J. L. Hall is the Eidtor in Chief of the United Pentecostal Church International. He has previously served as pastor in Oklahoma and Kansas, Secretary of the Kansas District, Superintendent of the Kansas District, and Editor of Word Aflame Publications. He also taught in junior high school for fifteen years. J. L. Hall received his Bachelor of Arts from Friends University and his Master of Arts from Kansas Emporia State College.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction to the sumposium and to provoke thoughts on the various theological positions in the Pentecostal movement. The intention is not to offer answers or to suggest directions that should be taken. Rather, the paper takes the view that much more study should be given to Oneness Pentecostalism, particularly to its origins, its basic theological thoughts that distinguish it from other traditions in Christendom, and its historical perception and world view.
The paper outlines the immediate religious milieu from which the Pentecostal movement emerged, traces some of the theological history of the movement, and presents some areas of theology for further study and consideration.
There is no attempt in this paper to consider the social, economic, cultural, political and psychological factors that are the concerns of many modern scholars. Although these factors are interesting and may contribute to an understanding of the movement, they myust be studied in the context of faith in the supernatural to avoid a secularization of that which is Scriptural, spiritual and sacred. In other words, the supernatural moves of God cannot be adequately explained when they are approached from a secular viewpoint; such a study will invariably attempt to explain miracles in the context of scientific understanding.
For example, while Walter Hollenweger sees a Scriptural basis for speaking in tongues and accepts this phenomenon as a spiritual experience, his stress in on the psycho-hygenic funtion.1 Another example is a study made by Robert M. Anderson, who reluctantly admits some therapeutic value to the individual or to society. Although he does not say that Pentecostalism is unhealthy in itself, he sees it as a "sympton of some unhealthiness in the American social body. From this perspective, Pentecostalism, far from being a disease, is an attempt to regain health, a struggle against some illness in the larger society."2
To Anderson, there is no supernatural element or miracle in speaking in tongues, and he disputes that the "tongues" in Acts 2 are languages.3 To him, "Speaking in tongues is a form of repressive speech. It most closely resembles the earlier stages of speech development in infants...The diverse social stresses under which the Pentecostals labored and their specific language problem propelled them back in the experience of speaking in tongues to that infant stage of maturation where the first crude attempts at speech had indeed been an effective response to their milieu...The presumed approval of God, the praise of fellow believers and the awe of many non-believers created feelings of self-worth in those denied it in their day-to-day lives."4
While Anderson recognizes the "psychic gain" and social function of speaking in tongues, he views this exstatic experience as a "mode of adjustment to higholy unstable social circumstances...In the dissociated experience of 'the Baptism' the Pentecostals symbolically expressed their disorganized, chaotic social circumstances, and were thus better able to accommodate to them."5 Our approach avoids the pitfall of secular thinking since it assumes the relity of miracles and the supernatural element in speaking with tongues.
The Holiness Revival That the seedbed for the Pentecostal movement was the Holiness revival of the late nineteenth century has been recognized by recent scholars such as Fredrick Bruner, Walter Hollenweger and Vinson Synan. The doctrinal development from "Christian perfectionism" to the "Baptism of the Holy Ghost" in the holiness movement has been documented by Donald W. Dayton and others.6
While Dayton notes that it is an error to suppose that Wesley taught a Baptism of the spirit, he traces the terminological and theological changes that developed in the holiness movement during the nineteenth century, especially in the school of Oberlin perfectionism that arose among Congregationalists and Presbyterians.7 The shift to the doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, he suggests, was a "profound transfoermation of theological ideas" and a departure from the Wesleyan tradition.8 Nevertheless, he concludes, "I am convinced that one can find in late nineteenth century holiness thought and life every significant feature of pentecostalism. The major exception would be the gift of tongues."9
The revival movement that began with the field preaching of John Wesley and George Whitefield in the meetings in America during the first part of the nineteenth century. Organized at first by Presbyterians, who soon abandoned their use, these camp meetings were widely and effectively used as evangelistic endeavors by the Methodists and Baptists.
