Someone once remarked that Pentecostalism is an experience looking for a theology, as if the movement lacked roots in biblical interpretation and Christian doctrine. Research on the historical and theological development of Pentecostal beliefs, however, has revealed a complex theological tradition. It bears strong commonalities with evangelical doctrines while testifying to long-neglected truths about the work of the Holy Spirit in the life and mission of the Church.
Beginning with the theological background of Pentecostalism, this chapter then focuses on the growth of Assemblies of God theology since the organization’s founding in 1914. Factors considered include paramount concerns, influential personalities, significant literature, and various means employed to preserve doctrine.
Throughout the history of Christianity, there have always been individuals seeking for “something more” in their spiritual pilgrimage, occasionally prompting them to explore the meaning of Spirit baptism and spiritual gifts. Recent scholarship has shed new light on the history of charismatic movements, demonstrating that such interest in the work of the Holy Spirit has remained throughout the history of the Church.1
At least two revivals in the nineteenth century could be considered forerunners of modern Pentecostalism. The first occurred in England (beginning in 1830) during the ministry of Edward Irving and the second in the southern tip of India (beginning around 1860) through the influence of Plymouth Brethren theology and the leadership of the Indian churchman J. C. Aroolappen. Contemporaneous reports on both included references to speaking in tongues and prophecy.2
In part, the conclusions of this research correct the belief in some quarters that the charismata necessarily ceased with the Apostolic Era, a view most forcefully proposed by Benjamin B. Warfield in his Counterfeit Miracles (1918). Warfield contended that the objective, written authority of Scripture as inspired by the Holy Spirit would inevitably be undermined by those who taught a subjective concept of the Spirit.3 In recent years, this perspective has steadily lost ground in evangelical circles.4
With the coming of late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century revivalism in Europe and North America, Calvinist, Lutheran, and evangelical Arminian preachers emphasized repentance and piety in the Christian life.5 Any study of Pentecostalism must pay close attention to the happenings of this period and particularly to the doctrine of Christian perfection taught by John Wesley, the father of Methodism, and his associate John Fletcher. Wesley’s publication of A Short Account of Christian Perfection (1760) urged his followers to seek a new spiritual dimension in their lives. This second work of grace, distinct from conversion, would deliver one from the defect in one’s moral nature that prompts sinful behavior.
This teaching spread to America and inspired the growth of the Holiness movement.6 With the focus on the sanctified life but without the mention of speaking in tongues, Pentecostal imagery from Scripture (e.g., “outpouring of the Spirit,” “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” “the tongue of fire”) eventually became a hallmark of Holiness literature and hymnody. One of the foremost leaders in the Wesleyan wing of the movement, Phoebe Palmer, a Methodist, edited the Guide to Holiness and wrote, among other books, The Promise of the Father (1859). Another popular writer, William Arthur, authored the bestseller Tongue of Fire (1856).
Those who sought to receive the “second blessing” were taught that each Christian needed to “tarry” (Luke 24:49, KJV) for the promised baptism in the Holy Spirit; this would break the power of inbred sin and usher the believer into the Spirit-filled life. Furthermore, Joel had prophesied that as a result of the outpouring of God’s Spirit “your sons and daughters will prophesy” in the last days (Joel 2:28).7
Belief in a second work of grace was not confined to the Methodist circuit. For example, Charles G. Finney believed that Spirit baptism provided divine empowerment to achieve Christian perfection8 at the same time that his theology refused to fit comfortably in either Wesleyan or Reformed categories. Although historic Reformed theology has identified Spirit baptism with conversion, some revivalists within that tradition entertained the notion of a second work for empowering believers, among them Dwight L. Moody and R. A. Torrey. Even with this enduement of power, however, sanctification retained its progressive nature.9 Another pivotal figure and former Presbyterian, A. B. Simpson, founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, strongly emphasized Spirit baptism and had a major impact on the formation of Assemblies of God doctrine.10
Similarly, the Keswick conferences in Great Britain (begun in 1875) also influenced American Holiness thinking. Keswick’s teachers believed that baptism in the Holy Spirit brought an ongoing victorious life (the “higher,” or “deeper,” life), characterized by the “fullness of the Spirit.” This became the interpretation they preferred rather than the Wesleyan concept, which maintained that Spirit baptism brought “sinless” perfection.11
In the nineteenth century, medical science advanced slowly, offering little help to the seriously ill. Belief in the miraculous power of God for physical healing found a reception in a few circles. In nineteenth-century Germany, ministries that highlighted prayer for the sick (especially those of Dorothea Trudel, Johann Christoph Blumhardt, and Otto Stockmayer) gained attention in America. Holiness theology, with its belief in instantaneous purification from sin or spiritual empowerment, provided a warm environment for the teaching of immediate healing by faith.12
For many believers, Spirit baptism fully restored the spiritual relationship that Adam and Eve had with God in the Garden of Eden. Significantly, the higher life in Christ could also reverse the physical effects of the Fall, enabling believers to take authority over sickness. Healing advocates such as Charles C. Cullis, A. B. Simpson, A. J. Gordon, Carrie Judd Montgomery, Maria B. Woodworth-Etter, and John Alexander Dowie based much of their belief on Isa. 53:4–5, as well as New Testament promises of healing. Since Christ was not only the “sin-bearer,” but also the “sickness-bearer,” those who lived by faith in God’s promise (Ex. 15:26) no longer required medical assistance, clearly betraying a lack of faith if they did.
The increasingly “Pentecostal” complexion of the Holiness movement disposed adherents to a consideration of the gifts of the Spirit in the life of the Church. While most assumed that speaking in tongues had ended with the Early Church, the other gifts, including healing, were available to Christians.13 Nothing but unbelief now could prevent the New Testament Church from being reestablished in holiness and power.
But when the radical Wesleyan Holiness preacher Benjamin Hardin Irwin began teaching three works of grace in 1895, trouble lay ahead. For Irwin, the second blessing initiated sanctification, but the third brought the “baptism of burning love” (i.e., baptism in the Holy Spirit). The mainstream of the Holiness movement condemned this “third blessing heresy” (which, among other things, created the problem of distinguishing evidence for the third from that of the second). Even so, Irwin’s notion of a third work of grace for power in Christian service laid an important foundation for the Pentecostal movement.14
Although nineteenth-century evangelicals generally adopted amillennial or postmillennial views, it was the latter that caught the spirit of the age. Writers of all kinds, from Charles Darwin to John Henry Newman to Charles Hodge, saw the positive values of progress in science, formation of doctrine, and eschatology, respectively. Others however, concluded that the condition of humankind would get worse before the imminent return of the Lord.15
Premillennialists’ gloomy assessment of the immediate future generated serious concerns among those committed to world evangelization. The larger part of the missions movement had spent considerable time and energy on civilizing the native populations—in preparation for their conversion—by building schools, orphanages, and clinics. Because of the secondary emphasis on coversionary evangelism, the actual number of converts proved to be alarmingly small.16 Premillennial expositions of Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation; the rise of the Zionist movement; the arms race of the 1890s; and the approaching end of a century caused many to wonder aloud how the unreached millions would hear the gospel message to save them from eternal destruction.
The blending of the themes of Christ as Savior, Baptizer (Sanctifier), Healer, and Coming King, described as the “full gospel” or the “fourfold gospel,” reflected the desire to restore New Testament Christianity in the last days. The widespread interest in the Spirit’s baptism and gifts convinced some that God would bestow the gift of tongues to outfit them with identifiable human languages (xenolalia) to preach the gospel in other countries, thereby expediting missionary evangelism.
