who is the father of Pentecostal movement(Changsoung Lee).pdf
Who is the Father of Pentecostal Movement?
Lee, Chang-Soung
jesusgate@daum.net
I. Introduction
There have been the various theories of the origin of Pentecostal Movement. Which is true among them? As Lovett pointed out well, the insistencies of the origin is closely connected with the identity of Pentecostalism. Therefore, it is requested to investigate the true origin in order to define correctly Pentecostal Movement. This paper will insist that Parham was the father of Pentecostal Movement inspecting the theories: Parham theory, the Spirit theory, Seymour theory, and Spontaneous/simultaneous theory. Although the heavenly father and spiritual base of Pentecostalism was the Holy Spirit, but to speak earthly, Pentecostalism was started by Parham’s establishing the doctrine: the Spirit baptism should be accompanied with speaking in tongues, and then was spread from Los Angeles to all over the world by William J. Seymour in 1906. Historically and doctrinally, the earthly father or founder of Pentecostalism is Charles F. Parham.
II. Parham Theory
It was Parham theory that was brought up firstly in history among the theories of the origin. Parham’s indirect reference discloses that the origin was Charles F. Parham. In the subtitle of a sermon, “Baptism of the Holy Ghost” printed in his first book published in 1902, Parham named the event of Bethel Bible School as “Pentecost.” He attached the subtitle, “First Sermon on Pentecost preached in Academy of Music, K. C., Mo., 21 days after First Outpouring” to the sermon. “First Outpouring” did not mean the first outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem appeared in the chapter two of Acts, but the first outpouring occurred at Bethel Bible School. He made “First Outpouring” identical with “Pentecost,” and the two phrases denoted the movement begun at Bethel Bible School in 1901. This interpretation is justified by his direct reference. In one of his writings, “The Latter Rain,” he called the sermon, “Baptism of the Holy Ghost” delivered Academy of Music, as the first sermon on the Spirit baptism in all modern Pentecostal Apostolic Full Gospel movements.
Parham directly called his movement as “Pentecostal revival,” or “Pentecostal movement.” In a writing about the evangelical work in the east area appeared in Apostolic Faith published in April 1907, he wrote, “The whole city is now ripe for an old-time Pentecostal revival.” And he opened a sermon delivered at Wichita, written in his second book, with the words, “The Apostolic or Pentecostal movement contends for a hundredfold consecration, both for the laity and the ministry.” He defined clearly his movement as “Pentecostal movement.” Again he called his movement as “this Pentecostal movement.” Speaking for the need of continuous holiness after perfect sanctification, he said the phrase as follows:
but this Pentecostal movement brings one into an experience where the heights, lengths, and breadths of God’s love are always before him, unfathomable, he can never cease in his growth and development.
His wife Sarah also recognized Parham as the origin. She wrote his biography after his departure. In the biography, her attached the subtitle, “The Story of The Origin of The Original Apostolic Or Pentecostal Movement” to his writing “The Latter Rain.”
It was Seymour and his Azusa Mission who first advocated Parham theory except Parham. At first, his Azusa community acknowledged Parham as the origin of Pentecostal movement. Azusa Mission including Seymour declared openly Parham to be the origin through “the old-time Pentecost” recorded on the first issue of The Apostolic Faith in 1906. The declaration gave an account that the students of Bethel Bible School who wanted to receive true Pentecostal power studied the Bible under the leadership of Parham, prayed, and at last received Pentecostal Spirit baptism accompanied with speaking in tongues as recorded in Acts. And according to Azusa Mission, for five years after the first outpouring Pentecostal movement started by Parham had spread widely from the Bible School, and then eventually arrived at Los Angeles.
This work began about five years ago last January, when a company of people under the leadership of Chas. Parham, who were studying God’s word tarried for Pentecost, in Topeka, Kan . . . Now after five years something like 13,000 people have received this gospel. It is spreading everywhere.
In the second issue of The Apostolic Faith, we can find a more detailed description of Pentecostal movement. Azusa Mission writes that partial gospel was preached before the movement, but God who recovered the gospel of regeneration and the gospel of healing in turn, now is recovering the gospel of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. And the Mission reports the Bible study to search the Bible evidence of the Spirit baptism in Bethel Bible School, and then the experience of Bethel. Seymour’s community recognizes, “He was surely raised up of God to be an apostle of the doctrine of Pentecost.” And the community says, “This Pentecostal Gospel has been spreading ever since, but on the Pacific coast it has burst out in great power and is being carried from here over the world.” That saying may be called “Expanding theory.” In the beginning of Azusa revival, Seymour and his mission placed Parham in the seat of the origin of Pentecostal movement, and acknowledged speaking in tongues combined with Spirit baptism as the identity of Pentecostalism.
Capt. L. H. Tuttle who participated in Bethel Bible School perceived the events which took place in the school as “Pentecost.” In the preface of Parham’s first book, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, Tuttle recalled the events saying,
While praying for the institution from which this book eminates, not many months ago, we saw in the heavens above it a vast lake of fresh water about to overflow, containing enough to satisfy every thirsty soul. A mighty Pentecost followed, evidenced by the speaking in tongues.
Parham later approved Tuttle’s recollection saying,
Captain Tuttle, who assisted in dedicating the Bible school, where afterward the Holy Spirit fell in Pentecostal power, saw above the building a great lake of fresh wather. It overflowed until the whole earth was refreshed by its floods.
In 1947, Frank J. Ewart depicted the Topeka revival of Parham as the beginning of modern Pentecostal movement. After dealing with Jerusalem Pentecost in which the early rain fell from chapter 1 to 3, he described the intermittent rains until the revival of Oslo, Norway in 1899, and informed beforehand the beginning of the later rain for the harvest which would be treated in the next chapter, writing that the later rain began to fall in America at the beginning of 20th century. Chapter 4 was allowed for describing the revival of Topeka. He gave an account of the revival begun with the experience after discovering that the Bible evidence of the Spirit baptism was speaking in tongues through bible study at Bethel Bible School and praying. According to him, and then when the fire of Pentecost arrived in Houston, this south city became a base of the movement, from there the movement spread all over the world. Everyone swept into the movement received the massage and then the Spirit baptism with the evidence, speaking in tongues. The fire was spread from Houston to Los Angeles, from the city of the Pacific coast the movement expanded toward the world. For Ewart, the identity of Pentecostalism was the message(or doctrine) that the Bible evidence of the Spirit baptism is speaking in tongues, and the origin of Petecostalism was Parham.
