HOW DID THE PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENT BEGIN AND DIVIDE?
A MOVEMENT SEEKING THE POWER OF THE EARLY CHURCH—AND THE DISAGREEMENTS THAT FOLLOWED
In our last study, we examined the New Testament teaching about spiritual gifts.
Paul described one Spirit distributing different gifts among the members of Christ’s body. Acts recorded occasions when believers spoke in tongues, while 1 Corinthians described how gifts were to be used for the good of the congregation.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Christians influenced by the Holiness movement began asking whether the experiences recorded in Acts should occur among Christians in their own day.
Some concluded that baptism in the Holy Spirit was a distinct experience and that speaking in tongues was its initial outward evidence.
Their teaching helped give rise to modern Pentecostalism.
But Pentecostalism did not remain united.
Its participants disagreed about sanctification, speaking in tongues, baptism, the nature of God, church organization, and the authority of spiritual experiences.
How did a movement seeking to recover the experience of the early church develop into several different church movements?
We need to keep two questions separate:
WHAT HAPPENED HISTORICALLY?
and:
WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT ACTUALLY TEACH?
1. WHY IS IT CALLED “PENTECOSTAL”?
The name comes from Pentecost, the event recorded in Acts 2.
Jesus’ followers were gathered when:
“they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” — Acts 2:4, KJV
People from many nations heard them speaking about:
“the wonderful works of God.” — Acts 2:11, KJV
Peter explained that the risen Jesus had been exalted to God’s right hand and had poured out the promised Spirit.
Read Acts 2:22–36.
Early Pentecostals believed that the spiritual gifts described in Acts and 1 Corinthians were still available to Christians. Many came to teach that speaking in tongues was the initial outward evidence of a distinct baptism in the Holy Spirit.
But Pentecost was about much more than tongues.
Peter’s sermon announced that Jesus had been crucified, raised from the dead, exalted, and made:
“both Lord and Christ.” — Acts 2:36, KJV
So we need to ask not merely what happened at Pentecost, but what the event meant and which features Luke intended to establish as a pattern for later Christians.
2. DID MODERN PENTECOSTALISM BEGIN AT PENTECOST?
We need to distinguish two uses of the word.
The Pentecost described in Acts occurred in the first century.
The modern Pentecostal movement developed near the beginning of the twentieth century.
Its leaders believed they were recovering spiritual experiences and gifts found in the New Testament.
That is a claim of continuity with the early church.
It is not the same as saying a twentieth-century Pentecostal denomination existed in the first century.
Modern Pentecostalism grew from several related revival and Holiness streams. The events at Topeka, Kansas, in 1901 and the Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles beginning in 1906 became especially influential. The history is broader than those two events, however, and even Assemblies of God historical material notes that Pentecostalism had diverse early origins rather than one single birthplace. (AG News)
So we should examine the historical and biblical questions separately.
What happened?
And does what happened establish what Scripture requires?
3. WHAT HAPPENED AT TOPEKA IN 1901?
Charles Fox Parham operated a Bible school in Topeka, Kansas.
Parham and his students studied the accounts of the Holy Spirit in Acts. They concluded that speaking in tongues was the biblical evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Around the beginning of January 1901, student Agnes Ozman reportedly spoke in tongues after prayer and the laying on of hands.
The event became an important reference point in the development of modern Pentecostalism.
The participants interpreted their experience through the book of Acts.
But that presents us with an important distinction.
AN EXPERIENCE MAY LEAD US TO STUDY SCRIPTURE.
THE EXPERIENCE DOES NOT DECIDE WHAT SCRIPTURE MEANS.
Does Acts record tongues when the Spirit came upon people on certain occasions?
Yes.
Does Acts explicitly state that every Christian must speak in tongues as proof of baptism in the Holy Spirit?
That is an additional conclusion.
We examined that question in our previous study.
4. WHO WAS WILLIAM J. SEYMOUR?
William J. Seymour was an African American Holiness preacher who encountered Parham’s teaching about baptism in the Holy Spirit.
In 1906 Seymour went to Los Angeles and began preaching this message. Meetings eventually moved to a building at 312 Azusa Street, where the revival became internationally influential. (AG News)
The racial setting should not be overlooked.
Seymour lived in a deeply segregated society. Even while receiving instruction connected with Parham’s Bible school in Houston, Seymour was separated from the white students because of the racial practices of the time. At Azusa Street, African Americans, whites, Latinos, and others worshiped together in a way unusual for that period. Yet Pentecostalism itself did not remain free from racial division. (AG News)
That history is worth knowing.