In one instance, revival at the Topeka, Kansas, YMCA in 1889–1890 triggered the organization of the Kansas–Sudan Mission, whose members shortly left for missionary work in West Africa. Passing through New York City, they visited A. B. Simpson’s headquarters, where they heard his views on healing and became confident that the simple faith life and the power of the Spirit would prepare them for whatever lay ahead. One observer reported that “two of their main principles were Faith-healing, and Pentecostal gifts of tongues; no medicines were taken, no grammars or dictionaries made use of; the party was attacked by malignant fever; two died, refusing quinine.”17 And though the expedition ended in tragedy, the ideal lived on.
In 1895, the widely read Holiness author and editor W. B. Godbey predicted that the “Gift of Language” was “destined to play a conspicuous part in the evangelization of the heathen world, amid the glorious prophetical fulfillment of the latter days. All missionaries in heathen lands should seek and expect this Gift to enable them to preach fluently in the vernacular tongue, at the same time not depreciating their own efforts.”18 Many others shared the same hope.
Another advocate of this missionary use of tongues was Frank W. Sandford, founder of the Holy Ghost and Us Bible School at Shiloh, Maine, in 1895. Through his teaching and mission endeavors (publicized in Tongues of Fire) Sandford also hoped to speedily evangelize the world. Not only did he pray to receive the gift of “power and eloquence” for evangelism, but others did as well.19
By the turn of the century, the Holiness movement had become preoccupied with the “Pentecostal reformation of Wesleyan doctrine” and the four themes of the full gospel. In fact, when the Pentecostal movement began a few years later, only the priority given to the gift of tongues distinguished it theologically from Holiness beliefs.20 Daniel W. Kerr, the most influential theological voice in the early years of the Assemblies of God, remarked in 1922:
During the past few years God has enabled us to discover and recover this wonderful truth concerning the Baptism in the Spirit as it was given at the beginning. Thus we have all that the others got [i.e., Luther, Wesley, Blumhardt, Trudel, and A. B. Simpson], and we got this too. We see all they see, but they don’t see what we see.21
With little difficulty, Pentecostals continued reading Holiness literature and singing such favorite songs as “The Cleansing Wave,” “The Comforter Has Come,” “Beulah Land,” and “Old Time Power”: New wine had been poured into old wineskins.22
Also hoping that they too would receive the power of the Spirit to quickly evangelize the world were the Kansas Holiness preacher Charles Fox Parham and his followers. Convinced by their own study of the Book of Acts, and influenced by Irwin and Sandford, Parham reported a remarkable revival at the Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, in January 1901.23 Most of the students and Parham himself rejoiced at being baptized in the Spirit and speaking in tongues (i.e., xenolalia). Just as God had filled the 120 with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, they too had received the promise (Acts 2:39). In fact, the “apostolic faith” of the New Testament Church had at last been fully restored. It followed then that Bennett Freeman Lawrence would name the first history of the Pentecostal movement The Apostolic Faith Restored (1916).
Parham’s distinctive theological contribution to the movement lies in his insistence that tongues represents the vital “Bible evidence” of the third work of grace: the baptism in the Holy Spirit, clearly illustrated in the pattern of Acts 2, 10, and 19. In his Voice Crying in the Wilderness (1902, 1910), Parham wrote that recipients were sealed as the “bride of Christ” (2 Cor. 1:21–22; Rev. 7; Rev. 21). Sanctified and prepared now as an elite band of end-time missionaries, they alone would be taken by Christ at the (pre-Tribulation) rapture of the Church after they had completed their role in fulfilling the Great Commission. Other Christians would face the ordeal of survival during the seven years of tribulation to follow.24 Despite the eventual relegation of this teaching to the fringes of the Pentecostal movement, it did raise an issue that still lingers: the uniqueness of the Spirit’s work in those who have spoken in tongues as compared with those who have not.25
Topeka contributed to the later internationally significant Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles, California (1906–1909). Its foremost leader was the African-American William J. Seymour,26 and news of the “latter rain” (of Joel 2:23) quickly spread overseas through Seymour’s newspaper, the Apostolic Faith, and the efforts of many who traveled from the Azusa Street meetings across North America and abroad.
Although other important Pentecostal revivals occurred (e.g., Zion, Ill.; Toronto; Dunn, N.C.), the complexity and meaning of the Los Angeles revival still challenges historians. Its themes of eschatological expectancy and evangelistic power (Parham’s legacy) mapped the path taken by white Pentecostals in their aggressive efforts to preach the gospel “unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8, KJV).27 African-American Pentecostals, on the other hand, have drawn attention to the reconciliation of the races and the outpouring of power on the downtrodden at Azusa, evidenced by the uncommon interracial makeup of the services, catalyzed by the fruit of the Spirit (Seymour’s legacy).28 Both are vital parts of the story. Even though the burden for evangelism inspired global outreach, Pentecostals have much to learn from the message of reconciliation that also highlighted the revival.29
Theological differences did not evaporate in the excitement of announcing the coming of the latter rain. Three major controversies faced the new movement in the first sixteen years of its existence.
The first issue to divide Pentecostals arose in late 1906. It centered on the theological value of narrative literature (Acts and the longer ending of Mark 16) in building the case for the doctrine of tongues as the “initial evidence” of Spirit baptism. Those who followed in Parham’s wake considered tongues evidential and the pattern in Acts authoritative, as much as any propositional passages. That is, tongues in Acts seemed to have the function of being evidence of the baptism; whereas tongues in 1 Corinthians had other functions: for the individual’s prayer life (1 Cor. 14:4, 14,28) and (with interpretation) for the congregation’s edification (1 Cor. 14:5,27). But to those who scrutinized the Book of Acts from what they considered a Pauline point of view, the tongues in Acts was not different from the gift of tongues in Corinthians.30
Those who believe in tongues as initial evidence of Spirit baptism have followed the hermeneutical pattern of other restorationists: elevating factors in the life of the Church to doctrinal standing. After all, how could one possibly deny that the theme of Acts is the Spirit’s work of sending the disciples to preach the gospel to the whole world, accompanied by “signs and wonders” (Acts 4:29–30)? In this doctrine, and in some circles the doctrine of foot washing, Trinitarian Pentecostals appealed to a doctrinal pattern in narrative literature.