J. Roswell Flower contributed an article of the origin of Pentecostalism to Pentecostal Evangel, the bulletin of Assemblies of God (USA) in 1950. He celebrated the year as the 50th anniversary of the birth of Pentecostal movement. The birth day of Pentecostalism indicated by him was January 1, 1901, and the place was Bethel Bible School, Topeka, Kansas. He posed the problem saying that the events of the School had not understood well, and although since then numerous people had been received the Spirit baptism, still there were too many people who did heard of the events or did not know the reason why the event should be regarded as the beginning of Pentecostal movement. To solve the problem, he shed light on the origin at the 50th anniversary.
In spite of his elevation of other former revivals than that of Topeka in 1901, Flower did not bestow the honor of the origin of Pentecostalism upon them, but upon Parham’s Bible school. According to his analysis, though there were many cases in which people spoke in tongues before 1900, in each case speaking in tongues was considered merely as one of spiritual phenomena or of the gifts of the Spirit, so people did not want the fullness of the Spirit to speak in tongues. And then Flower evaluated the induction, which Parham and his students made from Acts: speaking in tongues was the initial physical evidence of the Spirit baptism, as the decision that has made 20th century Pentecostalism. Flower took the dogma, New Testamental evidence of the Spirit baptism was speaking in tongues, as the criterion for fixing of the origin of Pentecostalism.
He was convinced that Pentecostal movement started by Parham in Topeka spread all over America, and then five oceans and six continents. According to him, the little spark ignited in Topeka became great flames kindling the whole world. Flower performed an important role in Pentecostal World Conference organized in 1947. At a meeting of the conference held in Stockholm, Sweden in 1955, he presented a his writing, “The Genesis of the Pentecostal Movement.” In 1999, the writing appeared on Enrichment Journal after twenty nine years from his departure. In this paper, he said that although the outpourings of the Spirit such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing etc. had been since Apostolic age, they could not grow into Pentecostal movement. He insisted that Pentecostal movement was started through the bible study of Parham’s Bethel Bible School, the conclusion that the Bible evidence of the Spirit baptism was speaking in tongues, the expectation, the waiting, and at last the experience of the evidence. And he insisted that like a nuclear bomb burst and then spread out, a spiritual nuclear burst in Topeka, and then via Los Angeles spread out to Europe, Russia, Africa, India, China, Japan, South America, Australia, and New Zealand etc.. Probably, because Flower would keep Donald Gee in his mind, he insisted the world diffusion theory that Pentecostal movement occurred through Parham’s doctrine and experience, and then it spread out all over the world. on the one hand, Flower would sympathize with Donald Gee because Gee put the identity of Pentecostalism on the doctrine that the Spirit baptism accompanied speaking in tongues. But, on the other hand, Flower would reject Gee’s opinion that Pentecostal movement sprang up spontaneously and simultaneously in all the world. Flower decisively contributed to fix the origin and identity of Pentecostalism shaken and blurred in Assemblies of God(USA).
John Thomas Nichol recognized Parham as the founder of Pentecostal movement, Seymour as an international distributer. His work Pentecostalism put Parham upon the paramount place. In chapter 3 titled “The United States: Birthplace of Twentieth-Century Pentecostalism” of his brilliant study on Pentecostal history, he made a description of the process in which Parham and his student of Bethel Bible School discovered and experienced the central doctrine of Pentecostalism, “The Bible evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues,” under the heading, “Outburst of Pentecostalism in Topeka, Kansas (1901).” And giving the tittle, “The Renowned Azusa Street Revival,” he dealt with Seymour. That is to say, he set forth that Pentecostal movement was spread by Seymour internationally. He positively declared Seymour was the international distributer of Pentecostalism through quoting Horton’s remark.
Nichol enumerated the reasons for insisting Parham as the father of Pentecostalism. 1) Parham was perceived as the Pentecostal leader in the Middle West before and even during Azusa Street revival. 2) His term, “Apostolic Faith” became a pervasive vocabulary used by the early members of the movement. 3) Parham published the first Pentecostal periodical, Apostolic Faith (Topeka, Kansas). 4) Parham organized the first union of Pentecostal assemblies of states. 5) Parham issued pastoral certifications for the first time in Pentecostal movement organized loosely. Nichol’s study requires us to correct the degradation of Parham’s reputation.
According to Nichol, many early developmental histories of the movement written by Pentecostals have failed to emphasize the contribution of Parham. His evangelical efforts were often recorded without a mention of his name. Such omission was corrected by Frank J. Ewart for the first time in The Phenomenon of Pentecost, and then by Kaude Kendrick in The Promise Fulfilled: A History of the Modern Pentecostal Movement. Especially Kendrick gave a detailed description of the role of Parham at the developmental stage of Pentecostalism. Non Pentecostal scholar, Charles William Shumway referred to Parham as an important part before 1914. After him, scholars such as Nichol and Robert Anderson bestowed a strengthened prominence on the role of Parham.
Although since 1970 Vinson Synan has insisted double origins theory, but he defines Petecostalism as the unique theological combination with speaking in tongues as the initial evidence. He has believed that the white Kansas healing evangelist, Parham was the maker of the doctrine, and Seymour was the distributer of the doctrine through the international influence of Azusa revival. Synan recognized that it was Parham who started to define the experience of speaking in tongues as a formal doctrine and speaking in tongues as the evidence of the Spirit baptism, and that Parham’s teaching laid the doctrinal and experiential foundation of Pentecostal movement. And then he said about Seymour’s Azusa revival. According to him, Pentecostal movement spread from Azusa to all over America, and the news that a special work of the Spirit occurred spread to Europe, and then several hundred pastors of the Continent visited Los Angeles to see what happened at that time with their own eyes, and after experiencing Pentecostal speaking in tongues, they returned to their own churches. Synan wrote that the first Pentecostals in a modern sense appeared in a Bible school of Topeka, Kansas which was under the leadership of Parham in 1901. Anderson quoted Faupel, people arrived at Azusa street from afar, Europe, received the Spirit baptism, and returned. During two years Pentecostal missionaries were sent from Azusa to more than twenty five nations, almost all over the world.
William Menzies placed Parham at the doctrinal origin of Pentecostal movement in the chapter 2 of his book about the history of Assemblies of God(USA) published in 1971. He traced what gave the peculiar cohesive power on the great revival of modern Pentecostal movement to the events occurred in the works of Parham. For Menzies, what gave the ground for theological understanding of the manifestations the Spirit, particularly speaking in tongues was the revival brake out in 1901. Considering the importance of Topeka revival, Menzies said that although there had been the phenomena of speaking in tongues and teachings about the Spirit baptism before the revival, the two elements became into one in Topeka for the first time.