Beginning at about the middle of the century, the camp meetings became the centers, both in rural and urban settings, of the Holiness revival that flourished after the Civil War. From their beginning, the camp meetings were characterized by emotional and ecstatic religious worship, such as the "strange emotional phenomena" of "falling, jerking, rolling and dancing."10
The Holiness movement attempted to preserve and propagate John Wesley's teaching on sanctification and Christian perfection, which stressed that salvation comes in two spiritual experiences. The first, conversion, brings justification, which frees a person from the sins he has committed. However, Wesley taught that conversion did not liberate a person from his flawed human nature caused by the Fall. This was accomplished by a second work of grace that Wesley called sanctification.11 Entire sanctification could be realized at a point in the process of growth, at which time the believer would receive the "witness of the Spirit" that the work was accomplished.12
Under the leadership of Charles G. Finney and Asa Mahan at Oberlin College and the influencial Phoebe Palmer, the American Holiness movement came to emphasize a crisis experience of entire sanctification.13 Moreover, the newly discovered terminology of the Baptism of the Spirit wqas at first applied to the experience of sanctification,14 a position still held by Holiness churches. However, Mahan and others soon came to view the Baptism of the Holy Ghost as an experience distinct from sanctification. To them, sanctification was a grqadual growth without a crisis experience.15
The Keswick movcement in England was a followed closely by several leaders in the Holiness movement in America. The American, Robert Pearsall Smith, helped establish the Keswick convention as an annual event, but he also introduced the Keswick emphasis in the United States.16 These teachings, which included the denial of the eradication of inward sin and which spoke of an enduement of power, were also propagated in America by Dwight L. Moody, R. A. Torrey, A. J. Gordon, and A. B. Simpson.17 It also appears that Alexander Dowie, the charismatic founder of Zion City and who had an impact on the Pentecostal movement, was also an exponent of Keswick holiness views.18
The "new" langbuage of the Baptism of the Spirit and the stress upon the crisis nature of the experience led to the discussion and controversy of the witness or evidence that one has when he receives the fulness of the Spirit. R. A. Torrey, first president of Moody Bible Institute, noticed that in many instances those who received the Holy Ghost in the Book of Acts spoke in tongues. This led him to the question, "If one is baptized with the Holy Spirit will he not speak in tongues? But I saw no one so speaking, and I often wondered, is there anyone today who actually is baptized with the Holy Spirit." He stated that Paul's question in 1 Corinthians 12, "Do all speak in tongues?" cleared his thinking on the subject. He concluded that the believer knows he has received the Baptism when he fulfilled God's requirements for obtaining the Spirit.19
The Pentecostal Revival It was the question of Scriptural evidence that sparked the Pentecostal revival at the turn of the century. Charles Parham, a Methodist-holiness minister and founder of Bethel College in Topeka, Kansas, was aware of the theories and claims of proof of the Spirit baptism. At the end of the first course of study, he assigned each of the forty students in the college to make a study of the Book of Acts for the evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.20
When they reported a few days later that the one indisputable proof was speaking in tongues, the stage was set for Agnes N. Ozman, one of the students, to request that Parham lay hands on her that she might receive the Holy Ghost. On January 1, 1901, she received the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Two days later, twelve others and Parham received the same experience.21 The modern Pentecostal movement had begun.
By the time Azusa Street Mission was opened in 1906, it was estimated that 13,000 people had "received this gospel."22 By 1908, the followers of Parham had increased to 25,000, mostly in the southcentral states.23 Although these estimates indicates the rapid growth of the Pentecostal movement under the ministry of Parham, the Azusa Street Mission is recognized as the center of the revival that soon spread around the world.24
It is important that for the first decade of this century, the Pentecostal mocvement followed the doctrine of the three-stage way of salvation.25 It was not until William H. Durham preached on the "Finished work of Calvary" in 1910-1911, first at the Azusa Street Mission and then at a large buillding at the corner of Seventh and Los Angeles streets, that the Pentecostal movement became divided between the three-stage and two-stage believers.26
The second major division came in the controversy over the Oneness doctrine and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.27 Known as "Jesus Only" and "New Issue," baptism in the name of Jesus Christ quickly spread through the "Finished Work" segment of the Pentecostal movement, creating a controversy that culminated in a split in 1916.28
Although some Pentecostal ministers such as Andrew D. Urshan began using the Jesus Name formula earlier,29 it was not until after T. E. McAlister preached a baptismal service at the Arroyo Seco camp meeting in Los Angeles in 1913 that a serious study of the formula and its doctrinal implications concerning the Godhead was made.30
When Frank J. Ewart, who became pastor of Durham's Seventh Streeth Mission, concluded that the correct Biblical formula was "in the name of Jesus Christ," it confirmed his earlier thoughts on the oneness nature of God.31 He came to see that the baptismal statement in Matthew 28:19 was parabolic, and that its meaning was stated by the Apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost. The name of Jesus Christ was the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," and the "fulness of the Godhead bodily" dwelt in Jesus Christ.32
After Ewart and Glenn A. Cook, a Pentecostal evangelist and an assistant to Ewart, baptized each other during the summer of 1914,33 many others soon followed them in being rebaptized. Cook took the new message to Oklahoma, Missouri, and Indiana. Perhaps the most important person to accept Cook's message was Gladstone Thomas Haywood, pastor of Christ Temple in Indianapolis.34 Haywood became one of the outstanding leaders in the Oneness Pentecostal movement, and one of its most able teachers.