During the years after 1906, more and more Pentecostals recognized that in most instances of tongues, believers were actually praying in unidentifiable rather than identifiable languages (i.e., glossolalia rather than xenolalia). Although Parham retained his view of the preaching nature of tongues, more and more Pentecostals concluded that tongues represented prayer in the Spirit, intercession, and praise.31
The second debate revolved around the second work of grace, sanctification: Was it instantaneous or progressive? Predictably, the lines were drawn between those Pentecostals with Wesleyan sympathies (three works of grace) and those with Reformed sympathies (two works). In the sermon “The Finished Work of Calvary” (preached in 1910 at the Pentecostal Convention at the Stone Church in Chicago, Illinois), Baptist-turned-Pentecostal William H. Durham declared that the problem of inbred sin had been dealt the fatal blow, having been crucified with Christ on the cross. By placing faith in the efficacy of that event, a person could continue to bear spiritual fruit from Christ’s imputed righteousness.32
The third contention among Pentecostals resulted from the restorationist impulse and the heavy Christological emphasis of the full gospel. Questions about the nature of the Godhead manifested themselves at the international Pentecostal camp meeting at Arroyo Seco (near Los Angeles). During a baptismal sermon preached by R. E. McAlister, he observed that the apostles had baptized using the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) instead of the Trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19). Those who felt they had discovered more light on the restoration of the New Testament Church were rebaptized in the name of Jesus, following what they considered another pattern in the Book of Acts. Several people, including Frank J. Ewart, continued their study of water baptism and from this a new grouping of churches developed.33
These believers emphasize the “oneness,” or unity, of the Godhead in contrast to the orthodox Christian view of one God in three Persons.34 In addition, Oneness theologians maintained that since Jesus Christ is the redemptive name of God, it is through that name that salvation and God’s blessings are bestowed. Two camps have existed within the Oneness movement from the beginning: those who believe that conversion and water baptism in the name of Jesus are followed by a second experience of empowerment and those who maintain that the three elements of Acts 2:38 (repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name, and receiving the Holy Spirit [speaking in tongues]) converge in one act of grace, the new birth.35
With the condemnation of the Oneness issue, the fathers and mothers of the Assemblies of God assumed that the restoration of the apostolic faith had been protected from error. In the years that followed, they concentrated on preserving the truths of the revival.
When the General Council (an abbreviated title for the General Council of the Assemblies of God) came into being at Hot Springs, Arkansas, in April 1914, doctrinal consensus already existed among the participants, built on the historic truths of the faith and embellished by Wesleyan Holiness and Keswickian themes. When asked in 1919 what these Pentecostals believed, E. N. Bell, a member of the Executive Presbytery and the first general chairman (termed general superintendent later), began his response by saying:
These assemblies are opposed to all radical Higher Criticism of the Bible and against all modernism and infidelity in the Church, against people unsaved and full of sin and worldliness belonging to the church. They believe in all the real Bible truths held by all real Evangelical churches.36
However, the first General Council had not been convened to write a new creed or to lay the basis for a new denomination. Rather, the delegates simply adopted the proposed “Preamble and Resolution on Constitution,” depicting their concerns and containing several important beliefs, chose officers, and approved incorporation.37
Like other Pentecostals, Assemblies of God members have been characterized by five implicit values: personal experience, oral communication (also reflected in testimonials in church magazines, booklets, Sunday school literature, pamphlets, and tracts), spontaneity, otherworldliness, and scriptural authority. All of them are observable in conceptions of leadership, lifestyle, worship, and church literature.38 These values define much of the uniqueness of Pentecostalism and explain why little emphasis has been placed on the academic treatment of theology.
Editors and writers, therefore, have produced periodicals, books, booklets, tracts, and Sunday school curricula to aid in maturing believers. They have also illustrated the victorious life by recording thousands of testimonies of answered prayers, physical healings, exorcisms, and deliverances from chemical addictions. From the very beginning, the challenge to conserve the work of the Spirit has consumed substantial energies. For that reason, their literature has always exhibited a lay orientation, facilitated by many authors trained in Bible institutes and Bible colleges.
PRESERVATION OF DOCTRINE TO 1950
When the Oneness issue threatened to split the General Council at its gathering in 1916, church leaders willingly set aside the anticreedal sentiments of the Hot Springs meeting by drawing doctrinal boundaries to protect the integrity of the Church and welfare of the saints. Several leading ministers, led by Daniel W. Kerr, drafted the Statement of Fundamental Truths; it contained a long section upholding the orthodox view of the Trinity.
But even in taking this stand, the authors qualified it (and themselves):
The Statement of Fundamental Truths is not intended as a creed for the Church, nor as a basis of fellowship among Christians, but only as a basis of unity for the ministry alone. … The human phraseology employed in such statement is not inspired nor 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.39
Oneness ministers subsequently left the Council en masse.40
Apart from the lengthy explanation of the Trinity, other points (e.g., “Divine Healing,” “Baptism in the Spirit”) are remarkably succinct, despite their distinctive character. This corresponds to the impetus surrounding such documents: All creedal statements arise from controversy and usually highlight the particular teaching(s) under contention.41
The Statement of Fundamental Truths, therefore, serves as a framework of doctrine for growth in Christian living and ministry; it was not originally intended to be an outline for a cohesive systematic theology. For example, the section titled “The Fall of Man” naturally mentions that all humankind has fallen into sin; at the same time, however, it allows the reader some liberty to decide the meaning of original sin and the medium of its transmission from generation to generation.42
In the succeeding years, various approaches aided in the preservation of doctrine. Several reasons motivated these efforts. First, Christians must continue to advance in Spirit-filled living to enhance their effectiveness as witnesses for Christ. When the Executive Presbytery recognized the danger of the anti-Pentecostal annotations in the Scofield Reference Bible, they banned its advertisement in the Pentecostal Evangel for two years (1924–1926) before they were persuaded that the edifying commentary outweighed the unedifying.43
Not surprisingly, the denomination’s Gospel Publishing House in Springfield, Missouri, produced a considerable variety of popular books with doctrinal themes in addition to Sunday school materials. Examples from this period include The Phenomena of Pentecost (1931) by Donald Gee, Rivers of Living Water (n.d.) by Stanley H. Frodsham, and Healing from Heaven (1926) by Lilian B. Yeomans. Alice Reynolds Flower, a founding mother of the Assemblies of God, began writing Sunday school lessons in the pages of the Christian Evangel (later the Pentecostal Evangel).44 Over the course of time, the valuable training opportunities afforded by Sunday schools gained more attention. A textbook on the principles of biblical interpretation came in the translation by P. C. Nelson of Eric Lund’s Hermeneutics (1938), produced by the Southwestern Press, an affiliate of an Assemblies of God Bible institute in Enid, Oklahoma.
For those unable to attend Bible institutes, the plan of redemption could also be studied through the ministry of itinerant evangelists bringing their large (sometimes thirty-foot) dispensational charts and hanging them across church platforms for teaching sessions. The evangelist, with pointer in hand, would then guide the audience across the seven dispensational periods of God’s redemptive agenda, explaining biblical truth from the Age of Innocence in the Garden of Eden to the Millennium to come.45 Among those who produced material for this kind of instruction, Finis Jennings Dake was probably the most well-known Pentecostal; in fact, his many publications, including printed lecture notes, books, and the later Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (1963), have continued to mold the theology of many Pentecostals.46
Anecdotal accounts of the spiritual life came from the pens of Elizabeth V. Baker, et al., Chronicles of a Faith Life (2d ed., ca. 1926); H. A. Baker, Visions Beyond the Veil (1938); Robert W. Cummings, Gethsemane (1944); and Alice Reynolds Flower, Love Overflowing (1928), to cite only a few. Poetry was also taken up as a medium for sharing spiritual truths; among the best-known poets were Alice Reynolds Flower and John Wright Follette.