But it does not answer the biblical questions.
A movement may challenge a wrong social practice and still need its doctrines examined from Scripture.
5. WHAT MADE AZUSA STREET SO INFLUENTIAL?
The Azusa Street revival continued for several years and attracted visitors from many places.
Participants reported tongues, healing, prophecy, and other spiritual experiences.
Reports traveled through visitors, missionaries, preaching, and publications. Seymour’s Apostolic Faith newspaper circulated widely and helped carry news of the revival beyond Los Angeles. (AG News)
But we should be careful not to make Azusa Street the single source of every Pentecostal church.
Pentecostalism developed through several networks and revival movements. Similar experiences and teachings appeared in other places.
And again we must distinguish two things.
A historian may establish that someone reported an experience.
That does not establish that the experience was identical to what happened in Acts.
THE HISTORICAL REPORT AND THE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION ARE TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
6. WHY DID SPEAKING IN TONGUES BECOME SO IMPORTANT?
Early Pentecostals pointed especially to Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 19.
At Pentecost:
“they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues.” — Acts 2:4, KJV
At Cornelius’s house:
“they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.” — Acts 10:46, KJV
At Ephesus:
“they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” — Acts 19:6, KJV
Those statements are in the text.
But Acts 8 says the Samaritans received the Holy Ghost without telling us that they spoke in tongues.
And Paul asks:
“do all speak with tongues?” — 1 Corinthians 12:30, KJV
The expected answer in Paul’s argument is no.
Classical Pentecostals such as the Assemblies of God answer this by distinguishing tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism from the public gift of tongues exercised in the congregation.
That distinction deserves to be represented fairly.
But it remains an interpretation that must be established from the passages themselves.
7. WHY DID AN EARLY MAJOR DIVISION CONCERN SANCTIFICATION?
Many early Pentecostals came from Wesleyan Holiness backgrounds.
They already believed in conversion and a subsequent experience of entire sanctification. Spirit baptism was then understood as another distinct experience.
Others disagreed with that sequence.
William H. Durham, a Chicago Pentecostal preacher, became associated with what was called the Finished Workteaching. He rejected the necessity of a separate crisis experience of entire sanctification between conversion and Spirit baptism. Instead, he emphasized Christ’s finished work and an understanding of sanctification that began with conversion and continued in the Christian life.
This was not merely an argument about whether Christians should have two experiences or three.
It raised much deeper questions.
What happens when a person becomes a Christian?
What did Christ accomplish at the cross?
How does God make His people holy?
And does the New Testament prescribe a particular sequence of post-conversion experiences?
8. DOES SCRIPTURE REQUIRE THREE SEPARATE EXPERIENCES?
Read 1 Corinthians 6:9–11.
Paul reminds the Corinthians what they had been and then says:
“but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” — 1 Corinthians 6:11, KJV
Does Paul present these as three experiences separated by prescribed periods of time?
Not in this passage.
Now read 1 Thessalonians 4:1–8.
Paul instructs Christians to continue living holy lives.
Then read 1 Thessalonians 5:23–24, where Paul prays:
“And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:23, KJV
So sanctification cannot be settled simply by counting the number of religious experiences someone reports.
We need to follow the apostles’ teaching about conversion, holiness, the Spirit’s work, continued growth, and final completion.
A SEQUENCE DEVELOPED BY A LATER MOVEMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE A COMMAND FROM GOD UNLESS SCRIPTURE ESTABLISHES IT.
9. HOW DID THE SANCTIFICATION DISAGREEMENT PRODUCE DIFFERENT CHURCHES?
Different Pentecostal bodies eventually expressed sanctification differently.
The Church of God in Christ retained its Holiness emphasis on entire sanctification. Its own history traces the movement back before Azusa Street to a Holiness body associated with Charles Harrison Mason and Charles Price Jones. (Church Of God In Christ -)
The Assemblies of God followed the Finished Work side of early Pentecostalism and did not require a separate experience of entire sanctification before Spirit baptism.
This meant that Christians who agreed that miraculous gifts continued could still disagree about how salvation and sanctification worked.
That should teach us something.
A SHARED SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE DID NOT PRODUCE A SHARED INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.
