Pentecostal Responses to Fundamentalism in the United States, 1906-1943
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Disfellowshiped: Pentecostal Responses to Fundamentalism in the United States, 1906-1943 by Gerald Wayne King A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham March 2009 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract This thesis examines the relationship between pentecostalism and fundamentalism in the United States from 1906-1943. Of particular interest is the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals, which combined these two movements (along with holiness churches), though their history was marked by dispute. On closer examination, the two groups held an evangelical heritage in common from the nineteenth century. Like a new species that is introduced into a particular ecological context, new religious movements grow and develop in response to their surrounding environment. This study divides pentecostalism’s growth (particularly that of the Assemblies of God and the Church of God [Cleveland, TN]) into three stages: genesis (the introductory period, 1906-1909), adaptation (the formative period, 1910-1924), and retention (the educational period, 1925-1943). Fundamentalism ‘leavened’ pentecostalism by the latter’s adoption of the ‘language’, the ‘content’ and the ‘rhetoric’ of fundamentalist theology, especially through the vehicle of dispensationalism. In the end, the hostility exhibited between them during this period was the result of religious proximity. Pentecostals were a threat to the power structures of fundamentalism by attracting parishioners to its form of revivalism. Acknowledgements First and foremost, I want to thank my parents, Jim and Joyce, for their love and support throughout this project. From my father I have derived an interest in history and from my mother an interest in religion; this study combines those two passions and is a tribute to them both. Second, I wish to thank my supervisor, Prof. Allan Anderson, and my advisor, Dr. Mark Cartledge. Allan has been a great encourager from the beginning stages and helped me avoid pitfalls along the way. I have also enjoyed the walks with him in the English countryside, sipping Olwen’s red bush tea and gaining a little perspective away from the busyness of the city and the business of the thesis. Mark has been a wonderful sounding board and has directed me to works that have enriched my study. I also appreciated the annual Thanksgiving celebration, even if this Yankee had to endure a horrendous recording of ‘O, Canada’ before partaking of Joan’s scrumptious turkey. Third, I wish to thank the Panacea Society in Bedford, England, for their generous grant which helped make this research possible. Fourth, I would be remiss if I did not mention the friendly staff at the Orchard Learning Resource Center in Selly Oak and the University of Birmingham main library and Special Collections staff on the Edgbaston campus. Fifth, I have numerous thanks to various archives around the US. At the top of the list is the Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center in Springfield, Missouri, whose resources and staff were always helpful. Especially, I’d like to thank Darrin Rodgers for his generous hospitality during nearly two weeks of research split between two years and for the opportunity to chat with Wayne Warner, the retired director, over lunch. Glenn Gohr has been an invaluable resource through his detailed knowledge of AG history and by his eagerness to answer my inquiries as they surfaced. Janice Lee, Sharon Rasnake and the entire staff were unflappable in their willingness to locate materials and offer assistance if puzzlement even registered on my face. The staff at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, made my nine-month stay there in 2007 enjoyable and productive. Grace Yoder and her student helpers Tom and Carolyn helped sift through materials in the archives, and the library staff – Thad, Jared, Chris, Lee, Jessica, Don, David, Janice, Jennifer, Melinda (and anyone I may have left out) were equally efficient and friendly. Dorothy James amazed me with her ability at tracking down obscure articles and deserves encomium. The academic and housing staff were very accommodating in providing space to study and sleep, and for that I thank Dr. Bill Arnold, Sandy Martin, Korrie Harper and Sherry Peyton. I spent three weeks at the Crowell Library of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Illinois, so I have to thank my brother Bill for hosting me and