Not surprisingly, songwriters assisted in conveying doctrine. Along with old gospel favorites, congregations were blessed by the songs of Herbert Buffum, such as “The Loveliness of Christ” and “I’m Going Through.”47 The songs of African-American Oneness Pentecostals also found an audience, especially those of Thoro Harris (e.g., “All That Thrills My Soul Is Jesus,” “More Abundantly,” and “He’s Coming Soon”) and Bishop Garfield T. Haywood (e.g., “Jesus, the Son of God” and “I See a Crimson Stream of Blood”).48
A second reason behind the preservation of doctrine is that believers require solid answers in the face of erroneous doctrine. When threats to the faith arose after 1916, the General Council moved quickly to resolve doctrinal questions. In 1917 it adapted Article 6 of the Statement of Fundamental Truths to refer to tongues as the “initial physical sign” (emphasis added).49 When the hermeneutical issue over speaking in tongues as necessary evidence of Spirit baptism resurfaced in 1918, the General Council declared it to be “our distinctive testimony.”50 In the next few years, several cogent articles by Kerr appeared in the Pentecostal Evangel, among other published responses.51
Without amending the Statement, the Council passed bylaws as another way of addressing troublesome issues. In the category “Eschatological Errors,” found in Article VIII in the Constitution and Bylaws, several condemned teachings are listed. For example, the doctrine of the “restitution of all things” originated outside the Assemblies of God. Charles Hamilton Pridgeon, a well-known minister in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, proposed in his book Is Hell Eternal; or Will God’s Plan Fail? (1918) that hell was of limited duration for the purging of sins, after which all humankind would experience the love of God. Pridgeon, a former Presbyterian and advocate of faith-healing, became Pentecostal in the early 1920s and continued teaching this form of universalism. The doctrine was sometimes referred to as the “reconciliation” of all things or simply “Pridgeonism.” The General Council condemned it as heretical in 1925. While it is unknown how many Pentecostals accepted Pridgeon’s universalism, the threat appeared to warrant official condemnation.52
Another issue had to do with the imminent return of Christ: Could a minister subscribe to a post-Tribulation Rapture? When Benjamin A. Baur applied to the Eastern district in the mid-1930s for credentials, the presbyters refused his application, saying that his view diminished the nearness of the Lord’s return. According to his view, Christians would have to endure the entire seven years of the Tribulation Period, particularly the last three-and-a-half years, the time of the “Great Wrath,” before Christ returned for His church. Although some of the district presbyters embraced a mid-Tribulation Rapture, Baur’s view remained suspect despite his voluminous written defense of it. The 1937 General Council approved a motion noting its potential problems for Christian living in the present, since Christians might become complacent if told that Christ’s return was not imminent. However, reflecting the interest of early Pentecostals in avoiding division and quibbling over fine points of doctrine, the new bylaw allowed ministers to believe in a post-Tribulation Rapture, but not to preach or teach it. (In the end, Baur did not receive credentials and remained outside the General Council.53)
A third reason behind the preservation of doctrine is that Pentecostals have struggled to balance biblical teaching with their religious experience. Committed to the Reformation principle of biblical authority (“only Scripture”) as the standard for faith and practice, they have nonetheless experienced the temptation to elevate personal revelations and other spiritual manifestations to the same level. This struggle is reflected in an early Pentecostal Evangel report, describing the expectations of Frank M. Boyd as an early Bible school educator and instructor at Central Bible Institute (College after 1965):
[H]e expected all the students to be more filled with fire and love and zeal and more filled with the Spirit when they left than when they came. He said that when men had the Word without the Spirit they were often dead and dull and dry; and when men had the Spirit without the Word there is always a tendency towards fanaticism. But where men had the Word and the Spirit, they would be equipped as the Master wants His ministers equipped.54
This challenge to instruct believers on how to have mature Spirit-filled life helps to explain the high priority given to publishing.
Detailed doctrinal handbooks, however, did not appear until the 1920s and 1930s. One of the best known, Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible (1937), was compiled from the lecture notes of Myer Pearlman, an instructor at Central Bible Institute. Theologian Russell P. Spittler suggests that it is “the theological jewel of classical Pentecostalism’s middle period.”55 Other books having similar agendas appeared, such as S. A. Jamieson’s Pillars of Truth (1926), P. C. Nelson’s Bible Doctrines (1934), and Ernest S. Williams’ three-volume Systematic Theology (1953; although organized as a systematic theology, it is more accurately a doctrinal manual composed of the author’s lecture notes delivered at Central Bible Institute from 1929–1949). Specialized studies on the Holy Spirit included What Meaneth This? (1947) by Carl Brumback and The Spirit Himself (1949) by Ralph M. Riggs. In a related development, Boyd prepared books of doctrinal instruction for correspondence courses, founding what is now Berean College of the Assemblies of God.
On another front, Alice E. Luce, a missionary to India and later to Hispanics in America, guided the General Council in articulating its theology and strategy of world missions. She was the first missiologist of stature in the Assemblies of God; her three articles on Paul’s missionary methods in the Pentecostal Evangel in early 1921 prepared the way for the Assemblies of God’s acceptance of a detailed commitment to indigenous church principles; this occurred officially that year at the General Council meeting in September. Luce, who received her theological training at Cheltenham Ladies’ College (England), also wrote several books, numerous articles in both Spanish and English, lecture notes, and Sunday school lessons.56
PRESERVATION OF DOCTRINE AFTER 1950
With the coming of a new generation and interest in improving the quality of training in the denomination’s Bible and liberal arts colleges, teachers received encouragement to further their education. This began a gradual transition in Bible and theology department personnel: to instructors with graduate degrees in biblical studies, systematic theology, and church history and equipped with sharper skills in hermeneutics, Old Testament, New Testament, theology, and the historical development of doctrine and practice.57
Although many had long feared the intellectualizing of the faith, this new breed of teachers modeled the balance between Pentecostal spirituality and academic studies. One such professor, Stanley M. Horton, had received training in biblical languages and Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, and Central Baptist Theological Seminary.58 Over the years, Horton has had a significant effect on the denomination through his teaching, books (e.g., What the Bible Says About the Holy Spirit [1976]), magazine and journal articles, and contributions to the adult Sunday school curriculum.
With increasing expertise, educators began to explore in greater depth the distinctive beliefs of the Assemblies of God. Many of them joined the Society for Pentecostal Studies, an academic society founded in 1970, and have contributed articles to its journal, Pneuma. Paraclete (begun in 1967), the denominational journal, has provided another opportunity for scholarly discussion, although until 1992 it was confined to pneumatology. A more short-lived source for theological opinion within the General Council appeared with the publication of Agora (1977–1981), an independent quarterly magazine.
Scholarly studies relevant to the person and work of the Holy Spirit include Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians by Gordon D. Fee (1987), The Book of Acts (1981) by Stanley M. Horton, and The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (1984) by Roger Stronstad (a minister in the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada). Examinations of specific issues related to the Pentecostal heritage can be found in The Spirit Helps Us Pray: A Biblical Theology of Prayer (1993) by Robert L. Brandt and Zenas J. Bicket; Called and Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective (1991) by Murray Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Peterson, eds.; Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism (1991) by Gary B. McGee, ed.; Power Encounter: A Pentecostal Perspective (1989) by Opal L. Reddin, ed.; and The Liberating Spirit: Toward an Hispanic American Pentecostal Social Ethic (1992) by Eldin Villafañe.
Nonetheless, apart from the new line of collegiate textbooks offered by Logion Press (Gospel Publishing House), the denominational priority given to popularly written material still prevails. The recently published Bible Doctrines: A Pentecostal Perspective (1993) by William W. Menzies and Stanley M. Horton represents a new survey of beliefs for adult Sunday school classes or undergraduate courses. The myriad of Assemblies of God publications produced by Gospel Publishing House and Life Publishers International still focus most of their attention on Bible study, discipleship, and practical studies for ministers. This is also true of ICI University and Berean College publications, both offering credit and noncredit programs by correspondence to laypersons as well as to candidates for professional ministry.