10. HOW DID THE CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST DEVELOP?
Charles Harrison Mason and Charles Price Jones were leaders in a Holiness movement among African American Christians during the 1890s.
The name Church of God in Christ was already being used before the Azusa Street revival.
Mason went to Los Angeles in 1907 and embraced the Pentecostal teaching he encountered there. Jones did not accept Mason’s new Pentecostal position, and their disagreement resulted in separation. Mason continued leading the Pentecostal Church of God in Christ. (Church Of God In Christ -)
So the Church of God in Christ did not suddenly appear from nothing after Azusa Street.
Its roots were already in the Holiness movement.
The division came when the leaders disagreed over Pentecostal teaching.
Again there are two questions.
Historically, what did Mason and Jones believe?
Biblically, does Scripture require speaking in tongues as evidence of receiving the Spirit?
History can answer the first.
Only examination of the biblical text can answer the second.
11. WHY DID PENTECOSTALS FORM THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD?
As Pentecostalism spread, ministers and congregations wanted to cooperate.
They wanted to coordinate missionary work, establish ministerial credentials, provide training, and address matters affecting more than one congregation.
In April 1914, about 300 delegates met in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and formed the first General Council of the Assemblies of God. The organization says the purposes included unity, doctrinal stability, legal standing, coordination of missions, and ministerial training. (Assemblies of God)
Here we encounter a pattern we have seen repeatedly in our history.
Christians cooperate to accomplish work.
Organization follows.
Recognized leaders are chosen.
Then disagreement appears.
Who decides what the organization will teach?
What happens when ministers disagree?
And how much authority does the organization possess over local congregations?
Those questions take us back to something we have asked throughout this entire series:
WHEN DOES COOPERATION BECOME GOVERNING AUTHORITY?
12. WHAT HAPPENED IN 1916?
A major controversy soon forced the Assemblies of God to define its doctrinal boundaries.
In 1916 its General Council adopted the Statement of Fundamental Truths.
The statement affirmed a Trinitarian understanding of God and became a basis of fellowship within the Assemblies of God. Ministers who held the developing Oneness position could no longer remain within the fellowship on those terms. (Assemblies of God)
The Assemblies of God still says of this statement that its wording is not inspired and does not claim to cover all biblical truth. It describes the Bible itself as the authoritative rule of faith and conduct and the statement as a basis of fellowship. (Assemblies of God)
That distinction is worth noticing.
A statement of faith tells us what an organization believes.
But the existence of the statement does not make its interpretation true.
That applies to an Assemblies of God statement.
It applies to a Catholic council.
It applies to an Orthodox council.
It applies to a Baptist confession.
It applies to a Presbyterian confession.
And it applies to anything we write.
The question remains:
DOES IT ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE TEXT?
13. WHAT WAS THE “NEW ISSUE” ABOUT BAPTISM?
A controversy arose among Pentecostals after a 1913 camp meeting.
Some ministers began teaching baptism specifically in the name of Jesus rather than using the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost wording associated with Matthew 28:19.
The controversy became known as the New Issue, Jesus Only, or Oneness controversy. It soon involved far more than the words spoken at baptism. It raised questions about how Christians should understand the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. (AG News)
So now our study moves from church history directly back into the text.
What does Matthew say?
What does Acts say?
And do those passages contradict one another?
14. WHAT DOES MATTHEW 28:19 SAY?
Jesus said:
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” — Matthew 28:19, KJV
Notice the wording.
“THE NAME” is singular.
Then Jesus names:
THE FATHER.
THE SON.
THE HOLY GHOST.
Trinitarian Christians understand this passage within their belief in one God who is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Oneness Pentecostals also insist that there is only one God. They understand Jesus as the revealed name of the one God and baptism in Jesus’ name as the fulfillment of Matthew 28:19.
But the verse must be allowed to speak before either system is placed over it.
Does the singular word name prove that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are merely three titles for one person?
The verse does not say that.
Does this one verse, by itself, explain everything later theology means by the word Trinity?
It does not do that either.
We need the rest of the New Testament evidence.
15. WHAT DOES ACTS SAY ABOUT BAPTISM IN JESUS’ NAME?
Peter said at Pentecost:
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” — Acts 2:38, KJV
The Samaritans had been:
“baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” — Acts 8:16, KJV
At Cornelius’s house, Peter:
“commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” — Acts 10:48, KJV
And at Ephesus:
“they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” — Acts 19:5, KJV
Acts clearly associates Christian baptism with the name of Jesus.