First, this seems to be the first time that the phenomenon of speaking with tongues, glossolalia, was related to the experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit as the initial physical evidence. There had been episodes of tongues previously, and there was also the rather common teaching in a wide spectrum of American churches in the late 19the century of a baptism in the Spirit, but these two elements had not heretofore been so brought together.
And Menzies made one more important and exciting insistence. He argued although between 1905 and 1910 charismatic outpourings mutually independently occurred spontaneously throughout the worlds, but the first root through which Pentecostal movement spread was Topeka revival in 1901. For him, even if Parham could not be called as the father of Pentecostal movement, it could not be denied that Parham was one of the most prominent persons in the movement. He asserted, “The most likely candidate for nomination as father of the modern Pentecostal Movement” shall be Parham. Menzies knew that since the birth of modern Pentecostal movement what has given the rival identity and continuity was this theological assertion. Such Menzies’ insistence held the hand of the earthly Parham theory of Flower than that of the heavenly Spirit theory of K. Brumback.
In 2003, Douglas Jacobsen, although he is not a Pentecostalist, defined Parham as the founder of Pentecostal theology. For him, Parham was the first shaper of the Pentecostal doctrine: evidential tongues, speaking in tongues is the part of the Spirit baptism. Jacobsen thought although where Pentecostal movement was expanded rapidly and eruptively was Azusa meeting, the theological formation of the Pentecostal experience was already started by Parham.
III. The Spirit Theory
Who firstly insisted the Spirit theory (Divine/Pneumatic/Providential origin) was not a man but a Azusa group led by William J. Seymour. As mentioned above, Azusa Mission at first introduced Parham as the founder of Pentecostal movement. But in the number 2 of The Apostolic Faith, Seymour’s group changed the origin, the founder, and the projector of the group from Parham to “the Lord.”
Many are asking how the work in Azusa Mission started and who was the founder. The Lord was the founder and He is the Projector of this movement.
Parham introduced himself as “Projector of the Apostolic Faith Movement” on the cover of A Voice Crying in the Wilderness printed in 1902 and reprinted in 1910. Keeping it in mind, Seymour’s group would say that the Projector of the movement was not Parham, but “the Lord.” Such change in position of Azusa Mission about Pentecostal origin might be the product of its trouble with Parham. Parham tried to correct Azusa meeting, but Azusa Mission refused his try. After that trouble, Azusa Mission might make “the Lord” as the founder of Pentecostal movement neither Parham or Seymour to resolve the trouble. Hollenweger also recognized that at first Parham was perceived as the leader of Azusa Street Revival, but after November 1907 his name had not appeared any more in the official records of the organization.
The changed insistence of Azusa Mission that Azusa Pentecost was started by “the Lord” is baked up with Azusa Mission’s calling Seymour and the his own self definition related to the Mission. Seymour emphasized that men including himself only should be “coworkers with Him” or “partakers of the Holy Ghost.” And he gave his men advice to install the Holy Spirit in the chair seats of all the works.
In May 1916 Assemblies of God(USA) published The Apostolic Faith Restored. In the preface of the book John W. Welch the general secretary of Assemblies of God looked back upon Pentecostal movement from the standpoint of divine providence history. Bernard F. Lawrence, the main author of the book, tried to record what God did in New Testament Church and was doing in Pentecostal movement.
The atmosphere of Azusa revival which did not make any man the founder might influenced Frank Bartleman who experienced Pentecostal Spirit baptism there. Bartleman asserted the divine origin of Azusa Pentecost viz the Spirit theory. In 1925, he wrote a history of Los Angeles Pentecost. He compare Smale and Seymour with Moses and Joshua. According to him, as God chose Moses to lead his people to the Jordan river and Joshua into the promised land across the river, He chose Brother Smale to lead his saints to the front of Pentecost and Brother Seymour into Pentecost. In other words, Bartleman insisted that it was not Seymour who led people into Pentecost, but God through choosing Seymour as one of his servants.
To Bartleman, the most important thing in the Pentecostal meetings was the living work of the Holy Spirit. He recalled that at Azusa doctrine only stirred up controversies. In his book Bartleman never mentioned the name Parham who came to Azusa and preached. The controversy with Parham about the phenomenon of speaking in tongues and the meeting would include the dispute on the nature and phenomena of speaking in tongues and the meetings. According to Bartleman, at the Azusa doctrine was just like a skeleton among the components of the body, so doctrine should be put flesh, and the flesh was “the Holy Spirit.”
It was the Spirit to Bartleman who really leaded Azusa. According to Bartleman, in Azusa Mission Brother Seymour was just recognized as “the nominal leader in charge.” Bartleman witnessed that there was not any Pope or any class of ministry in Azusa Mission, and all the members of the Mission were “brethren.” The Pentecost of Azusa reported by Bartleman was the meeting which the Lord Himself was leading without any man-planed program. The meeting did not depend upon the man leader(perhaps Seymour). To his eyes, all the meetings of Azusa Pentecost were spontaneous following the order of the Spirit. Saying, The Holy Spirit Himself is taking the lead, setting aside all human leadership largely. And woe to the man who gets in His way, selfishly seeking to dictate or control. The Spirit brooks no interference of this kind,” Bartleman emphasized the Spirit as the real leader of Azusa Pentecost. He reported that although great men(perhaps Seymour, Parham, and Durham) who God trusted appeared at Azusa, but when the works which they had been given were accomplished, they quickly retreated. Bartleman said, “Men do not make their times, as some one has also truly said, but the times make the man. Until the time no man can produce a revival. The people must be prepared, and the instrument likewise.” His words remind us the words which G. Campbell Morgan said about The Welsh Revival. Morgan said, “You tell me that the revival originates with Roberts. I tell you that Roberts is a product of the revival . . . If you and I could stand above Wales, looking at it, you would see fire breaking out here, and there, and yonder, and somewhere else, without any collusion or prearrangement.”