Other publications from various presses include another academic survey of doctrine, An Introduction to Theology: A Classical Pentecostal Perspective (1993) by John R. Higgins, Michael L. Dusing, and Frank D. Tallman; and the popularly written Concerning Spiritual Gifts (1928, rev. ed. 1972) and Trophimus I Left Sick (1952) by Donald Gee; two booklets titled Living Your Christian Life NOW in the Light of Eternity (1960) by H. B. Kelchner; Divine Healing and the Problem of Suffering (1976) by Jesse K. Moon; Dunamis and the Church (1968) by Henry H. Ness; and The Spirit—God in Action (1974) by Anthony D. Palma. Less didactic treatments on the spiritual life have been made available in books such as Pentecost in My Soul (1989) by Edith L. Blumhofer. Likewise, personal memoirs, such as The Spirit Bade Me Go (1961) by David J. du Plessis, Grace for Grace (1961) by Alice Reynolds Flower, and Although the Fig Tree Shall Not Blossom (1976) by Daena Cargnel, have sparked interest due to their emphasis on the presence and leading of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers. Additional inspiration and teaching of this nature is provided by the weekly Pentecostal Evangel and by Advance, a monthly magazine for ministers.
Songwriters continued sharing their gifts for worship and instruction. One of the best known, Ira Stanphill, warmed the hearts of churchgoers with songs like “Mansion Over the Hilltop,” “Room at the Cross,” and “I Know Who Holds Tomorrow,” designed to provide comfort and the assurance of God’s grace.59 So influential have composers been from the beginning of the Pentecostal movement that while most Pentecostals have never learned the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, they can sing an astonishing number of such songs and choruses from memory, obvious testimony that much Pentecostal theology has been transmitted orally.
By the 1970s, the Assemblies of God had become one of the major denominations in the United States—linked to even larger fraternal constituencies overseas. Facing new problems, church leaders chose the method of publishing position papers to address issues troubling the churches; in this way they continued to respond to issues, but without adding more bylaws to the constitution or amending the Statement of Fundamental Truths. Beginning in 1970, with the publication of “The Inerrancy of Scripture” (with its endorsement by the General Presbytery), over twenty such white papers have been issued. Topics have included divine healing, creation, transcendental meditation, divorce and remarriage, the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism, abortion, the kingdom of God, and women in ministry.60 In recent years, members of the denomination’s Doctrinal Purity Commission, established in 1979 to monitor theological developments, have prepared the papers.
Obviously, the use of position papers has begun to broaden the confessional identity of the Assemblies of God. Resorting to position papers, however, has not been accomplished without some disagreement.61 The authoritative weight of position papers in relation to that of the Statement of Fundamental Truths leaves room for discussion. Furthermore, at least one paper could be interpreted as a shift from an original understanding in the Statement when it mentions that some “have tried to set divine healing in opposition to or in competition with the medical profession. This need not be so. Physicians through their skills have brought help to many.” Furthermore, Christians cannot reverse the physical effects of the Fall since “no matter what we do for this body, no matter how many times we are healed, if Jesus tarries we shall die.”62
By the 1940s, many conservative evangelicals realized that theological agreements with Pentecostals outweighed differences and began to welcome their fellowship and cooperation. The Assemblies of God’s accepting membership in the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) at its founding in 1942 represented their entry into the mainstream of American church life (which was furthered by an upward social and economic mobility after World War II). The relationship became tenuous at times due to lingering suspicions about Assemblies of God pneumatology and the generally Arminian nature of its theological anthropology. Nevertheless, the impact of evangelicalism on the theology of Pentecostalism has been considerable.63
After the election of Thomas F. Zimmerman as president of the NAE (1960–1962), the General Council in 1961 made a few modifications of the Statement of Fundamental Truths. The most significant revision occurred in the section “The Scriptures Inspired.” The 1916 version reads as follows: “The Bible is the inspired Word of God, a revelation from God to man, the infallible rule of faith and conduct, and is superior to conscience and reason, but not contrary to reason.” The altered wording aligned more closely with that of evangelicals in the NAE: “The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct.” Constituents of the Assemblies of God have believed in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture since the founding of the General Council. Yet whether Pentecostals have a unique contribution to make to the understanding of the inspiration of Scripture as “God-breathed” (Gk. theopneustos) remains to be explored.64
The historic Reformed theology of most evangelicals, both inside and outside the NAE, has continued to raise objections to the Wesleyan and Keswickian understandings of a separate work of grace following conversion—the theological foundation on which classical Pentecostals have built their doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.65 This scholarly standoff, noted for its criticism of the exegetical basis for tongues as initial evidence, has remained through the years. In response, two charismatic scholars have made important contributions to the classical Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism: Howard Ervin (American Baptist), Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (1984), and J. Rodman Williams (Presbyterian), Renewal Theology, especially volume 2 (1990). Assemblies of God theologians have also produced important studies.66
Perhaps most substantially, evangelical scholars have influenced Pentecostal beliefs concerning the present and future aspects of the kingdom of God, a concept only alluded to in the Statement of Fundamental Truths. For many years, the teaching about future events in the Assemblies of God had a strong dispensational orientation (i.e., a shared belief in seven dispensations, pre-Tribulation Rapture, and premillennial interpretation of Scripture, but setting aside a core teaching which separates the Church from Israel). This was popularized and reinforced by the writings of Riggs, Boyd, Dake, Bruback, John G. Hall, and T. J. Jones. New Testament references to the “kingdom of God” (briefly defined as the rule or reign of God) as a present reality in the hearts of the redeemed barely received notice, while its future millennial appearance received extensive consideration.67
According to historic dispensationalism, the promise of David’s restored kingdom had been postponed to the Millennium because the Jews had rejected Jesus’ offer of the Kingdom. This delayed the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy of the restoration of Israel and the outpouring of the Spirit until after the second coming of Christ. The events in Acts 2, therefore, represented only an initiatory blessing of power to the Early Church. Israel and the Church were logically kept separate; hence, the underlying anti-Pentecostal posture of this system of interpretation of Scripture.68
For Pentecostals, however, Joel’s prophecy had been fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost, as evidenced by Peter’s “This is that” (Acts 2:16, KJV). Unfortunately, Pentecostals’ deference to dispensationalism bridled their pursuit of the implications of some references to the Kingdom and their claims of apostolic power in the last days (see Matt. 9:35; 24:14; Acts 8:12; and 1 Cor. 4:20, among others).
Certain theologians, notably Ernest S. Williams and Stanley M. Horton, did clearly identify the kingdom of God with the Church (“spiritual Israel”), recognizing the vital connection to their belief about the Spirit’s contemporary activity in the Church.69
After World War II, evangelicals renewed their study of theological and missiological implications of the kingdom of God, with Pentecostals’ interest in the Kingdom gradually paralleling that of evangelicals. The well-known Assemblies of God missiologist Melvin L. Hodges recognized the importance of the Kingdom for understanding a New Testament theology of mission. Speaking at the Congress on the Church’s Worldwide Mission at Wheaton College in April 1966, he declared the Church to be “the present manifestation of the kingdom of God in the earth, or at least, the agency that prepares the way for the future manifestation of the Kingdom. Its mission therefore is the extension of the Church throughout the world. … It is the Holy Spirit that gives life to the Church and imparts gifts and ministries as well as power for their performance.”70 Although short of elaboration, Hodges’ message indicated an important trend was afoot. The vital connection between the “signs and wonders” of the advancing Kingdom (power manifestations of the Spirit associated with the preaching of the gospel) awaited further exposition.