But now ask:
What does Luke mean by in the name of Jesus?
Is Luke recording the exact words spoken by the person administering the baptism?
Or is the expression identifying baptism under the authority of Jesus and distinguishing it from other baptisms?
That question matters because Acts uses the name of Jesus in connection with preaching, healing, authority, and salvation as well.
Read Acts 3:6 and 4:7–12.
We need to determine how Luke uses the expression rather than assume its meaning before we begin.
16. DO MATTHEW 28:19 AND ACTS 2:38 CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER?
Matthew records Jesus saying:
“baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” — Matthew 28:19, KJV
Luke records Peter saying:
“be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” — Acts 2:38, KJV
We should not throw away either statement.
And we should not assume Peter deliberately disobeyed Jesus only a few days after receiving the command.
One interpretation understands Matthew 28:19 as giving the baptismal words and Acts as identifying baptism performed under Jesus’ authority.
Another understands baptism in Jesus’ name as the apostles’ fulfillment of Matthew 28:19 because Jesus is the revealed name of the one God.
Which explanation best accounts for all the evidence?
That is the question.
AN INTERPRETATION OF ACTS MUST ACCOUNT FOR MATTHEW.
AN INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW MUST ACCOUNT FOR ACTS.
17. WHAT DO ONENESS PENTECOSTALS BELIEVE ABOUT GOD?
We need to describe their position accurately before examining it.
Oneness Pentecostals affirm one God.
They identify Jesus Christ as the one God revealed in flesh and reject the Trinitarian understanding of three distinct divine persons.
The United Pentecostal Church International describes itself as a Oneness Pentecostal organization. (UPCI)
Trinitarian Pentecostals also affirm one God. The Assemblies of God describes Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct within the unity of the one God. (Assemblies of God)
So we should not misrepresent this disagreement as:
ONE GOD versus THREE GODS.
Both sides say there is one God.
Their disagreement concerns how Scripture describes the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost within that divine unity.
Now we need to examine some of the passages.
18. WHAT DOES JESUS’ BAPTISM TELL US?
Read Matthew 3:13–17.
Jesus is baptized.
He comes up from the water.
The Spirit of God descends.
Then:
“a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” — Matthew 3:17, KJV
Look carefully at the scene.
JESUS IS IN THE WATER.
THE SPIRIT DESCENDS.
THE FATHER SPEAKS FROM HEAVEN.
Trinitarian interpreters see a distinction among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Oneness interpreters understand the passage as the one God revealing and acting in different ways without requiring three eternal divine persons.
But repeating either label does not explain the passage.
What does Matthew actually describe?
And what conclusions must be drawn from that description?
19. WHAT DOES JOHN 1 SAY ABOUT THE WORD?
John begins:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” — John 1:1, KJV
All three statements matter.
The Word existed in the beginning.
The Word was with God.
The Word was God.
Then:
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” — John 1:14, KJV
A Trinitarian interpretation understands the Word as the eternal Son, personally distinct from the Father while sharing the divine nature.
A Oneness interpretation emphasizes the one God’s eternal Word and His manifestation in Jesus Christ.
But John 1 does not stop at verse 1.
Read John 1:1–18.
Then keep reading the Gospel.
John repeatedly develops the relationship between Jesus and the Father.
THE OPENING VERSES ARE THE BEGINNING OF JOHN’S ARGUMENT, NOT THE END OF IT.
20. WHAT DOES JESUS’ PRAYER IN JOHN 17 TELL US?
Jesus prayed:
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” — John 17:5, KJV
Slow down.
Jesus speaks of:
“THE GLORY WHICH I HAD WITH THEE BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.”
What does that mean?
How does it relate to:
“the Word was with God” — John 1:1, KJV
and:
“the Word was made flesh” — John 1:14, KJV?
What does Jesus mean when He speaks about being sent by the Father?
And how should we understand the unity between Father and Son?
Trinitarian interpreters understand John 17 as describing a relationship between Father and Son that existed before the incarnation.
Oneness interpreters approach the language through their understanding of the one God revealed in the incarnate Christ.
The important question is not whether the word Trinity appears in John 17.
It does not.
The question is whether an explanation accounts for everything Jesus says.
21. DID THE EARLY PENTECOSTAL DIVISION SETTLE THE BIBLICAL QUESTION?
No church organization can make an interpretation true merely by voting for it.