During the next two years, many of the Pentecostal leaders followed Ewart, Cook and Haywood in being rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Among these were: L. C. Hall, E. N. Bell, Frank Small, Howard A. Goss, Witherspoon, Harry Morse, D. C. O. Opperman, Frank Bartleman, A. H. Argue, G. A. Garr, R. e. McAlister, W. E. Booth-Clibborn, and H. G. Rogers.35 Fearing that the Jesus Name message would dominate or destroy the Assemblies of God, the trinitarian leaders took steps to expel the Oneness believers from the organization. This was accomplished during the General Council October 1916, in St. Louis. A committee of staunch trinitarians, including Bell, who had been brought back into their camp, was appointed to formulate a "Statement of Fundamental Truths."36 Although the sixteen points of the Statement included many doctrines acceptable to the Oneness ministers, its primary purpose was to force them embrace the trinitarian doctrine or leave.37 When the Statement was adopted over the protest of the Oneness faction, 156 Oneness ministers attending the conference were pushed out of the organization they helped to create.38
Many of the doctrines held to by the Holiness movement became a part of the early Pentecostal movement: premillennialism, substitutionary atonement, the soon return of Jesus Christ, "latter rain" as the prophetic historical perception of the church age, healing, an emphasis on inward and outward holiness, a fundamental view of the Bible, and a millenarian view of the world. Water baptism was practiced as a necessary ordinance,39 and it was listed as one of the six "principles of the doctrine of Christ,"40 but it was not considered a saving ordinance.41 Water baptism was not listed as one of the topics studied at Bethel College, but Parham baptized his converts.42
The Holiness movement was not the only influence on the development of theology in the Pentecostal movement.43 Many ministers and lay members from different Protestant churches brought their theological training with them when they became a part of the Pentecostal revival. At first the emphasis upon the Baptism experience overshadowed most doctrinal differences, but this theological toleration soon narrowed and divisions came. Still, fragments of various doctrinal traditions exist in Pentecostalism, and some conflicting views have been acceptable in a spirit of toleration and unity.44
Areas for Theological Study As a result of the phenomenal growth and influence of the Pentecostal movement in nations around the world, scholars, both friendly and hostile, have focused attention upon its origin and theology. Recently, Oneness Pentecostalism has been the object of wide interest. Some religious leaders have charged the movemtn to be a cult; other leaders recognize Oneness beleivers as Christians although they may see them as belonging to the fringe area of Christianity., Unfortunately, most people know very little about Oneness beliefs and practices. It would be better for them to learn from us than from the enemies of truth. It follows that we should prepare ourselves to give the correct view on doctrine to our generation.
While the topics below are only a few that could be studied, these are presented to probe our thinking and encourage scholarly research and thought. For this reason, several questions are proposed in each area without suggesting possible solutions.
- The first topic refers to our relation with other Christian movements and denominations. What do we have in common with Lutheran, Reformed, Wesleyan, Evangelical, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Episcopal traditions? How does Oneness Pentecostalism relate to the doctrines of other churches concerning the Scriptures, man's sinful nature, sacraments, salvation, ministerial authority, view of history, and prophetic future?
Church traditions can be organized in many different ways. As related to salvation, they may be arranged into three streams: sacramental, reformation, and restoration. The Sacramemtal theology includes church organizations such as the Roman Catholic, Greek and Russian Orthodox, Church of England, Church of Scotland and Episcopal. This stream holds that the grace of God is conferred through the church by means of the sacraments - especially water baptism and the Lord's Supper.
The second stream, Reformation theology, includes such church organizations as the Reformed, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Baptist. This stream teaches that salvation is realized by faith alone - without any sacrament or a conscious experience of regeneration of sanctification. Its theology focuses upon the sovereignty of God, individual predestination, and limited atonement. It stresses that salvation occurs outside an individual rather than in him.
