming

The second coming of Christ is the final part of the four-fold gospel. For those unfamiliar with I will briefly explain this position. The second coming of Christ, in this context, is a premillennial notion. “Millennia” refers to the

1,000-year reign of Christ on earth. The second coming theology states that Christ will return before this reign to rescue all believers before a “” of 7 years. After this time Christ will defeat and the 1,000-year reign will begin. After which, Satan will be released for a short time, then defeated for good.

There is an emphasis on “pre” because there also exist two other theories: amillennialism and postmillennialism. Amillennialism is a rejection of the theory that

Christ will have a physical 1,000-year long reign on the earth, and in addition views the

1,000-year reign as a symbolic Golden Age where prosper.

Postmillennialism sees Christ's second coming as occurring after the 1,000-year reign, which is also considered to be symbolic.

Premillennialism plays a big part in Pentecostalism. The Assemblies of God is an example of that. In 1914 when they first assembled, they rejoiced in their announcement that, “Jesus is coming soon, to this old world in the same manner as he left it to set up his

36 millennial kingdom.”25 This was the push that set them on their race, this sense of urgency towards the imminent return of Christ. Combine that with the fact that around this time another well-known event was occurring in 1914, that is World War I.

Current events of the time had proven to be a catalyst to the premillennial urgencies. The world was coming to an end, this event was unprecedented, and surely

Christ was coming soon.26 Armageddon was on the horizon and as many as possible needed to be saved before that time. Of course I am not advocating that it was the War that developed premillennial theology, only that the cultural atmosphere served as a catalyst. Premillenialism predated 1914, and there were many factors that finalized in this eschatological development.27

Assemblies of God doctrine

Now I will turn to the document known as the Statement of Fundamental truths, drafted in 1916. There are 16 “truths” listed. 4 of which make up the theology of

Pentecostalism (salvation, healing, baptism, and second coming). However, there are some other doctrines I would like to highlight. They are not considered to make up the general theology of Pentecostalism but do support my prior arguments as they do not exceed or invalidate the boundaries laid upon them by the four-fold gospel. These other

12 doctrines fall within Pentecostal theology but also provide perspective on the dialectic argued within this thesis.

37 Traditional Doctrine

I will begin with statement #6, The Ordinances of the Church. This doctrine declares that adherents should practice Baptism in Water and Holy Communion. These are two rites that have been practiced since the early days of Christianity, and observers should find it very interesting that in a religion so anti-tradition, that so traditional would be considered not simply supplemental, but doctrine. Another example of the traditional force in Pentecostalism is statement #1, The Scriptures Inspired. The 1925

Scopes Monkey Trial hinted at a new breed of Christians, a small but influential and educated group that would question the Bible’s literal interpretations. Some would blend their Christian beliefs with Darwinism and reconcile any differences with evolutionary theories. Now it would not be fair or accurate to say there are no Pentecostals who subscribe to evolutionary theories. But it would be safe to say that if they do exist, they would exist in a minority. Pentecostals consider the bible to be infallible, and in most contexts literal.28 I consider this doctrine to be a traditional force within the organization as it limits the pull of prophecy back to New Testament messages.29

I will only briefly mention some other doctrines. #2 One True God, #3 The deity of Jesus, #4 The Fall of Man, and #13-16 Eschatological conclusions30. The reason I mention these in such a quick manner is because I would like to give you the reader some perspective. Yes, Pentecostalism is charismatic, the scholars have stressed this time and time again. But I hope that with just the few mentioned above you can begin to see that

Pentecostalism is more than just being led by the Spirit. You can observe that there is a model here that is being put forth by these doctrines, a structure and model that is laid out so that it may be emulated and reproduced. This is the classic force of tradition within

38 religion. It allows for organization and networking. However, as stated before, if the authority of a religion or its leaders is based on tradition alone, it will soon lose relevance. The charisma force challenges the current authority and is relevant to time and location. As I have stated throughout my thesis, Pentecostalism does not abandon one or the other, and that is its strength. I will now take a look at the some of the doctrines that provide the charisma force within the Assemblies of God.