The Assemblies of God adopted a Trinitarian statement in 1916.
Oneness Pentecostals continued developing their own organizations.
Those decisions explain historically why different Pentecostal denominations emerged. (AG News)
They do not settle the meaning of Scripture.
A council may understand Scripture correctly.
A council may misunderstand Scripture.
The same is true of an individual preacher.
And the same is true of us.
THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE VOTING FOR AN INTERPRETATION DOES NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE INTERPRETATION IS TRUE.
The text still has to be examined.
22. HOW DID THE UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH DEVELOP?
Several Oneness Pentecostal organizations developed after the controversies of the 1910s.
In 1945, the Pentecostal Church, Incorporated and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ merged in St. Louis to form the United Pentecostal Church. The organization later became known as the United Pentecostal Church International. (UPCI)
The UPCI remains a Oneness Pentecostal organization.
But not every Oneness congregation belongs to the UPCI.
And not every Pentecostal congregation is Oneness.
That is why the word Pentecostal alone does not tell us everything a church believes.
We need to ask what that particular church actually teaches.
23. WHY DID PENTECOSTALS DEVELOP DIFFERENT FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT?
Pentecostalism spread through local revivals, traveling preachers, missionary work, and networks of congregations.
Different groups eventually developed different ways of credentialing ministers, supervising churches, settling disputes, and coordinating their work.
Some developed strong denominational structures.
Some retained greater local congregational independence.
The Church of God in Christ developed an episcopal structure with bishops.
The Assemblies of God describes itself as a cooperative fellowship and developed district and national structures.
The UPCI combines self-governing local congregations with a larger organizational structure for ministers and cooperative work.
Those arrangements are not identical.
And the fact that all these groups appeal to the book of Acts does not prove that every part of their organizational structure comes from Acts.
So ask the questions we have asked throughout this series.
Who appoints the leaders?
Who may remove them?
Who settles disputes?
Who controls the congregation’s property and money?
What authority belongs to the local congregation?
What authority belongs to a larger organization?
And most importantly:
WHERE DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT GIVE THAT AUTHORITY?
24. DID PENTECOSTALISM BRING BACK THE OFFICE OF APOSTLE?
Some Pentecostal and later charismatic Christians have used the title apostle for contemporary leaders.
But they do not all mean the same thing.
Some use the word for a missionary or church planter.
Others claim that present-day apostles exercise special governing or revelatory authority.
Those are very different claims.
Read Acts 1:21–26.
The person chosen to replace Judas had qualifications connected with Jesus’ earthly ministry and resurrection.
Read Acts 9:1–22 and 1 Corinthians 15:8–10.
Paul grounded his apostleship in his encounter with the risen Christ and his commission.
And Paul writes that the church is:
“built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” — Ephesians 2:20, KJV
So the question is not simply:
DOES SOMEONE TODAY CALL HIMSELF AN APOSTLE?
The question is:
WHAT AUTHORITY DOES HE CLAIM?
A New Testament title does not automatically give a modern person the same commission and authority possessed by Christ’s apostles.
25. WHAT ABOUT MODERN CLAIMS OF PROPHECY?
Pentecostal Christians do not all explain modern prophecy in exactly the same way.
Some believe the Spirit continues to give prophetic messages.
Some distinguish contemporary impressions, encouragement, or guidance from the authoritative revelation associated with the apostles and prophets.
Others believe miraculous prophecy belonged to the church’s foundational period.
Whatever position we take, the New Testament tells Christians to test claims.
Paul wrote:
“Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.” — 1 Corinthians 14:29, KJV
He also said:
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV
And concerning the gospel itself:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” — Galatians 1:8, KJV
A person who claims to speak for God is making a serious claim.
Confidence does not prove inspiration.
An extraordinary experience does not prove inspiration.
A large audience does not prove inspiration.
THE CLAIM MUST BE TESTED.
26. WHAT ABOUT HEALING?
Pentecostal churches have often emphasized prayer for divine healing. The Assemblies of God, for example, includes divine healing in its Statement of Fundamental Truths. (Assemblies of God)
But several different questions can easily become confused.
Can God heal?
Yes.
Does God hear prayer?
Yes.
Does Scripture promise that every sick Christian will be healed during this life?
That is a different question.
Does a particular preacher today possess the same miraculous gift of healing described in 1 Corinthians 12?
That is another question.
James tells Christians to pray for the sick.
Read James 5:13–16.