The third stream, Restoration theology, includes such church organizations as the Methodist, Wesleyan, Holiness, Nazarene, Free-will Baptism, Quaker, Salvation Army aned Pentecostal churches. Although this group may acknowledge the importance of the Reformation and embrace a form of its theology of justification by faith, it teaches an inward experience that comes from a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. It teaches that man's fallen nature is restored spiritually by a new birth - justification and/or sanctification and/or Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Whatever sacraments it may accept, they are considered as symbols of an inward work of grace. While carious churches and individuals in this stream may use the same terms, their meanings are often distinctly different.
Oneness Pentecostlism is in this stream, but it has major differences with most salvation concepts of the other churches. For instance, both the role of water baptism "for the remission of sins" and speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost contrast with most Evangelical theology. Moreover, the view that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is a necessary experience for salvation seperates Oneness Pentecostals from the other Pentecostal churches.
The question arises: Can Oneness Pentecostals establish an ecumenical position with churches of different traditions? If total fellowship is not possible, can there be interaction without compromise, communication without communion, and cooperations without collaboration? Is there a basis for cooperation in matters such as community projects and public morality? Can an acceptable forum be established for dialogue and sharing the truth as we see it?
- The second topic concerns the importance of understanding the Godhead. Is there a difference between believing in one God and understanding the oneness of God?
It appears that many trinitarians strive to maintain a monotheistic view of God, although they may accept a threeness of His being. Some resist the use of the term persons in a definition of the Trinity. For example, John M. Krumm states, "To say that there is One God in Three Persons is misleading to many, who at once leap to the conclusion that Christianity imagines three distinct personalities joined together in a sort of heavenly committee meeting at all times...If there are three such personalities in the Godhead, then Christianity has apparently abandoned the faith in one God and gone in for tritheism."45 In a footnote on the same page, Krumm refers to a school of thought that seems to hold to the three personalities view.
Georgia Harkness, a Methodist minister and theologian, voices the same concern. "It was when the Trinity began to be defined as una substantia tres personae, and the personae came to be thought of, not as three manifestations of one God, but as three persons in the ordinary sense, that tritheism crept into the thinking of the Church."46 Another trinitarian writer, Robert Clyde Johnson, states, "Frequently the doctrine of the Trinity is interpreted in such a way that Jesus becomes a second God..."47
Sometimes we accuse the trinitarian of not listening to us, or listening to the mistaken voices among us. Are we also guilty of not recognizing that some trinitarians are expressing the same or a similart meaning to what we believe? Moreover, are erroneous views of the oneness of God found among us? For example, one United Pentecostal minister stated that the "Son of God" was not appropriate in a Oneness church. He based his thinking on his belief that the Sonship was done away with. Is this an acceptable theological position? If this minister's interpretation be correct, how do we explain that the New Testament writers frequently use the term "Son of God" after the Day of Pentecost?
How much understanding does one need of the oneness of God before he can be saved? Should we attempt to enter a dialogue with trinitarians to help them reach this salvational level of understanding?
- How are we to understand water baptism, as an ordinance or as a sacrament? Or perhaps as a semi-sacrament? What is the difference between "remission of sins" and basptismal regeneration? Should we try to judge a person's salvation on the basis of the mode or formula of his baptism?
- What part do creeds have in our theology and fellowship? The Pentecostal revival in this century began as an ecumenical movement centered around the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Creeds and theologies, which were laid aside to seek God for the outpouring of His Spirit, were resisted as hinderances to the revival. Bartleman wrote, "They who establish a fixed creed bar the way to further progress."48
Charles Parham assumed the title of Projector of the Apostolic Faith at the beginning of the revival, but in 1907 he officially resigned this positino in favor of being one of the brethren.49 He urged his followers not to organize, but to leave local assemblies under local elders, returning to visit and strengthen the churches as the Spirit led.
Bartleman criticized the organizational efforts of the Apostolic Faith movement under Seymour and he clashed with the organization that emerged in the Azusa Street Mission. He wrote, "While Brother Seymour kept his head under the old empty box in 'Azusa' all was well. They later built for him a throne."50 He blamed the tight organizational spirit he encountered at Azusa Street for the drying up of the revival there.51
When Howard Goss, E. N. Bell, D. C. O. Opperman and others issued the call for ministers to meet in a conference in Hot Springs, AR for the purpose of organizing, they knew the opposition they could encounter. It was with much prayer and apprehension that they announced the conference. Goss said that they had been taught against any form of organization, and he knew that trying to organize could hurt his ministry and leadership.52 To his and Bell's delight, the Assemblies of God came into being in 1914.