Some twenty years later, retired missionary Ruth A. Breusch laid out the implications for Pentecostal ministry in Mountain Movers, the foreign missions magazine of the Assemblies of God (again, showing the priority of discipling persons in the pew). In a series of ten articles under the theme “The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory,” Breusch, a graduate (B.A., M.A.) of Hartford Seminary Foundation, showed thoughtful New Testament interpretation and familiarity with missiological literature. She defined the Kingdom as the rule of God encompassing “the Church as the realm of God’s blessings into which His people have entered. The Church is comprised of those who are rescued from the kingdom of darkness and brought into the kingdom of God’s Son.” Accordingly, “this Church is the New Israel, the people of God, under the new covenant. ‘New’ because Gentile believers are now included.” By God’s choice, the Church is the vehicle for the extension of His kingdom throughout the earth. To Breusch, the advent of the Spirit reflects His redemptive nature by dynamically empowering the Church for the evangelization of the world.71
This attention to studying the biblical concept of the kingdom of God has contributed to a better understanding of the ethical teachings of the Gospels, the nature and mission of the Church, the meaning of signs and wonders in evangelism, and the role of the Christian in society.
Other writers on a more academic plane have hailed the importance of the kingdom of God in the study of Scripture. Peter Kuzmič, for example, noted in a recent publication,
Pentecostals and charismatics are convinced … that “the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power” (1 Cor. 4:20), and expect that the preaching of the Word of God be accompanied by mighty acts of the Holy Spirit.… For the followers of Jesus who believe the “whole/full gospel,” the commission to preach the good news of the kingdom of God is linked with the equipping power of the Holy Spirit to overcome the forces of evil.…
… In the age of rationalism, theological liberalism, religious pluralism, Pentecostals and charismatics believe that evidential supernatural activity of the Holy Spirit validates the Christian witness. As in the apostolic days, the Holy Spirit is the very life of the church and its mission, not replacing but always exalting Christ the Lord. This is the Spirit’s primary mission and the way in which the kingdom of God is actualized in the believing community. Christ rules where the Spirit moves!72
Furthermore, Kuzmič and Murray W. Dempster, among others, forthrightly speak to the implications of the Kingdom for Christian social ethics.73
Recently, some Pentecostals and charismatics have advocated several forms of “Kingdom Now” theology, which in some quarters has represented a departure from the traditional pre-Tribulation Rapture view and/or premillennial interpretation of the Bible. Focusing on Christianizing society now and dismissing or minimizing the emphasis on the rapture of the Church (but not necessarily the second coming of Christ), this teaching has generated serious controversy.74 The mere fact that these perspectives have developed demonstrates that contemporary Pentecostals are concerned about discovering their responsibilities as Christians in society.
Today, references to the kingdom of God abound in Assemblies of God publications. The values for the continuing study of cherished doctrines may be profound and far-reaching, reminding Pentecostals of the riches in God’s Word.
Pentecostalism emerged out of the nineteenth-century Holiness movement. The formulation of the full gospel, concern for world evangelization in the closing days of history, and intense prayer for the outpouring of the Holy Sprit precipitated the revivals at Topeka, Los Angeles, and the many that followed.
The Pentecostal and charismatic movements in this century have indicated that something of unusual significance has occurred at this point in the history of the Church: God has been pouring out the Holy Spirit on Christians everywhere who are seeking a Spirit-filled life characterized by holiness and spiritual power. Spirit baptism’s divine empowerment bestows insight into the Spirit’s activity in the world, greater sensitivity to His promptings, a new dimension of prayer, and spiritual power to achieve their tasks in mission.
When independent Pentecostals organized the General Council in 1914, they did so to expedite their goal of winning the world for Christ. The urgency and problems of the hour dictated cooperation among the Spirit-baptized. Church leaders recognized the importance of Bible study and doctrine to protect congregations from error, but more significantly to equip believers “for the work of the ministry” (Eph. 4:12, KJV).
The development of doctrine in the denomination has taken several forms: the Preamble, Statement of Fundamental Truths, bylaws, position papers, articles and editorials in magazines, tracts, books, Sunday school curricula, songs, and poetry. From Sunday school teachers to the song leader, pastor, and denominational officer—everyone is called to proclaim the good news of salvation, to share the compassion of Jesus Christ, and to disciple converts.
With the delay in the Lord’s return and the changing cultural context bringing ever new challenges to the faith, scholarly responses to theological issues have gained greater appreciation. Correspondingly, the growing identification with evangelicalism has led to an increasing reflection on the distinctiveness of Pentecostal beliefs. Since World War II, evangelical interest in the biblical teaching on the kingdom of God has enriched the study of doctrine in the Assemblies of God.
The contemporary scene calls the Church to consider anew its faithfulness to God and its mission in the world. Prayerful and exacting study of the Scriptures, theology, missiology, and church history, therefore, constitutes an important gift of the risen Christ to His church.
1. Why must any study of modern Pentecostalism include the views of John Wesley on sanctification?
2. What did the Keswick movement and Reformed revivalists such as Dwight L. Moody and Reuben A. Torrey believe about the baptism in the Holy Spirit?
3. Why did belief in divine healing find such a warm reception in the Holiness movement?
4. Why did concern for world evangelism play such an important role in the emergence of the Pentecostal movement?
5. In what ways did early Pentecostals believe that the New Testament Church was being restored?
6. What were the legacies of Charles F. Parham and William J. Seymour? How did they affect the Pentecostal movement?
7. Discuss the first three issues to divide the Pentecostal movement.
8. Why has the Assemblies of God placed such a high priority on publishing popular-level materials?
9. After the approval of the Statement of Fundamental Truths in 1916, how did the General Council address questionable teachings?
10. What is the underlying argument against Pentecostalism in historic dispensationalism?
11. How has the growing identity with evangelicalism influenced Assemblies of God theology?
12. What service does the study of theology perform for the Assemblies of God at this point in its history?
1According to Killian McDonnell and George T. Montague, Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991), baptism in the Holy Spirit was an integral (normative) part of Christian initiation during the first eight centuries of the Church. For a related study on the second- and third-century North African church see Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., Prophecy in Carthage: Perpetua, Tertullian, and Cyprian (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1993). A survey of occurrences of charismatic gifts to the end of the third century is provided by Ronald A. N. Kydd in Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984). Stanley M. Burgess furnishes a broader study of Latin, Greek, and Syrian spiritual writers to the end of the medieval period in The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984) and The Holy Spirit: Eastern Christian Traditions (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989).
2For a helpful bibliography see David D. Bundy, “Irving, Edward,” in The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess, Gary B. McGee, and Patrick Alexander (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 470–71; hereinafter DPCM. For the thesis that Irving’s doctrine of speaking in tongues served as the “standing sign” of Spirit baptism and parallels the later view of tongues as “initial evidence,” see David W. Dorries, “Edward Irving and the ‘Standing Sign’ of Spirit Baptism,” in Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism, ed. Gary B. McGee (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 41–56. For the revival in south India, see G. H. Lang, The History and Diaries of an Indian Christian (London: Thynne and Co., 1939); Memoir of Anthony Norris Groves, 3d ed. (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1869), 571–640.