Stanley H. Frodsham would be influenced by Bertleman’s the Spirit origin of Pentecostal movement. He was born in England, came to America, and worked as an editor of The Pentecostal Evangel for thirty years. In 1926 Frodsham wrote With Sings Following evaluated as a standard work on the story of the Twentieth Century Pentecostal Movement. He treated the Pentecost of Bethel Bible School comparatively in detail in the book. But he never mentioned the founder and director of the Bible School. It was more severe than Bartleman’s silence of Parham works in Los Angeles. Although Fordsham began to draw Los Angeles Pentecost with Seymour, by his stroke Seymour was depicted not as the founder, but just as a man who played an important role. Quoting a witness (probably Bartleman’s) of Azusa meetings, Fordsham wrote, “All who are in touch with God realize as soon as they enter the meeting that the Holy Ghost is the leader.”
In 1961, Carl Brumback argued that the origin of Pentecostal movement has been wrongly attributed to secular cause, so the origin should be attributed to divine cause. He criticized church historians for interpreting revivals solely through the earthly rather than the heavenly. Almost ignoring the divine element: Lord came again to His people spiritually, they had emphasized the social, economic, political, or only religious things. According to him, the cause of the beginning and growth of modern Pentecostal revival was wrongly attributed to the mundane. So he corrected such tendency in his own way and asserted that the beginning was the result of the operation of the First Cause, the heavenly, not the earthly.
Although Brumback concentrated upon the divine cause, he did not excluded the earthly cause completely. He said that it was foolish to deny the effect of the earthly conditions on Pentecostal revival. And he enumerated the conditions which offered the background for the rise of the revival. He introduced human leaders: Charles F. Parham, William J. Seymour etc. who leaded Pentecostal movement in the conditions.
But after introducing such human elements, Brumback turned his eyes and gave attention to the true divine origin. He shouted toward Pentecostals, “Call No Man . . . Father!” Like we should see beyond the Apostles to find the father of the First century Pentecost, to discover “the Father of twentieth-century Pentecost” we should not look only men, but turning our eyes beyond them, have to see God. In his judgement, there was not a progenitor in Pentecostal movement because of the indication that powerful Pentecostal revival was born directly by the special outpouring of the Spirit. For him, this point was what made Pentecostal movement different from other Christian groups each of which was born under just a leading man.
Rejecting both Parham and Seymour as the father of Pentecostal movement, Brumback insisted that the Spirit indeed was the Father. He embossed the point that both Parham and Seymour who had been designated as the origin, never call themselves Pentecostal father. He asserted we should not call Parham the father upon his own conjectures that although Parham presented himself as the leader of Pentecostal movement, establishing for himself no Pentecostal denomination, he never claimed his authority and that who found the biblical truth, the Spirit Baptism was accompanied by speaking in tongues, was not Parham but his disciple group. And Brumback excluded Seymour too from the candidate depending upon the facts that Seymour early in his work recognized Parham as the founder of Pentecostal movement and that published The Apostolic Faith in Los Angeles imitating Parham’s The Apostolic Faith in Topeka. “So, we in Pentecost glory in the fact that we have no earthly father.” In his understand, Pentecostal revival was conceived not in one religious genius, and even its peculiar declaration of the accompanying speaking in tongues to Spiritual fullness was the result of grasp of not a person, but the group. Finally, Brumback defined Pentecostal movement as “a child of the Holy Ghost,” in other words, he admitted only the Spirit as the father of Pentecostal movement.
Brumback’s too much emphasis on the heavenly origin of the movement seems to show a side of Assemblies of God USA which had tried to escape a fierce crash. American Assemblies of God had followed Parham in the point that speaking in tongues was accompanied to the Spirit baptism, but in Sanctification followed Durham, and in the nature of speaking in tongues it had recognized Parham’s Xenolalia, also recognized heavenly Glossolalia used to occur in Seymour’s meetings. It may be possible that teaching in Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Brumback hesitated to raise one side of them and to make a person who led the side as the father of modern Pentecost. As mentioned above, divine theory was presented by Azusa mission for the first time. It was said that Neither Parham nor Seymour, namely no human but “the Lord” launched Pentecostal movement. It may be inferred from the words of Bartleman that divine theory might be brought up as an alternative of the collision.
Such Bartleman and Brumback’s alternative choice for peace to do not make any man who advocated a unique doctrine or work may incapacitate the distinctiveness of Pentecostal movement, the Spirit baptism accompanies speaking in tongues. In 1947 Brumback wrote an excellent dialectic book of speaking in tongues. But after fourteen years from the publication of the book, his effort was faded by his own deteriorating the doctrine of speaking in tongues accompanied to the Spirit baptism to just one of Pentecostal opinions and making the creative achievement of Parham who play the unparalleled role in forming the doctrine be weakened. The criterion for fixing the origin of Pentecostal movement ought to be the theological doctrine distinguishing Pentecostal movement from other different movements such as Holiness movement.
Although, as Brumback pointed out, it was the group of Parham’s students who found out the evidence of the Spirit baptism, but it can not be erased that it was Parham who ordered them to study the Bible, more exactly the Acts, and led their experiencing the Spirit Baptism. Though for two thousand years of Christian history the Spirit had continuously worked, but the work had not been active. The cause was men’s uncorrect understanding of the Spirit. When Parham corrected such understanding, the Spirit began to work actively, and the all the process was the beginning of Pentecostal movement. Therefore, of course, in Pentecostal movement divine element is very important but human element is as important as divine one. Can any man exist who has only heavenly father without earthly father on the Earth? Being different from Brumback’s opinion, there is not only heavenly father, but also earthly father in Pentecostal movement. Pentecostal movement is a child of the Spirit, at the same time, that of a man also.
Because the Spirit works with human agents, it is not unjust to slant only on the Spirit theory. Rovett said that the Spirit theory did not admit He had worked with human agents. Such his grasp was very correct. Of course, although the Spirit theory explained the divine origin of Pentecostal movement very well on the side that Pentecostal movement was led by the Spirit in the beginning and progress, but it weakened seriously the human side that the Spirit worked so through earthly human agents.
If we admit that Pentecostal movement has only the divine origin, it will be impossible to write any Pentecostal history. William Kay sees the problem on the right track. He says that of course, although without the providential view of Pentecostal history it is impossible to write Pentecostal history itself because in Pentecostal movement the supernatural phenomena, speaking in tongues and ect. have been occurred, if we, only slanting on the providential view, ignore the natural elements in the Pentecostal rise, we can not write Pentecostal history also.