But only two years later, the Assemblies of God passed the "Statement of Fundamental Truths," which forced the Oneness ministers, including Goss and Opperman, out of the fellowship they helped form.53 Although the Oneness ministers voted against each of the sixteen points on the Statement, they did so on the basis that the organization was establishing a creed contrary to the original charter.54 But their negative vote here did not hinder them later from adopting Articles of Faith in Oneness organizations, including the United Pentecostal Church.
We may need to look at creedal theology. Luther rejected the creeds of Roman Catholicism in favor of the Scriptures as he understood them. Can we allow this liberty that Luther demanded to exist among our ministers? Someone stated, "First you have a man, then a movement, and finally a monument." Will the Articles of Faith and ministerial rules, which seemingly increase each year, continue to narrow our theological freedom and crystallize doctrine and practices into definitive creedal statements? If so, will creeds isolate the United Pentecostal Church and stifle the evangelistic thrust of the movement until it becomes a monument?
- Where do we stand on the translation of the Bible? We have officially endorsed the King James Version, but do we think there is a special anointing upon this translation, that it is sacred apart from its meaning? All of us may admire its literary beauty and its familiar phrases and expressions.
But its Elizabethan English is difficult. It is evident that we do not speak or write in the English language of 1611. Like all living languages, English has changed and will continue to change. The reason newer Bible translations are popular is not to evade truth, but to understand what is written.
Is it dangerous to use other translations? Will they lead us down the path to historical criticism and liberalism? What about our stand on translations into other languages?
- This point has to do with the erroft to duplicate the Apostolic church, a strong impetus among early Pentecostals. The Book of Acts gives us the pattern of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and confirms that the evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost is speaking in tongues. Should we also try to duplicate the form of goverment of the Apostolic church? If so, should we recognize apostles, prophets and deacons? Why is the titld of Bishop not used? What about voting at conferences and pastoral elections? Where is the pattern for this practice?
What form of church government do we have: Presbyterian, Congregational, Episcopal or a mixture of two or more of these? What governmental authority does the Bible give a pastor? A district superintendent? To what authority should a pastor submit? What do we mean by a sovereign church? What rights does the laity have? Do we dare to trust saints?
- Historically, Pentecostals have either ignored or became involved only marginally in the political process and the social problems in the community. While many church organizations issue statements on such matters as racial discrimination, human rights, social injustice, economic deprivation, and taxation, the United Pentecostal Church has refrained from this practice. What is our position as a church on social issues such as crime, unemployment and education? Should we have a position? Should we become involved in defense spending, government financing of abortion, rights of homosexuals and minority issues? Should we try to influence the policies of our government? The policies of other nations? If so, on what kind of issues?
At the last conference we began Compassion Service. While the present program is merely an extension of brotherly love, will this kind of involvement lead to the "Social Gospel" concept? Should we offer aid in the liberation of oppressed people?
- What is our perception of church history? The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches contend that they are in the direct line of succession of the Apostolic church and the apostles, especially the Apostle Peter. This claim of apostolic succession is their proof that their church is the true church.
The Mormons embrace the concept of a restored church - restored by the revelations given to Joseph Smith and his successors. They claim a restoration both of doctrinal truth and of the church governmental structure.
One of the goals that emerged during the Reformation was to restore the apostolic beliefs and practices of the primitive Christian church. Most theologians acknowledge that the Reformers failed in this mission. Later, leaders such as Wesley attempted to complete the restoration.
The early Pentecostals of this century adopted the "latter rain" prophetic motif, applying it to the final and complete restoration of power and gifts to the church. When the revelation of the name of Jesus Christ and the oneness of God became known, Oneness believers added these Biblical truths to their restoration charts.
Like the Holiness movement before them, the early Pentecostals interpreted prophetic passages of Scriptures from their knowledge of history. Since history indicated that the apostolic doctrine and "early rain" of the Spirit faded from the church after the second century and appeared as "scattered showers" during the centuries since, it was reasonable to assume that the outpouring of the Spirit was the "latter rain" that was to come before the harvest or rapture of the church.