3Warfield and other theologians of the “Old Princeton” school of theology represented antirevivalist sentiments in American Presbyterianism. See Mark A. Noll, ed. and comp., The Princeton Theology: 1812–1921 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983); Jon Ruthven, “On the Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic of Benjamin B. Warfield,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 12 (Spring 1990): 14–31.
4This is evident in Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 880–82.
5See F. E. Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965), and German Pietism During the Eighteenth Century (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973); on the popular level see Dale W. Brown, Understanding Pietism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978). For the Great Awakening in Britain and North America, see Robert G. Tuttle, Jr., John Wesley: His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978); Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections (1746); Darrett B. Rutman, ed., The Great Awakening (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970).
6See Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1987); and Melvin E. Dieter, The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1980). See also the “Higher Christian Life” series, a collection of Holiness and Pentecostal reprints issued by Garland Publishing, Inc.
7Appeal to this promise effectively laid the foundation for women to preach, and serve in other ministries. For rationales for this interpretation see Donald W. Dayton, ed., Holiness Tracts Defending the Ministry of Women (New York: Garland Publishing, 1985); Joseph R. Flower, “Does God Deny Spiritual Manifestations and Ministry Gifts to Women?” 7 November 1979 (typewritten).
8John L. Gresham, Jr., Charles G. Finney’s Doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987).
9Edith L. Waldvogel (Blumhofer), “The ‘Overcoming Life’: A Study in the Reformed Evangelical Origins of Pentecostalism: (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1977).
10Charles W. Nienkirchen, A. B. Simpson and the Pentecostal Movement (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992).
11Dayton, Theological Roots, 104–6.
12Paul G. Chappel, “The Divine Healing Movement in America” (Ph.D. dissertation, Drew University, 1983); for an abridged edition, see Paul G. Chappell, “Healing Movements,” in DPCM, 353–74.
13W. B. Godbey, Spiritual Gifts and Graces (Cincinnati: God’s Revivalist Office, 1895; reprinted in Six Tracts by W. B. Godbey, ed. D. William Faupel [New York: Garland Publishing, 1985]); S. A. Keen, Pentecostal Papers; or the Gift of the Holy Ghost (Cincinnati: By the author, 1895), 151–90.
14H. Vinson Synan, “Irwin, Benjamin Hardin,” in DPCM, 471–72; that Irwin later joined the Pentecostal movement has become evident from the research of David D. Bundy in his “Spiritual Advice to a Seeker: Letters to T. B. Barratt from Azusa Street, 1906,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 14 (Fall 1992): 167–68.
15Timothy P. Weber, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming: American Premillennialism: 1875–1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), and George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).
16Kenneth Scott Latourette, Missions Tomorrow (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1936), 94–96; also William R. Hutchison, Errand to the World: American Protestant Thought and Foreign Missions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 99–100.
17Robert Needham Cust, Evangelization of the Non-Christian World (London: Luzac and Co., 1894), 106–7. See also his Gospel Message (London: Luzac and Co., 1896), 146. For Simpson’s perspective on the restoration of the gift of tongues, see Nienkirchen, A. B. Simpson, 74–76.
18Godbey, Spiritual Gifts and Graces, 43; cf., id. Tongue Movement, Satanic (Zarephath, N.J.: Pillar of Fire, 1918); reprinted in Faupel, Six Tracts, 5.
19William Charles Hiss, “Shiloh: Frank W. Sandford and the Kingdom, 1893–1948” (Ph.D. dissertation, Tufts University, 1978), 101–4; for others who sought, 163.
20Dayton, Theological Roots, 173–79.
21D. W. Kerr, “The Basis for Our Distinctive Testimony,” Pentecostal Evangel, 2 September 1922, 4.
22Charles Edwin Jones, “Holiness Movement,” in DPCM, 406–9; id., Perfectionist Persuasion (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1974).
23James R. Goff, Jr., Fields White Unto Harvest: Charles F. Parham and the Missionary Origins of Pentecostalism (Fayetteville, Ark.: University of Arkansas Press, 1988).
24Charles F. Parham, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness (Baxter Springs, Kan.: Apostolic Faith Bible College, reprint of 1910 ed.), 30–32; id., The Everlasting Gospel (Baxter Springs, Kan.: Apostolic Faith Bible College, reprint of 1911 ed.), 63–69; see also Goff, Fields White, 77–79.
25Gordon Anderson, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” paper presented at the 22d annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Springfield, Missouri, November 1992, 12–14. See also, Gordon D. Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 105–19.
26Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Azusa Street Revival” in DPCM, 31–36; also, Frank Bartleman, What Really Happened at “Azusa Street?” ed. John Walker (Northridge, Calif.: Voice Christian Publications, 1962; original printing, 1925); and Douglas J. Nelson, “For Such a Time as This: The Story of Bishop William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival” (Ph.D. dissertation, Birmingham University, 1981).
27For Parham’s legacy, see Goff, Fields White; also id., “Initial Tongues in the Theology of Charles Fox Parham,” in Initial Evidence, 57–71.
28For Seymour’s legacy, see Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “William J. Seymour and ‘the Bible Evidence,’” in Initial Evidence, 72–95; Leonard Lovett, “Black Holiness-Pentecostalism,” in DPCM, 76–84; and Walter J. Hollenweger, Pentecost Between Black and White (Belfast: Christian Journals, 1974).
29Murray W. Dempster, “Pentecostal and Charismatic Scholars Call for End to Apartheid,” Transformation (January/March 1992): 32–33.
30See Gary B. McGee, “Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Tongues as Evidence in the Book of Acts,” in Initial Evidence, 96–118.
31A. G. Garr, “Tongues, the Bible Evidence,” A Cloud of Witnesses to Pentecost in India (September 1907): 42–44; Carrie Judd Montgomery, “The Promise of the Father,” Triumphs of Faith (July 1908): 149. An insightful discussion on the meaning of Spirit Baptism to early Pentecostals can be found in Edith L. Blumhofer, Pentecost in My Soul (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1989), 17–38.
32D. William Faupel, “William H. Durham and the Finished Work of Calvary,” in Pentecost, Mission and Ecumenism, ed. Jan A. B. Jongeneel (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992), 85–95.
33Frank J. Ewart, The Phenomenon of Pentecost (St. Louis: Pentecostal Publishing House, 1947). For a Oneness discourse on the Trinity see David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God (Hazelwood, Mo.: Word Aflame Press, 1983); for a Trinitarian response see Carl Brumback, God in Three Persons (Cleveland, Tenn.: Pathway Press, 1959); for a historical study see David A. Reed, “Origins and Development of the Theology of Oneness Pentecostalism in the United States” (Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1978).
35David A. Reed, “Oneness Pentecostalism,” in DPCM, 650–51.
36E. N. Bell, “Questions and Answers,” Pentecostal Evangel, 27 December 1919, 5.
37Edith L. Blumhofer, The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pentecostalism, vol. 1 (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1989), 197–213.
38Russell P. Spittler, “Theological Style Among Pentecostal and Charismatics,” in Doing Theology in Today’s World, ed. John D. Woodbridge and Thomas E. McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 291–318; Walter J. Hollenweger, “Charismatic Renewal in the Third World: Implications for Mission,” Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research [now International Bulletin of Missionary Research] 4 (April 1980): 68–75.
39General Council Minutes, 1916, 10–13. For a United Pentecostal Church perspective, see Arthur L. Clanton, United We Stand: A History of Oneness Organizations (Hazelwood, Mo.: Pentecostal Publishing House, 1970).