IV. Seymour Theory
It is Seymour theory that has been posed about Pentecostal origin from the 1970’s. Walter Hollenweger, a Swiss, was the advocator of the theory. In 1972 he published a book, The Pentecostals, and took Seymour as the origin of Pentecostal movement. He proposed that Pentecostal founder was either white Parham or black Seymour, the choice depended upon the nature of Pentecostalism. He said that the foundation of Pentecostalism was either on the doctrine of the special experience or the African black oral missional trait of Azusa revival and the power to overcome obstructions. And then he choose black Seymour, the leader of Azusa revival from where Pentecostal message was spread out all over the world, as the founder of Pentecostal movement. He posed African black slave oral religion and European white Wesley Holiness movement as the two backgrounds of Pentecostalism. But he took the oral structure, not the historical factors and the particular doctrine, as the cause of the amazing Pentecostal growth.
Although Hollenweger set up the nature of Pentecostalism in his own way and made Seymour the father, he could not be indifferent to the fact that Parham was the founder of the unique doctrine (the Bible evidence of the Spirit baptism is speaking in tongues). He could not but admit that Seymour accepted Parham’s theory of the Spirit baptism. He recognized Parham as the founder of Pentecostal movement at least from the doctrinal side.
In 1973, an African American and a member of Church of God in Christ, Leonard Lovett presented “Latter Rain” model as the proper frame for fixing Pentecostal origin. Embracing “Early Rain and Latter Rain” as the frame, he defined Pentecostal movement as “Latter Rain Movement.” In his eyes, the Early rain of the Spirit fell down as a waterfall on the day of Pentecost, but for the long drought, Church history, showers dropped occasionally. He asserted that although latter rain was started to drop with Parham, it drizzled. In his evaluation, at last in 1906 Latter rain started to pour down at Azusa meetings.
Refuting other theories, Lovett alleged that Seymour was the only Pentecostal origin. In his understanding, taking not only white Parham but also black Seymour as the double origin of Pentecostal movement, Hardon and Synan made being “interracial” Pentecostal distinctiveness. Lovett asserted that if we picked being “interracial” as Pentecostal origin, single origin was more reasonable because it was the Azusa revival of black Seymour where being interracial did completely occur. And he insisted that who made Parham and Seymour the double origin overlooked the true Latter rain outpouring of Seymour’s meetings, so such their neglect was the weak point of the double origin. In this way Lovett lifted Seymour up to the sole origin with the power of his own criterion, the degree of being interracial and its effectiveness.
But it was too unreasonable and inadequate to classify the same Latter rain according to amount. Despite his effort to enthrone Seymour, as he could not but recognize, even if the amount was relatively little, actually heavy rainfall poured down, the starting of latter rain in the work of Parham still remains as a fact.
In 1981 Douglas J. Nelson asserted that Parham’s role in the debate of Pentecostal origin was exaggerated by such historians as Synan, Waldvogell, and Anderson. Developing “racial conspiracy theory,” Nelson who studied under the umbrella of Hollenweger introduced Seymour as the “unqualified founder” of a heroic religious movement in his doctoral dissertation, “For Such a Time as This: The Story of Bishop William J. Seymour and The Azusa Street Revival.” He insisted that the origin of the heroic religious movement should be searched not in the experiencing the Spirit verified by speaking in tongues, but in the true collapse of the wall of race and class. Nelson was convinced that the interracial worship rather than speaking in tongues occurred in the early days of Azusa revival reproduced more well the spirit of New Testamental Pentecostal experience described in Acts 2.
But according to James R. Goff, such opinion of Nelson had a serious defect. Because the interracial worship had the very short span of life and Pentecostals failed to prevent racial church segregation, Nelson’s view can not be supported. In Goff’s sharp judgment, “Racial equality” was just an ideal desire of black Pentecostals at Azusa. Nelson failed to produce a proof that the white Pentecostals who attended Azusa meetings were very different from popular people.
In 2004, Allan Anderson, the present leader of Birmingham school, treated Parham under the title, “the Historical and Theological Background of Pentecostalism.” And then he introduced Seymour firstly under the title, “North American Classical Pentecostalism.” But, saying “he formulated the ‘evidential tongues’ doctrine that became the hallmark of North American classical Pentecostalism,” following Hollenweger, he also recognized Parham as the founder at the doctrinal aspect.
In 2005, Dale T. Irvin defined Parham as “the originator of the primary doctrine in Pentecostalism.” But, on the contrary, he defined Seymour as “the father of the movement.” Such Irvin’s definition was in the vein of the Birmingham School of Hollenweger.
Seymour theory can be broken down by the fact that Seymour himself and Azusa Mission itself never claimed Seymour as the origin of Pentecostal movement. As mentioned above, the community of Seymour firstly defined Parham as the origin of their movement, but after several months they attributed the origin to “the Lord.” And in Azusa community Seymour was mostly called “Brother W. J. Seymour.” The Mission called Seymour not as the founder of the movement, but just a “Brother” who was equal with all other members of the community. Seymour never called himself as the founder of Pentecost. At the end of the eighteen sermons of Seymour written in the Apostolic Faith “William J. Seymour” appeared without any official title.
After the departure of Charles F. Parham in 1929, his wife Sarah Parham wrote a biography of Parham in 1930. In the biography, recollecting as follows, she treated the change of Seymour’s community. Sarah presented the reason why Seymour changed the origin. According to her, the reason was Seymour’s arrogance or greed for becoming the leader.
W. J. Seymour, in his first paper gave a true account of the origin of the work, but after he failed to receive the message Mr. Parham brought, he was possessed with a spirit of leadership and sought to prove that Azusa St. Mission was where the baptism of the Holy Spirit first fell. Mr. Parham went to him and plead with him to repent to God and man for trying to deceive the people, and reject leadership and exalting of self or God would bumbel him. We may deceive men, but we cannot deceive God.
V. Spontaneous/Simultaneous theory
It is Spontaneous or Simultaneous theory that has been raised since the 1940’s, especially through 1990’s and 2004’s. The advocator of this theory was Donald Gee who was born in England, received grace under the influence of Wales Revival in 1905, and once worked for the Pentecostal World Convention in Zurich. In 1941 he insisted that Pentecostal movement did not owe to any eminent person or religious leader for the origin, and the movement was a “spontaneous revival” which appeared almost simultaneously at many regions all over the world. He acknowledged persons who had been lifted up to seat of the founder of Pentecostal movement only as the leaders. In a negative sense, he thought that certain leaders had been recognized as the founder by a group of people who tried to expend the scope of Pentecostal movement. And to his eyes, certain leaders had been adored as the founder of a local group. For him, “the outstanding leaders of the Pentecostal Movement are themselves the products of the Movement. They did not make it; it made them.” According to the result of his inquire, one of the peculiarities is that the Spirit provides something special.