Charismatic Doctrine & the Dialectic between them

There is an obvious emphasis in the presence of charismatic doctrine listed within the AG statement of truths. Those are the following: #7 The Baptism in the Holy Spirit,

#8 The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, #10-11 The Mission and Ministry of the Church31, and #12 Divine Healing. These doctrines represent the charisma force. They are not as structured as the traditional doctrines and intentionally leave space. They have the power to challenge authority (tradition) but cannot exceed the boundaries of theology. They include prophecy, “signs and wonders”, as well as glossolalia.

What’s interesting is that these unstructured phenomena, prophecy for example, are considered “doctrinal”. Speaking in tongues is a must, miracles are a must, and prophecy is a must. As I argued at the onset of this chapter “doctrine” is synonymous with tradition. Now you can see within their theology how the classic tension of charisma and tradition is rewritten, not charisma vs. tradition, but charisma as tradition.

39

NOTES

1 Originally the Assemblies of God had deposed denominationalism. The original was considered to be a universal restoration. Some were seeking a universal church similar to that of Catholicism. 2 Edith W. Blumhofer, Restoring the Faith, University of Illinois Press, 1993, p. 134 3 ibid. p. 129 4 ibid. p. 134 5 www.ag.org 6 The General Council of the Assemblies of God STATEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS, opening paragraph. 7 This is a reference to Ch. 1 of this thesis. Where I explain the process by which charisma became tradition. 8 For more on this see, Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, J. (2007): Born of water and the spirit: Pentecostal/charismatic 9 Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Hendrickson Publishers, 1987) 10 Georger H. Williams and Edith Waldvogel, “A History of Speaking in Tongues and Related Gifts,” in Michael Hamilton, ed., The (Grand Rapids:Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1975), especially pp. 81-89. 11 John T. Bunn, “Glossolalia in Historical Perspective,” in Watson E. Mills, ed., Speaking in Tongues: Let’s Talk about It (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1973), p.46. 12 Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Hendrickson Publishers, 1987) p. 16 13 ibid. p. 22 14 Stanley Horton, Into All Truth: A Survey of the Course and Content of Divine Revelation (Springfield, .: Gospel Publishing House, 1955), p. 13. 15 Blumhofer, Edith W., Restoring the Faith, University of Illinois Press, 1993, p. 166 16 Lawrence, The Apostolic Faith Restored, pp. 11-12. 17 In a letter to the Elector of Brandenburg, dated 4 December 1539, quoted by Benjamin B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1918; reprint, London: Banner of Truth, 1972), p. 306 18 The Journal of Rev. John Wesley, A.M., ed. Nehemiah Curnock (London: Epworth, 1912), 3:55-56. 19 To learn more about these other factors such as and the Holiness influence, Read Dayton pp 119-137 20 This is a reference to a scripture often quoted by Pentecostals who consider divine healing as the Spirit’s testimony. The supernatural work he does in the believer is God’s stamp of approval. 21 See the appendix containing a “Full Report of the First General Convention of the Divine Healing Association” to and Mrs. Dowie, Our Second Year’s Harvest (: International Divine Healing Association, 1891), pp. 172, 174-75.

40

22 A.M. Hills, Holiness and Power for the Church and the Ministry (Cincinnati: Revivalist Office, 1897) 23 Pentecostals will often quote Acts 1:8 as biblical proof for this gift. It reads, “And you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” 24 For the purposes of this paper I have not gone into too much detail on the historical developments of these ideas. To learn more on the baptism see Dayton, pp. 93-108 25 Assemblies of God, Combined Minutes, First General Council (1914) p. 2 26 Blumhofer alludes to this on p. 142. 27 To learn more on the historical development see Dayton pp. 147-158 28 Literal biblical interpretation is hotly contested in the Christian world. What should be considered symbolic and what shouldn’t is not universally accepted. 29 That is at least in theory. History has shown us countless times that individuals can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. Therefore when I write that prophecy is limited to NT messages, I mean what the majority considers the NT message to be saying. This is still a significant point as it prevents prophecy from “outrunning” the majority opinion. 30 This includes #13 The Blessed Hope, #14 The Millennial Reign of Christ, #15 The Final Judgment, and #16 The New and the New Earth. 31 I have combined those two doctrines because they are both very similar. They both emphasize supernatural working through the Holy Spirit to perform on Christ’s behalf.