Yet Paul told Timothy:
“use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” — 1 Timothy 5:23, KJV
And near the end of Paul’s life:
“Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.” — 2 Timothy 4:20, KJV
Those passages should make us cautious about promising that every illness will be miraculously removed.
Prayer and appropriate medical care do not have to be enemies.
And we should never tell a suffering person that continued illness proves a lack of faith when Scripture has not authorized us to make that judgment.
27. DOES AN EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIENCE ESTABLISH A DOCTRINE?
Suppose two Christians report similar extraordinary experiences.
One is Trinitarian.
The other is Oneness.
Both may sincerely believe the Holy Spirit acted in their lives.
But their explanations of God differ.
The experience cannot establish both conflicting interpretations.
That is why John wrote:
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.” — 1 John 4:1, KJV
The question is not whether someone had an experience.
The question is what the experience proves.
Does the interpretation agree with the apostolic message?
Has a description in Acts been turned into a universal command without sufficient evidence?
Is an experience being used to establish something the biblical text itself does not establish?
EXPERIENCE MAY SEND US BACK TO SCRIPTURE.
EXPERIENCE MUST NOT BECOME THE AUTHORITY THAT TELLS SCRIPTURE WHAT IT IS ALLOWED TO MEAN.
28. DID ALL PENTECOSTALS AGREE ABOUT WORSHIP?
No.
Pentecostal worship developed in different cultural and congregational settings.
Many congregations emphasized spontaneous prayer, expressive singing, testimonies, and participation by members of the congregation.
But Pentecostal churches have never all worshiped in exactly the same way.
The New Testament question is not whether worship feels traditional or spontaneous.
Read 1 Corinthians 14:26–40.
Paul repeatedly emphasizes edification.
He requires interpretation of public tongues.
He regulates the number of speakers.
He requires them to speak in turn.
And he concludes:
“Let all things be done decently and in order.” — 1 Corinthians 14:40, KJV
That standard applies to everyone.
A carefully planned service can fail to build up the congregation.
An enthusiastic spontaneous service can also ignore Paul’s instructions.
THE TEST IS NOT HOW FORMAL OR EXCITING THE SERVICE FEELS.
The question is whether Christians are following Christ and the teaching of His apostles.
29. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THE PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENT?
Modern Pentecostalism developed through several related revival movements.
Topeka in 1901 and Azusa Street beginning in 1906 became especially influential, although the movement’s origins were broader than those two events. (AG News)
Pentecostals emphasized the work of the Holy Spirit and sought experiences they believed corresponded to those described in the New Testament.
But almost immediately they faced disagreements.
Was entire sanctification a separate experience after conversion?
Was speaking in tongues the required initial evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit?
How should Christians understand the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
What did baptism in Jesus’ name mean?
Who should govern congregations?
Could Christians today possess apostolic or prophetic authority?
Those disagreements contributed to the development of different Pentecostal organizations.
And that teaches us something important for our larger study of church history.
A SHARED RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY PRODUCE AGREEMENT ABOUT SCRIPTURE.
And:
A SHARED DESIRE TO RESTORE NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT GUARANTEE AGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT REQUIRES.
That should sound familiar by now.
Catholics disagreed.
Orthodox Christians disagreed.
Reformers disagreed.
Anabaptists disagreed.
Calvinists and Arminians disagreed.
Puritans and Separatists disagreed.
Baptists disagreed.
Pentecostals disagreed.
And we can disagree.
Whatever church background we come from, none of us is exempt.
The answer is not to stop studying.
It is to keep returning to the text.
30. WHERE DOES OUR HISTORY GO NEXT?
Pentecostal teaching did not remain inside churches that called themselves Pentecostal.
During the twentieth century, Christians in older denominations began reporting experiences they understood as gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Some were Episcopalians.
Some were Lutherans.
Some were Presbyterians.
Some were Catholics.
Many remained in their existing churches rather than joining Pentecostal denominations.
This development became known as the Charismatic movement.
And it raises another interesting question.
What happens when Christians inside an established denomination begin practicing something their church has not traditionally taught or accepted?
Must they leave?
May church leaders forbid the practice?
And when Christians disagree about an experience attributed to the Holy Spirit, how should the claim be tested?
That takes us to our next study:
WHY DID THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT SPREAD ACROSS DENOMINATIONS?
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: WHY DID THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT SPREAD ACROSS DENOMINATIONS?