Joe Cataio, Marian Shaw, Roger Van Olsen and the staff for access to volumes of periodicals, catalogues and collections of interesting and valuable materials. iii Dr. David Roebuck and staff at the Dixon Pentecostal Research Center at Lee University in Cleveland, Tennessee, allowed me access to archive material and reams of microfilm during my stay there. David was ever gracious, as was his assistant, Amy Fletcher, and were not even visibly upset when the microfilm snapped under my care. I’m relieved, and probably they are too, that these materials can now be had on CD-ROM. For other archives on shorter visits I wish to thank Dora Wagner at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Wayne Weber at the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton, Illinois, for their assistance in locating materials at their respective institutions. I must also mention Jessica Steytler, archivist at Congregational Library, Boston, Massachusetts, for help in finding Dr. Blosser’s obscure pamphlet, and Dr. Lynn Anderson, archivist at Central Bible College in Springfield, Missouri, for lunch and for access to the collection in the Pearlman Memorial Library. Sixth, I wish to thank former colleagues at Handong University in Pohang, South Korea, for their encouragement and interest in my work, particularly Dr. Ken and Pauline Grunden, Dr. Lisa Fishman Kim, and (hopefully someday soon Dr.) Deberniere Torrey, all of whom have helped in more ways than they can ever know. Seventh, I wish to thank my current colleagues at the University of Birmingham who have been fellow journeyists along the way. At the risk of neglecting some over the past few years, I should highlight some who have been especially encouraging; Kyu-Hyung Cho, Wessly Lukose, Vasile Marchis, Dan Walker, Tim Welch, Graham Smith, Doreen Morrison, Jen Miskov, Eric Williams, Connie Au, Richard Burgess, and Richard Bustraan. (I apologize if I have left anyone out.) Eighth, I have benefited from casual conversations with scholars at various conferences, some who no doubt do not remember the conversation, but have helped me to re-think critical issues (whether or not I heeded their advice). Dr. Harold Hunter, Dr. Mel Robeck, Dr. Calvin Smith, Dr. Stephen Hunt and Dr. Donald Dayton come to mind, though there are doubtless others. Last, and far from least, I wish to thank ‘the church on birch’, Celebration Community Church in Denver, Colorado, for their continuous encouragement by incarnating Christ’s love in tangible ways. Dale and Mickey Howard have been constant e-mail companions over the years, and Dale irreplaceable as a coffee partner and computer consultant. Others deserving special mention have helped in various ways with encouragement and prayers: Steve and Bonnie Garcia, Russ and Leslie Powell, Brad and Marcie Cornish, Jim and Mary Jo Peterson, John and Karen Schultz, Dan and Karen Hoglund, Jay and Teri Randall, and Bruce and Linda Johnson. To list everyone at the church who have shared their lives is impossible without adding more pages, so I can only add an et. al. for everyone else. You are in my heart always. GWK Selly Oak, March 2009 iv Table of Contents List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………….x Chapter 1 – Introduction 1.1 Introduction to the Study………………………………………………………….….1 1.2 Defining a Framework………………………………………………………………..2 1.3 Methodology and Limitations………………………………………….……………..5 1.4 Definitions…………………………………………………………………………….7 1.4.1 Pentecostalism……………………………………………………………………..7 1.4.2 Fundamentalism………………………………………………………………….12 1.4.3 Holiness Movement…………………...…………………………………………17 1.4.4 Modernism……………………………………………………………………….20 1.4.5 Evangelicalism……………………………………….…………………………..22 1.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..25 Chapter 2 – Historical Background 2.1 A Survey of the Religious Landscape, 1860-1900………………………………….28 2.2 The Great Evangelical Empire, 1860………………………………………………..29 2.3 The Cultural Challenge to the Empire, 1865………………………………………..32 2.4 The Theological Challenge to the Empire, 1874……………………………………36 2.5 A Place for Pentecostalism, 1900…………………………………………………...42 2.6 The Holiness Conduit of Pentecostalism……………….…………………………...46 2.7 Summary and Conclusion…………………………………………………………...51 v Chapter 3 – Genesis: Emerging Pentecostalism (1906-1909) 3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..53 3.2 Early Spread of Pentecostalism……………………………………………………..55 3.3 Initial Reaction of Fundamentalism…………………………………………………63 3.4.1 Pentecostal Defence of the Movement: Historical………………………………..77 3.4.2 Pentecostal