41 Ch. 3 – The Global South, Neo-Pentecostalism, and the Future

Until now, the majority of the discussion on this topic has been centered on classical Pentecostal developments in America. However, it would be a disservice to leave un-discussed, Pentecostalism’s presence in the Global South. Part of the scholarly interest in Pentecostalism lies in the latter’s rapid global growth. In and

Africa the Pentecostal church is growing rapidly. I will explore the reasons why I think this is happening.

But first, here is some information to help quantify this growth: There were an estimated 141 million Latin American Pentecostals in 2000, half of whom are in

(this number has only grown since then).1 Speaking of Brazil, it has one of the highest numbers of Pentecostals in the world. 61 percent of all churches in the city of Rio de

Janeiro are Pentecostal and 710 new churches had been founded between 1990-1992, 91 percent of which were Pentecostal.2 In , there are over 150 Pentecostal denominations.3 Finally, one of my more recent discoveries came from a personal interview with the director of the Assemblies of God . After discussing Pentecostalism in Cuba, he informed me that there are currently over 5,000

Assemblies of God churches alone that gather weekly in a home-style environment.4

The numbers in Africa also bear some striking revelations. According to one estimate, 11 percent of Africa’s population (including the predominantly Muslim north) was “Charismatic” in 2000.5 This is evidence that Pentecostalism is undoubtedly becoming the dominant form of Christianity on the continent. Africa was one of

Pentecostalism’s first stop by from Azusa. The Assemblies of God in particular has a strong presence there, with over 4 million member in 1994, and by now

42 many more.6 I feel that there are 3 reasons why Pentecostalism grows so fast in the global south and I will discuss these now.

Neo-Pentecostalism

First, remaining within the thesis of this paper, a large part of the growth has to do with change being a part of the Pentecostal tradition. That openness allows for doctrine to be malleable, while still maintaining its theology. The theology (as covered in the last chapter) provides for a template of sorts that enables churches to grow and multiply, leaving what is left “grey” to be filled in by the idiosyncratic localities. A lot of this change has resulted in a different appearance in Pentecostalism around the world.

Because of localities, certain aspects of Pentecostal tradition are emphasized while other aspects are routinized. This is neo-Pentecostalism.

Neo-Pentecostalism holds on to the tradition of change (charisma as tradition) yet still holds on to the 4 core doctrines mentioned in the last chapter. What differentiates it is the evidence of transformation that it chooses to emphasize. It holds consistent to a in salvation through Christ and a baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, Neo-

Pentecostals may not expect a specific experience to accompany it as a requirement for those gifts. There is no single structure or style of church services that can be identified as specifically Neo-Pentecostal. Neo-Pentecostalism is a cloud and very hard to discern but we can point at two examples for more clarity. For example, in Brazil healing and exorcism takes almost a predominant role in church liturgy. At the the Iglesia Universal del Reino de Dios (one of Brazil’s largest denominations and churches) people seem to be delivered and cured on a daily basis.

43 In Africa, where the is so poor, you find a lot of of Health and Wealth, or prosperity preaching. The Prosperity gospel is the belief that if you are a good Christian God will bless you, both materially and spiritually. John 10:10 says, “I have come that you may have life and have it to the fullest.” It holds to an understanding that God does not want his followers to be poor, he wants them to be richly blessed in this life.7 It has found an eager audience in the Global South (also in the US) and many turn to Pentecostalism for this reason. These two aspects of Neo-Pentecostalism discussed above, the spiritual and material inclinations, will be further fleshed out in my next two reasons for growth.

Animism and the Global South

My second reason requires me to defer to the studies of the 19th century English anthropologist E.B. Tylor. E.B. Tylor contributed much to the study of religion and is considered by many to be a forefather to religion as an academic discipline. In the context of this paper, he is most relevant for his reintroduction of the term animism. Animism is the belief in spirits which dwell and animate all things. Every living being has a , and there are some good souls and bad souls. These leave the body after death. The bad souls would be synonymous (for Pentecostalism) with demons. Tylor considered animism as the first phase of the development of religions because it was the primal form of religious understanding in many of the older societies he had engaged in his studies.8

That being said animism understands there to exist a “spiritual unseen world”, a world of evil spirits and good spirits. Animism was prevalent in both African and Latin

American religions. This is relevant to the growth of Pentecostalism because for potential

44 converts that means that Pentecostal ideas and theology would not be foreign concepts.