40General Council Minutes, 1916, 10. Significantly the document also mirrors the theology of A. B. Simpson and the Christian and Missionary Alliance; see Nienkirchen, A. B. Simpson, 41–50.
41Peter Toon, The Development of Doctrine in the Church (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979), ix–xi.
42General Council Minutes, 1916, 10.
43“A Great Move Forward,” Pentecostal Evangel, 1 May 1926, 3. See also Gary B. McGee, This Gospel Shall Be Preached: A History and Theology of the Assemblies of God Foreign Missions to 1959 (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1986), 169–71.
44Gary B. McGee, “Flower, Joseph James Roswell and Alice Reynolds,” in DPCM, 311–13.
45J. G. Hall, “The Eternal Program of God of the Ages and Dispensations,” color chart (n.d.); also Frank M. Boyd, Ages and Dispensations (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1955).
46Patrick H. Alexander, “Dake, Finis Jennings,” in DPCM, 235–36; also, Jimmy Swaggart, “In Memory: Finis Jennings Dake, 1902–1987,” Evangelist (September 1987): 44.
47Wayne Warner, “Herbert Buffum,” Assemblies of God Heritage 6 (Fall 1986): 11–14, 16.
48Everett A. Wilson, “Harris, Thoro,” in DPCM, 347–48; Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Haywood, Garfield Thomas,” in DPCM, 349–50.
49General Council Minutes, 1917, 21.
50General Council Minutes, 1918, 10; see McGee, “Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” in Initial Evidence, 103–10.
51D. W. Kerr, “Do All Speak in Tongues?” Christian Evangel, 11 January 1919, 7; id., “Paul’s Interpretation of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” Christian Evangel, 24 August 1918, 6; id., “The ‘A’ or ‘An’—Which?” Pentecostal Evangel, 21 January 1922, 7; id., “Not Ashamed,” Pentecostal Evangel, 2 April 1921, 5; id., “The Bible Evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost,” Pentecostal Evangel, 11 August 1923, 2–3. Other responses may be found in Gary B. McGee “Popular Expositions of Initial Evidence in Pentecostalism,” in Initial Evidence, 119–130.
52Gary B. McGee, “Pridgeon, Charles Hamilton,” in DPCM, 727.
53Interview with Joseph R. Flower, general secretary of the General Council of the Assemblies of God, Springfield, Missouri, 27 April 1988.
54“Opening of the Central Bible Institute,” Pentecostal Evangel, 25 October 1924, 8.
55Spittler, “Theological Style,” in Doing Theology, 298.
56Alice E. Luce, “Paul’s Missionary Methods,” Pentecostal Evangel, 8 January 1921, 6–7; 22 January 1921, 6, 11; 5 February 1921, 6–7. Gary B. McGee, “Luce, Alice Eveline,” in DPCM, 543–44.
57Gary B. McGee, “The Indispensable Calling of the Pentecostal Scholar,” Assemblies of God Educator 35 (July to September, 1990): 1, 3–5, 16.
58Gary B. McGee, “Horton, Stanley Monroe,” in DPCM, 446–47.
59Wayne E. Warner, “Stanphill, Ira,” in DPCM, 810.
60The position papers through 1989 are bound together in Where We Stand (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1990). A recent paper on women in ministry is available separately and will be included in the next edition.
61Charles B. Nestor, “Position Papers,” Agora (Winter 1979): 10–11.
62“Divine healing: An Integral Part of the Gospel,” Where We Stand, 53, 51. Cf., Lilian B. Yeomans, M.D., Healing from Heaven (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1926; rev. ed., 1973).
63Harold Lindsell, ed., The Church’s Worldwide Mission (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1966), 8. For a discussion of the impact of the NAE on Pentecostals, see Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “National Association of Evangelicals,” in DPCM, 634–36.
64General Council Minutes, 1916, 10. General Council Minutes, 1961, 92. For the significance of the change of wording in the statement of Scripture, see Gerald T. Sheppard, “Scripture in the Pentecostal Tradition,” (Part 1), Agora (Spring 1978): 4–5, 17–22; (Part 2) (Summer 1978): 14–19.
65Frederick Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1970).
66William W. Menzies, “The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology: An Essay on Hermeneutics,” in Essays on Apostolic Themes, ed. Paul Elbert (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), 1–22; Ben Aker, “New Directions in Lucan Theology: Reflections on Luke 3:21–22 and Some Implications,” in Faces of Renewal, ed. Paul Elbert (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988), 108–27; Donald A. Johns, “Some New Directions in the Hermeneutics of Classical Pentecostalism’s Doctrine of Initial Evidence,” in Initial Evidence, 145–56; William G. MacDonald, Glossolalia in the New Testament (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, ca. 1964); Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 83–119. For the current debate, see Roger Stronstad, “The Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent,” paper presented to the 22d annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Springfield, Mo., November 1992, and the response of Gordon D. Fee at the same meeting, “Response to Roger Stronstad,” both published in Paraclete 27 (Summer 1993): 1–14.
67John G. Hall, Dispensations, 2d ed. (Springfield, Mo.: Inland Printing Co., 1957); D. V. Hurst and T. J. Jones, The Church Begins (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1959); Carl Brumback, What Meaneth This? (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1947); cf. Gerald T. Sheppard, “Pentecostalism and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism: Anatomy of an Uneasy Relationship,” Pneuma 6 (Fall 1984): 5–33.
68Dr. C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1896), 5–12; and the later Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965). See also Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987); French L. Arrington, “Hermeneutics, Historical Perspectives on Pentecostal and Charismatic,” DPCM, 376–89.
69Ernest S. Williams, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1953), 95; id., “Thy Kingdom Come,” Pentecostal Evangel, 31 July 1966, 8; Stanley M. Horton, The Promise of His Coming (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1967), 91; for a historical perspective, see Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now! The Premillenarian Response to Russia and Israel since 1917 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977).
70Melvin L. Hodges, “Mission—And Church Growth,” in The Church’s Worldwide Mission, ed. Lindsell, 141, 145.
71Ruth A. Breusch, “The Church and the Kingdom,” Mountain Movers, July 1987, 9.
72“Kingdom of God” by Peter Kuzmič. Taken from the book The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements edited by Stanley M. Burgess, Gary B. McGee, and Patrick Alexander. Copyright © 1988 by Stanley M. Burgess, Gary B. McGee, and Patrick Alexander. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.
73Peter Kuzmič, “History and Eschatology: Evangelical Views,” in In Word and Deed, ed. Bruce J. Nicholls (Exeter, UK: Paternoster Press, 1985), 135–64; Murray W. Dempster, “Evangelism, Social Concern and the Kingdom of God,” in Called and Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective, ed. Murray Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Peterson (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 22–43. For a helpful study of Assemblies of God responses to key social issues, see Howard N. Kenyon, “An Analysis of Ethical Issues in the History of the Assemblies of God” (Ph. D. dissertation, Baylor University, 1988).
74See Where We Stand, 185–94; William A. Griffin, “Kingdom Now: New Hope or New Heresy?” paper presented to the seventeenth annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 14 November 1987; Gordon Anderson, “Kingdom Now Theology: A Look at Its Roots and Branches,” Paraclete (Summer 1990): 1–12; and “Kingdom Now Doctrines Which Differ from Assemblies of God Teaching,” Paraclete 24 (Summer 1990): 19–24.