Such Gee’s insistence has something in commonness with Bartleman’s. In Donald Gee’s thinking the special feature of Pentecostal movement was that the Spirit offers the extraordinary. Such active work of the Spirit was also what Bartleman brought into relief. Gee’s insistence, the leaders did not make Pentecostal movement, but in fact the movement made them, reminds us Bartleman’s words. Perhaps Gee read Bartleman’s writings. It looks like that Gee alternated Bartleman’s “man” with “Pentecostal movement.”
But there is a difference between Gee and Bartleman. Bartleman asserted that Pentecostal movement raised by the Spirit through the American leaders such as Seymour and Durham spread all over the world. on the contrary, Gee argued that the Spirit raised local Pentecostal movements independently and autogenously almost at the same time through many leaders of various regions of the world. In other words, Gee and Bartleman had a commonness at the point that they both insisted Spirit origin, but they uttered their own voices about the starting point. Perhaps Gee would infer from his experiences that if the Spirit raised Pentecostal movement, the Spirit could raise the movements at the various regions of the world simultaneously, not at a special region.
There was one more difference between them. The difference is related with the identity of Pentecostal movement. Bartleman asserted that in Pentecostal movement “dogma” was only the source of quarrels, and the most important thing for the movement was the living work of the Spirit. From different view with Bartleman, Donald Gee said, “Pentecostal movement has ceaselessly taught that speaking with tongues is the scriptural initial evidence of that baptism.” Gee called that “the most challenging doctrine.” For him the doctrine was historical fact had been embodied in history, so it is needed to stop controversies and to concentrate on realizing the doctrine. Gee never doubted that speaking in tongues was the biblical initial evidence of the Sprit baptism. But more important thing for Gee was realizing it here and now. Such his adhesion to the close relationship between speaking in tongues and the Spirit baptism was not changed after twenty years. In 1961 he called the doctrine, “speaking in tongues is the biblical initial evidence,” “our doctrine.” And he said, “I hold that doctrine to be right.” For him the results of the imposed Pentecostal experiences without actuality were nothing and further more bad thing than nothing. In other words, he never withdrew the doctrine, only concentrated on realizing the doctrine in history. For Donald Gee Pentecostal identity was the doctrine that the Spirit baptism is accompanied by speaking in tongues.
In 1993 a Fuller Theological Seminary black theologian, Cecil M. Robeck Jr. was aware that it is crucial how to define Pentecostalism for fixing the origin of Pentecostalism. And he tracked the variations of the definition of the identity of Pentecostalism. According to him, the firstly presented definition was connected with the doctrine, the initial evidence of the Spirit baptism was speaking in tongues, that doctrine was recognized as the Pentecostal distinctiveness. Secondly presented definition by Donald Dayton was related with four fold Gospel. Thirdly presented definition was related with cultural, social, and psychological factors brought up by Hollenweger, and other various gifts, such as prophecy and healing ect., other than speaking in tongues proposed by J. Sepulveda.
Robeck made third definition(various gifts of the Spirit) his own frame. He had a commonness with Bartleman’s the Spirit theory. But there was also a difference between them. Robeck rejected Bartleman’s America origin theory. Robeck linked Pentecostal movement to spontaneous and simultaneous outpourings of the Holy Spirit around the world. And he insisted that the origin of Pentecostalism was not single such as a white (Parham) or a black (Seymour), but there were multiple origins by spontaneous and simultaneous outpourings throughout the world in Pentecostalism. Possibly he received this multiple origins theory as a legacy from Donald Gee. But, although Robeck assented Gee’s Simultaneous theory, he did not agree with Gee’s insistence that the doctrine, the Spirit baptism is accompanied by speaking in tongues, is the distinctiveness of Pentecostal movement.
Allan Anderson born to a mother of English and a father of Africa and grown in Africa received Robck’s simultaneous/ multiple origins, but expanded it. In 2004, he insisted the theory at a Oxford Centre for Mission Studies lecture. Anderson evaluated the understanding that Pentecostal movement rose at Azusa Revival of America and then spread toward all over the world only as a prejudice in Pentecostal history. In his mind, the fact was that the movement was disseminated by the efforts and visions of each local pioneers, not by American missionaries, rather than the movement was imported from America. For him, such a history of Western viewpoint displayed a serious prejudice against religious bodies and races. In his eyes, such a prejudice had political and social causes, because the spiritual experiences of Pentecostals could not be separated from their political and social environments. He insisted the prejudice was a product of colonialism by which so called superior Westerners made other nations colonies.
Anderson mentioned that Hollenweger and his students started to make Azusa the center or cradle, Jerusalem of Pentecostalism in 1970’s. He highly evaluated the effort saying that by the endeavors of Birmingham school the point, African America church was transplanted to the whole world, was reilluminated. But he was not satisfied with it. Going ahead, he thought that the American centered history for Pentecostalism could not correctly expose the very diverse global natures For him, the Pentecostalism occurred in America was a part of the various whole figure of many local Pentecostalisms. So he asserted hidden local histories should be rediscovered. He saw that Pentecostal revivals of the local regions of the world went before or was independent from North American Pentecostal history. Following such understanding he elevated Pune, India in 1905, Pyongyang, Korea in 1907, Wakkerstroom, South Africa, Lagos, Nigeria in 1918, Valparaiso, Chile ect. Jerusalems of Pentecostal movement equal to Azusa.
Anderson said that fixing the origin of Pentecostalism depended upon how defining Pentecostalism. And he insisted if the characteristic of Pentecostalism was recognized as healing, prophecy, speaking in tongues, other manifestations, and emotional prayer meetings, his insistence that Pentecostal movement spontaneously and simultaneously occurred here and there throughout the world without any linking ring with America should be acknowledged. By force driving out Parham from the seat of the father of Pentecostalism and lifting Seymour up to the seat, Hollenweger could cut the strong connection between the Baptism of the Spirit and speaking in tongues, so then Anderson was able to take the manifestations of the Spirit such as healing, prophecy, speaking in tongues separated from the Spirit baptism ect., not the doctrine, as the feature of Pentecostalism. The alteration of Pentecostal feature gave birth to that of Pentecostal origin. When Pentecostal characteristic was defined as the various manifestations of the Spirit, making Seymour who led the Azusa revival the father was possible. And when the manifestations became the yardstick for fixing the origin, not only Azuas, but also the revivals occurred at various local regions of the world almost simultaneously before and after 1906 were reevaluated as the origins.