The environment therefore is prime for the Pentecostal experience and mindset.

Pentecostals practices exorcisms and healings, as did many of the native animistic religions. Pentecostalism promotes the empowerment of the Spirit. A Spirit is not as foreign of a concept for those who grew up in this type of culture, and to be baptized in the Spirit would draw parallels with being possessed by a Spirit (though I am not sure

Pentecostals would use that terminology).

This explanation accounts for why the country with the largest growth in adherents is Brazil. Alan Anderson (a Pentecostal scholar) writes in regards to Brazil,

“The growth of Pentecostalism must also be seen in the light of the significance of

Brazilian spiritism…Estimates are that some 60 percent of Brazil’s population is involved in some form of .”9 The Brazilian church has a heavy practice/tradition of exorcism. It does not cease to be Pentecostal, however, as the charisma as tradition model entitles it to such adaption.

The case for Africa is similar, as the charismatic/animistic nature of African indigenous religions is evident. Many indigenous religions understand illness to be the result of evil Spirits and witchcraft, and quite often the cure for the illness is to exercise the evil spirit. On this continent all religions are subject to this paradigm. Both Islam and

Catholicism have been greatly impacted by the charismatic/animistic nature of African culture. This perspective is almost a necessity for religious identification with the locals.

J. Kwabeno, a Pentecostal theologian and African native from the country of , wrote in one of his papers, “Churches that do not embrace this [charismatic/animistic perspective] face atrophy.”10 These are strong words, but fittingly put. In order to find

45 success in Africa a religion must adapt to its charismatic/esoteric perspectives, and

Pentecostalism does that quite nicely.

The Chiliasm of Despair

Of course, no good scholarly paper could ignore the political and socio-economic realities of the Global South. In order to understand Pentecostalism in this world, the reality on the ground must be taken into perspective. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) estimates around 53 million people live in hunger. In Africa the same applies for a 276 million of the population. Not to mention that in both the majority lives beneath the poverty line.11

Combine that with a corrupt or ineffective government and you have a people who live in a very desperate situation. It is important to note that modernity (technology, globalization, government, etc.) has failed in answering their needs. The typical Marxist or Freudian view would argue that with little to no upward socio-economic mobility and no solution in sight, religion is the natural answer.

The last reason why I feel Pentecostalism is so welcomed in the global south is connected through the work of E.P Thompson, a British historian and writer of the 20th century, and his theory on the “Chiliasm of Despair”. He posed this term to explain the growth of Methodism at the turn of the century. Chiliasm comes from the same word kilo, which means 1000. This is a direct reference that connects and comes from

Millenarianism. Millenarianism is the idea of a utopian society in a world that is to come.

It is suppose to pacify the sufferings of the religious here on earth. It suggests that there is a kingdom and crown waiting for you, as a reward for all of your troubles in this life.12

46 Perhaps Thompson would look at Pentecostalism’s growth (recalling that one of the core beliefs of Pentecostalism is in Christ as the coming King) and see it poised not only as this chiliasm, but also as a response to the suffering of the times. That is to say that the more those in the global South feel depressed the more they will project this idea of a kingdom and the stronger will they hold on to their faith. We see revivals always follow tough economic times. The assumption is that this shows that the rise in religion is only a response to economic despair. There is a definite connection to here to Marxism and his famous statement, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” Marx confirms this chiliasm as he dismissed religion as serving only the function of pain reliever to a hurting society.

Now, I mentioned at the onset of this section that my theory is only “connected” to Thompson’s. The reason for this is while both he and Marx recognize religion as a response to suffering; I see it as tool of the suffering. Not just a tool in order that the less fortunate might understand their dilemma in some sort of spiritual sense, but a tool for upward social mobility as well. Weber had suggested a similar concept, that religion changes society just as society shapes religion.13 Before I go deeper I feel that is necessary to mention that Marx never lived to see the American Civil Rights movement.