But they also adopted the restoration theology into their "latter rain" belief. Protestant restoration assumed that the church has existed since the Day of Pentecost in the visibole, historical organizations. Although Roman Catholicism had embraced pagan idolatry and had existed without the Baptism of the Spirit - except in isolate and "heretical" movements - it was still perceived as the church. This theology holds that God restored to the church the doctrine of justification by faith alone through Martin Luther, sanctification through John Wesley, baptism by immersion through the Anabaptists, and so on. But for Oneness Pentecostals there appears to be a problem. This view assumes that Luther and the church he restored is the church - without the new birth. It would also follow that Wesley and other leaders were saved without experiencing the plan of salvation.
If restoration theology be true and the above reasoning follows, then we should reconsider the implications of our theology of the new birth and out understanding of the church. If Catholics, Lutherans, Wesleyans and others are members of the one church, then we must not only believe in unity, but we must practice it.
However, if the reasoning is not true, then we need to examine our teaching on restoration. S. C. McClain, one of our Pentecostal pioneers, taught a restoration theology to the Oneness movement. His book, Highlights in Church History (formerly Student's Handbook of Facts in Church History) contains a chart which traces the church through the fall into apostasy, the Dark Ages, and the various periods of restoration. He states: "The church began its return little by little as people could bear the light of truth. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, John Wesley and many others boldly preached a reformation of the church and brought it on its way toward Pentecost, the goal it has begun to reach in these last days."55
In recent years, attempts have been made in the United Pentecostal Church to establish another perception of church history. It has tried to profect the idea that the church has existed somewhere in the world with the same doctrine and experience of the apostles. While historically it may not be possible to find enough evidence to substantiate this perception, historical data does not rule it out. There are historical references to the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with speaking in tongues and to the practice of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.56
While the Oneness Pentecostals cannot accept the doctrine of apostolic of ecclisiastical succession, it can embrace the belief in the continuous existence of the apostolic doctrine and experience. This view could include the belief in the "latter rain" and in a revival of the apostolic doctrine and spiritual gifts, but it would exclude the concept of restoration.
- This last topic focuses upon the standard for holy living. Although Pentecostals do not equate outward holiness with inward holiness, they see a close association between them. What a person exhibits outwardly indicates what he is inwardly.
In Pentecostal services, it is not unusual for people to request prayer to help them overcome depression, to break the habit of usingb tobacco, or to escape an addiction to alcohol or drugs. Even in matters of self-control, prayer may be offered for deliverance from a "hot temper" or to acquire patience. Pentecostals recognize that the source of the problems is spiritual, an inward battle, and the problems are made known by outward behavior.
Although specific sins such as stealing, lying, adultery, idolatry, drunkenness and murder are listed in Scripture, it does not follow that the Bible is a catalog of sins. It does not try to name every sin, but it does establish principles by which sins can be identified. For example, the Bible is silent on the use of tobacco, but it does provide principles by which Pentecostals condemn smoking - or chewing - tobacco. The crucial point is the identification and application of Bible principles.
Could it be that Pentecostal ministers and laity sometimes arbitrarily decide what is right and wrong? Do they sometimes twist Bible principles to support their lifestyle and beliefs?
What duty does the local church have in establishing standards? Are the Articles of Faith the basis of our fellowship? Is it ethical for a minister to attack specific churches, districts, divisions at headquarters or other preachers on matters of standards? If so, when and under what situations? Is there room for Christian liberty and toleration in local churches?
Is health a Biblical principle for setting standards What about overeating? Does the Biblical teaching that our bodies are the temples of God mean that we should not use tobacco, drink tea of coffee or cola? How about personal hygiene?
Is culture a factor in determining appropriate standards? For example, it is generally recognized that the Bible does not condemn facial hair, but when beards and mustaches became cultural symbols of the hippie generation of rebellion, Pentecostals in general taught against facial hair. But the symbol is no longer applicable. Another thought: Is facial hair more masculine than smooth faces?
In order to protect their cultural values, the Amish stopped using modern inventions of technology more than a hundred years ago. They accepted the wheel, the buggy, steel tools, and the lantern. But they reject the automobile, electricity and the radio. They have maintained their cultural holiness, but in their protected isolation they have ceased to be a vibrant evangelistic movement.
On the other hand, some Pentecostals have abandoned almost any standard in matters of dress and activities. While they are still active in reaching others, have so compromised their message of righteousness that it has lost its transforming power.