The successive - expanding understanding that Pentecostal movement began at a region, and then spread gradually to other regions, branded as a prejudice by Anderson, was born in Azusa Mission of Seymour called as Pentecostal Jerusalem of America by Anderson himself. There is the doctrine, the Spirit baptism is accompanied by speaking in tongues in the base of the successive - expanding understanding. The doctrine generated Parham’s Bethel Pentecost and then Seymour’s Azusa revival separated from Holiness. If the doctrine was not made, Parham’s Bethel work would be recognized just as another similar revival with other revivals occurred before, and Seymour’s also. Because of this doctrine, Bethel revival could be given the name Pentecostalism distinguishing the revival from other revivals. It can be said that the doctrine is Pentecostalism itself. The name, “Pentecostalism” itself has the identity of Pentecostalism. “Pentecost” of the name was took from Acts 2 in which the Spirit baptism was accompanied by speaking in tongues. If the manifestations of the Spirit, not the doctrine, is chosen as the identity of Pentecostalism, not only the revivals which have been occurred from 1905 until now, but also all the revivals occurred before 1905 including Montanus New Prophecy, Carmisad, Ervingite ect. should be called Pentecostal movements, and all the regions in which the manifestations of the Spirit appeared should be Pentecostal Jerusalems. Therefore, multiple origin theory is unreasonable prejudice. The successive - expanding understanding is not biased, but very straight and reasonable.
In 2006, two years latter from Anderson’s expansion of the multiple origins theory, two church historians of Africa, J. W. Hofmeyr and O. U. Kalu upheld Spontaneous/Simultaneous theory. They alleged that expanding theory, both Parham theory and Seymour theory, had been stirred up a problem that the leading persons outside North America depended upon the outside. In their judgment, such a North America centered frame does not fit for the outside of the region, and has stirred only confusions.
To solve the problem, Hofmeyr and Kalu threw out the North America frame, and tried to redefine Pentecostalism. According to their imaginations, Pentecostals outside North America took the Bible as the origin of Pentecostal movement rather than a person of North America. They made an effort to find their lineage in the movements which had struggled to restore the characteristics of primitive Church recorded in the Bible. Such an approach let them search the identity of Pentecostalism in the religious experiences of changed individuals as the saved and the explosive and dynamic sings of the Spirit in their lives. In their opinion, the manifestations of the charisma of the Spirit became the touchstone for distinguishing Pentecostalism from the old Evangelism which had held the cessation of the gifts, because of it, Pentecosalism has its own history different from other teachings. They admits the importance of Azusa revival. But in their evaluation Azusa is just only the first Pentecost of North America not of the world. In their knowledge, before Azusa Pentecost the experiences of similar phenomena to Azusa were happened in other regions of the world. So they asserted that if people of other regions had experienced the works of the Spirit independently, the history that Pentecostalism was delivered from North America to other regions should be rewritten.
To this points, they seem to follow Anderson, but they insist a similar assertion to the Spirit theory of Azusa Mission and Bartleman. They shouts, “The Spirit could baptize without a human agency!” As the ground of their crying, they present that charismatic revivals occurred in Wales, Brazil, Chile ect. through the Spirit baptism autogenously before the arriving of North American missionaries. According to them, for that reason, in the regions the doctrine which North American missionaries emphasized was not defined as the identity of Pentecostalism.
Of course, like their assertion, the Spirit may baptize people without any human agency. But all the revivals might produced by the Spirit without a human agency can not be defined as Pentecostal revivals. If all the revivals by the Spirit are taken as Pentecostal revivals, all the revivals occurred in Christian history should also be redeclared as Pentecostal revivals. Therefore, so called the independent and indigenous works of the Spirit can not be the standard for criterion. The touchstone for the identity of Pentecostalism should be the doctrine, the Spirit baptism is accompanied by speaking in tongues as the evidence. A person can not be a Pentecostalist until he or her recognizes the doctrine wether before he or her experiences the Spirit baptism or after he or her experiences the baptism. Even if a person receives the Spirit baptism with speaking in tongues, but does not recognize the doctrine, the person may be a Charismatist, but can not be a Pentecostalist. Pentecostal movement is a theological movement. The Spirit may baptize a man without a human agency, but can not make a man, who dose not recognize the doctrine, Pentecostalist!
VI. Conclusion
In Pentecostal movement, the firstly presented origin theory was “Parham theory” or “Expanding theory” appeared in 1902. Parham theory clarifies that the movement was begun by Parham between the end of 1900 and the just opening of 1901 in Topeka, America. Although pursuing the Spirit baptism and the experiences of speaking in tongues existed separately before Parham, the two were combined by him first. In this theory, the identity of Pentecostalsim is standing on the strong cohesion of the Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues, and the union can not be separated. The advocators of the theory were Parham himself in 1901 and the early Seymour’s community in 1906, and then Flower, Nichol, and Menzies followed them.
“The Spirit theory” was raised in 1906 to settle the quarrel between Paraham and Seymour by Seymour’s community, Azusa Mission. The mission at first introduced Parham as the father of Pentecostal movement, but after the quarrel changed its position and to start presenting the Spirit theory. After the presenting, Brumback and Bartleman grasped the Spirit theory, and they asserted that Pentecosat movement was broken out at Azusa street, Los Angeles by the Spirit not by a man in 1906. The earthly/human origin, Parham, was weaken by the Spirit theory, as a result the doctrine emphasizing the combination of the Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues was weaken, and the time of the beginning was pushed back from 1901 to 1906.
“Seymour theory” presented from 1970 has many common features with “the Spirit theory.” Being generated and fostered by an European Hollenweger and African American Church of God scholars, “Seymour theory” asserts black Seymour led the Azusa revival in 1906 is the father of Pentecostalism. Seymour theory elevated Seymour, who by the Spirit theory evaluated just an earthly leader among the may leaders worked with the Spirit, up to the founder of Pentecostalism. By the Seymour theory, speaking in tongues has been separated from the Spirit baptism, the experience of the Spirit baptism disjoined from speaking in tongues is emphasized, and the witness of the experience, in other words, orality and black/African elements are applauded.