As I see it, the Civil Rights movement redefined religion’s role in the lives of the suffering. It was a force backed, led, and driven by churches and ministers. Their leader was Reverend Martin Luther King. He often used religion in his speeches, relating the

African American as an Israelite trying to reach the promised land. In this case religion was not used as an “opiate” but as a “cure” to liberate the masses.

47 Liberation Theology

Gustavo Gutiérrez spoke about this phenomena in his work A Theology of

Liberation14. This term “Liberation Theology” has been used by many scholars and is essential in the context of Pentecostalism. It should be read side by side with Marx and

Thompson because they both pose the two pieces to the puzzle. Liberation Theology sees the “City of God” as the city of men that must be built here on earth, not a refuge to be waiting for while unjust social structures and class suppression runs rampant. Liberation

Theology does not see the virtue in the suffrage of oppression, but rather the righteousness in the road to revolution. It argues that God is on the side of the oppressed.

Liberation theology is concerned with this kingdom on Earth and God as a liberator, not just with what happens after the end of the world. Liberation theologians understand God throughout history working through man to bring change and alleviate poverty. The masses cannot just stand around while injustice is free to roam, they must intervene, or rather God intervene through them.

Again, we find that this serves as an efficient reason for the growth of

Pentecostalism in Latin America. Latin America was one of the earlier birthplaces of liberation theology. Even the , who traditionally has had a strong stance against rebellious tendencies, had to take a new perspective. In the 1968 conference of

Latin American in Medellin the ecclesiastical incentive for a legitimate theology of liberation was provided. In that conference the Bishops strongly condemned unjust social structures that institutionalized violence and thereby oppressed the poor. Not only did they denounce violations of human rights, they called also for action to remove oppressive structures and systems. They justified their position theologically by

48 explaining that "liberation" at the economic and political level has a supernatural dimension. This signified a new approach and style of theological reflection, which today is known as "liberation theology". As one scholar put it, it is a change in philosophy and methodology from "I think, therefore, I am" to "I am, therefore, I think."15 In other words, the primary focus is not thought, but life, not theory but action. Religion is a tool for rebellion, not an excuse for submission.

Primitivism and Pragmatism

My third reason for growth is that the socio-economic conditions of the Global

South creates an environment where people not only long for a day where this world is left behind, but that that is not sufficient enough by itself. They also long for the tools and empowerment to make a difference and have a better life where they currently are. It is not Thompson/Marx or Gutierrez, but both scholars who present valid points.

Pentecostalism is strong because it addresses both needs. Grant Whacker, a

Pentecostal Theologian and insider, realizes this dualism and terms it “Primitivism and

Pragmatism”.16

He recognizes that there are two parts to Pentecostalism, the spiritual and esoteric side, which he calls “Primitive”, and the more practical or lived religion side, which he calls “Pragmatic”. The Primitive side appeals to the spiritual nature of religion. It definitely promotes a millenarian ideal and also the practice of charismata so dear to

Pentecostals. The Pragmatic side promotes the here and now, something more along the lines of Gutierrez. It promotes action and the power to intervene here on earth through spiritual behavior like prayer, but also secular behavior like political involvement. It’s

49 unique and fitting for places like Africa and Latin America, because primitivism provides a direct connection to the divine, which is necessary in animistic societies. But it also provides a connection to the “here and now” world and its circumstances. Imagine the versatility…it empowers you to be active when you can, but trust in the divine when you cannot.

Kwabena, a Ghana native, (cited earlier) notes that Pentecostalism preaches empowerment, not just an other-worldy empowerment that is focused on devils & demons, but also a this-worldy practical empowerment. He says that Africans are encouraged by the Pentecostal churches to run for office and shape their world. He also argues that there is an innate Afro-pessimism (a feeling of inferiority in the global community) and that Pentecostalism’s message of an unbiased empowerment of the

Spirit to all who are willing provides for a shift to Afro-optimism. Their understand comes from the Baptism of the Spirit. It served as God’s stamp on the gentiles that they were just as accepted as the Jews. For the African it is a similar validation. Kwabena argues that Pentecostalism has infiltrated economics, education, and politics. Most recently, even the President of Ghana was present to give the commencement speech at a

Pentecostal School’s Graduation.17

Conclusion

A lot of reading and writing has gone into this thesis. I must admit, when I began my research my theory was based on my observations as an insider. I am not so quick to downplay the importance of observation however, since many discoveries began with only that. I had a general relationship with the treatment of religion from an academic

50 standpoint yet I knew that if my theory were to stand true, it must find its legitimacy both through what I observed and the tools of religious academia. I must say that while I am not surprised that I was able to viably argue my theory through academic means, I was surprised that it was a much more complicated mixture of factors than expected.