Extremes on both sides of thge path of holiness standards are dangerous, but how can we avoid the spirit of the Pharisee and still remain a sanctified movement? How can we be a seperated people - a holy nation - and escape isolation?
The points in this paper are presented in the belief that we have the resources to find answers to guide us in our mission as the church of Jesus Christ. Our collective experience and knowledge along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God will provide light not only for our path but also for those who are now living in darkness. They wait to see the Light shining in us and through us.
NOTES
- Walter J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in the Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), pp. 343-344, 372.
- Robert Mapes Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979) p. 15.
- Ibid., p. 23.
- Ibid., p. 234.
- Ibid., p. 231.
- Donald W. Dayton, "Christian Perfection to the Baptism of the Holy Ghost," Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins Edited by Vinson Synan (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1975), pp. 41-54.
- Ibid., pp. 43-47
- Ibid., p. 48
- Ibid., p. 51
- Ibid., pp. 1164-1165
- Melvin E. Dieter, "Wesleyan-Holiness Aspects of Pentecostal Origins," Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins Edited by Vinson Synan (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1975), pp. 62-63.
- Dieter, op. cit., p. 62.
- Dayton, op. cit., p. 46.
- Anderson, op. cit., p. 41.
- William W. Menzies, "Non-Wesleyan Origins of Pentecostal Movement," Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins Edited by Vinson Synan (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1975), pp. 62-63.
- Timothy L. Smith, Called Unto Holiness: The Story of the Nazarenes (Kansas City, MO: Nazarene Publishing House, 1962), p. 25.
- Donald Gee, The Pentecostal Movement, enlarged ed. (London: Elim Publishing Company, 1951), p. 5.
- Reuben A. Torrey, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1895), p. 18. Quoted in Anderson, op. cit., p. 42.
- Sarah E. Parham, The Life of Charles E. Parham (Joplin, MO: Hunter Printing Company, 1930), p. 52.
- Ibid., p. 53.
- Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles), I (Sept. 1906), p. 1.
- Frank Bartleman, Azusa Street (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1980), p. x.
- Carl Brumback, Suddenly...From Heaven (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1961), pp. 34-41; Fred J. Foster, Their Story: 20th Century Pentecostals (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1965, 1981), p. 63.
- Hollenweger, op. cit., p. 23.
- Frank J. Ewart, The Phenomenon of Pentecost revised (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1975), p. 100.
- Anderson, op. cit., pp. 155, 176-185.
- Hollenweger, op. cit., p. 32; Foster, op. cit., pp. 114-117; Brumback, op. cit., pp. 191-210.
- Andrew D. Urshan, The Life of Andrew Bar David Urshan (Portland, OR: Apostolic Book Publishers, 1967), p. 169.
- Ewart, op. cit., p. 109.
- Ibid., pp. 109-110.
- Ibid., pp. 108-109.
- Ibid., p. 112.
- Ibid., p. 1.
- Arthur L. Clanton, United We Stand (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1970), p. 18.
- Brumback, op. cit., p. 205.
- Anderson, op. cit., p. 181; Brumback, op. cit., p. 210.
- Foster, op. cit., p. 116.
- Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles), IX (Sept. 1907), p. 2.
- Ibid., XI (October-January 1908), p. 4.
- Ibid., IX (Sept. 1907), p. 2.
- Parham, op. cit., p. 51
- Menzies, op. cit., pp. 83-98.
- See the Fundamental Doctrine statement which appears in each issue of the Pentecostal Herald.
"The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the Faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body.- John M. Krumm, Modern Heresies (Greenwich, CT: Seabury Press, 1961), pp. 61-62.
- Georgia Harkness, Foundations of Christian Knowledge (New York: Abingdom Press, 1955), p. 119.
- Robert Clyde Johnson, The Meaning of Christ (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), p. 71.
- Bartleman, op. cit., pp. 172-173.
- Parham, op. cit., pp. 176-177.
- Bartleman, op. cit., p. 89.
- Ibid., p. 115.
- Ethel E. Goss, The Winds of God revised (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1977), p. 280.
- Brumback, op. cit., p. 210.
- Ibid., p. 208.
- S. C. McClain, Highlights in Church History - formerly Student's Handbook of Facts in Church History (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1948, 1983), p. 1.
- David K. Bernard, The New Birth (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1984), pp. 257-303.