All of my reading and exposure to Pentecostal/Methodist scholastic literature has opened my eyes to see that things are rarely as “dry-cut” as they seem. I stand by my thesis that Pentecostal’s main reason for growth is its reworking of the Weberian relationship of charisma vs. tradition to charisma as tradition. But I am aware that that leap has many stepping-stones in between.

I also feel that the future of Pentecostalism rests on whether or not the movement is able to maintain this dialectic. Typically speaking, the traditional forces of religion should have taken over and stunted the growth of this stream of Christianity.

But the evidence says otherwise. Alan Anderson writes, “If the statisticians are to be believed, then there are no signs that the growth of Pentecostalism is abating…The old

‘full gospel’ message of ‘Jesus Christ the Savior, Healer, Baptizer and Soon Coming

King’ still rings loud and clear in Pentecostal churches throughout the world”.18 It’s hard to see, but not unfathomable, if tradition will ever truly take hold. With the development of Neo-Pentecostalism a new door has been opened. Every time tradition takes over the majority of church liturgy, revivalism seems to bring it back to charismata and change.

It seems to me that there are only two ways the growth will become stunted.

Either tradition takes over, and change is left behind in preference of more structure. Or charisma takes over, that is if Neo-Pentecostalism becomes a Neo-Montanism, which is with absolutely no structure. If that were to happen than it will be hard to multiply,

51 missionize, and organize. It is Pentecostalism’s balance between change and structure, charisma as tradition that allows it to be successful. The question is, how long can it balance?

NOTES

1 D.B. Barrett and T.M. Johnson, ‘Global Statistics’, New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (NIDPCM_, p. 287 2 Phillip, Berryman, Religion in the Megacity: Catholic and Protestant Portraits from Latin America (New York: Orbis, 1996), pp. 26, 42. 3 D. D. Bundy, ‘Mexico’, NIDPCM, pp. 175-8 4 Director of Cuba Bible College; cubabiblecollege.org 5 Johnstone and Mandyrk, Operation World, p. 21. 6 Wilson, A. Everett, Strategy of the Spirit: J. Philip Hogan and the Growth of the Assemblies of God Worldwide 1960-1990 (Carlisle: Regnum, 1997), p. 119. 7 For more on the Neo-Pentecostalism and the Prosperity Gospel read, Garrard-Burnett, Stop Suffering? The Iglesia Universal del Reino de Dios in the United States, in Steigenga, Timothy J. , Conversion of a continent: contemporary religious change in Latin America, Rutgers University Press, 2008. 8 For more information on Animism as an origin of religion read: E.B. Tylor, Primitive Culture. 9 Anderson, Allan, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, Cambridge University, 2004 pp. 69-70. 10 Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, J. ‘Born of water and the spirit‘: Pentecostal/ in Africa, (2007) in Ogbu, U. K. (ed.): African Christianity: An African Story, Africa World Press, pp. 46 11 No one really knows how many people are malnourished. The statistic most frequently cited is that of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which measures 'undernutrition'. The most recent estimate, released in October 2010 by FAO, says that 925 million people are undernourished. The number of hungry people has increased since 1995-97, though the number is down from last year. 12 For more on Thompson read: Thompson, E.P. “The Transforming Power of the Cross.” In The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage, pp. 350-400. 13 For more on this see Weber, The . 14 Gutiérrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1988. Print. 15 Dussel, Enrique D. Philosophy of Liberation. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985. Print.

52

16 For more on Primitivism and Pragmatism read: Whacker, Grant, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture Harvard, University Press, 2001. 17 Kwabena, ibid. 18 Anderson, ibid, p. 285.

53