After presented by Donald Gee in 1940, through 1990’s and 2004, the theory recently stirred up by Robeck and Anderson is “Spontaneous/Simultaneous theory.” This theory asserted that Pentecostalism occurred almost simultaneously all over the world between 1905 and 1910. This assertion expands the source of Pentecostal movement to Europe, Middle Asia, East Asia, South America, and Africa ect., namely to all over the world, and tries to make the culturally, racially various many natives of the world, not one or two American such as Parham or Seymour, the founders of Pentecostalism. Spontaneous theory has a commonness with Seymour theory. Seymour theory prepared Simultaneous theory. In Spontaneous theory, Blackness, Africanity, and orality freed from American white centerness are expended to cultural and racial nativity of various regions, the experience of the Spirit baptism cut from speaking in tongues is replaced with the experience of the Spirit who gives the Spirit baptism and gifts. After Seymour theory made the year, 1906 the point of beginning of Pentecostal movement and put the identity of Pentecostalism on the experience of the Spirit baptism rather than on the doctrine, the similar revivals occurred from 1905 all over the world began to be recognized as Pentecostal movements. “Spontameous/Simultaneous theory” deteriorates Pentecostalism to a strange mixture or fusion including the most revival movements in which the charisma of the Spirit emerged and Charismatism.
Although the spiritual foundation, the heavenly father of Pentecostal movement is God, the Spirit, earthly speaking, the movement was started with the establishing the doctrine, the Bible evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues, by Charles F. Parham in Topeka, 1901, and then by William J. Seymour learned the Pentecostal doctrine from Parham expended from Los Angeles to most all nations. In other words, the father of Pentecostal movement, the earthly founder is Parham historically and dogmatically. The yardstick for fixing the origin of the Pentecostal movement is not racial mixture or orality, or the manifestations or experiences of various gifts of the Spirit, but is the theological statement, doctrine. Pentecostal identity is in the name, Pentecost, itself. The identity should be put on the historical fact recorded in Acts 2, at the first Pentecost, the Spirit baptism accompanied speaking in tongues. Establishing such a theological proposition, Parham became the father or origin of the Pentecostal movement. And the doctrine is the foundation of Modern Pentecostal movement.
Table of the Theories of Pentecostal Origin
Theories
Time | Human Origin | Divine Origin | ||
Single Origin | Providence Theory | Multiple Origins | ||
North America Theory | Global Theory | |||
Parham Theory | Seymour Theory | The Spirit Theory | Spontaneous/Simultaneous Theory | |
1902 | Parham |
|
|
|
1906 | Azusa Mission |
| Azusa Mission |
|
1916 |
|
| Welch (the Assemblies of God) |
|
1925 |
|
| Bartleman Fordsham |
|
1930 |
|
|
|
|
1947 | Ewart(United Pent.) |
|
| Gee (Anglican Elim) (The Spirit baptism + Speaking in tongues) |
1950 | Flower (the Assemblies of God) |
|
|
|
1960 | Nichol (International Pent.) |
| Brumback (the Assemblies of God) |
|
1970 | Menzies (the Assemblies of God) Synan (Holiness Pent.) | Hollenweger (Birmingham) Robeck (Church of God) |
|
|
1981 |
| Nelson (Church of God) |
|
|
1993 |
|
|
| Robeck (the Assemblies of God) |
2003 | Jacobsen | Ervin |
| Anderson (Birmingham) |
2006 |
|
|
| Hofmeyr Kalu |
Identity | Spirit Baptism + Speaking in tongues = the Doctrine | Experience, Orality (witness, narrativeness) | The work of the Spirit | The gifts of the Spirit |
Bibliography
김기련. “마르틴 루터와 토마스 뮌쩌 신학의 비교 연구.”『신학과 현장』Vol. 8 (1998): 75-119.
이창승. “오순절주의의 정체성: 성령침례에 결합된 방언과 그 의미.”『오순절신학논단』Vol. 8 (2010): 241-285.
. “태초에 신학이 있었다: 오순절 운동에서 신학 선행, 경험 후행성.”『영산신학저널』Vol. 32 (2014): 78-83.
. “사적으로, 공적으로 방언 말하기: 오순절운동의 아버지 찰스 F. 파함의 방언론.” 제 18 차 한국오순절신학회 학술발표회 (October 9, 2015): 127-147;『오순절 신학 논단』13 (2015): 81-104.
윌리엄 멘지즈. “제2장 오순절 운동의 주역들.” 해롤드 스미스 편.『안과 밖에서 본 오순절운동의 기원과 전망』박정렬 역. 군포: 순신대학교출판부, 1994: 27-41.
빈슨 사이난.『세계 오순절 성결운동의 역사』이영훈, 박명수 역. 서울: 서울말씀사, 2004.
클라우스 에버트 편.『토마스 뮌처』오희천 역. 천안: 한국신학연구소, 1994.
프랭크 J. 에와르트.『20세기의 오순절』박선규 역. 서울: 보이스사, 1976.
Anderson, Allan. An Introduction to Pentecostalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
. “The Origins of Pentecostalism and its Global Spread in the Early Twentieth Century.” A Lecture for the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, 5 October 2004, 1-2; Transformation. Vol. 22, No. 3 (July 2005): 175-185.
Anderson, Robert Mapes. Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Bartleman, Frank. How Pentecost Came to Los Angeles: As It was in the Beginning. Los Angeles, California: by the author, 1925.
Bloch-Hoell, Nils. The Pentecostal Movement. Oslo: Universitersforlaget; London: Allen and Unwin: New York: Humanities Press, 1964.
Brower, K. “Origen [Sic.] of the Apostolic Faith Movement on the Pacific Coast.” in Apostolic Faith (Goose Creek, TX) (May 1921): 6.
Brumback, Carl. What Meaneth This? A Pentecostal Answer to A Pentecostal Question. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1947.
. Suddenly From Heaven: a History of the Assemblies of God. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1961.
Cerillo, Jr., Augustus. “Interpretative Approaches to the History of American Pentecostal Origins.” Pneuma. Vol. 19, No. 1 (1997): 29-49.
Ewart, Frank J. The Phenomenon of Pentecost. St. Louis, Missouri: Pentecostal Publishing House, 1947.
Faupel, D. William. The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Flower, J. Roswell. “Birth of the Pentecostal Movement.” The Pentecostal Evangel. No. 1907 (November 26, 1950): 3, 12-14.
. “The Genesis of the Pentecostal Movement.” Enrichment Journal. Vol. 16 (April, 1999).
Frodsham, Stanley H. With Sings Following. 3rd ed. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1946.
Gee, Donald. The Pentecostal Movement: A Short History and an Interpretation for British Readers. London, UK: Elim Publishing Cooperation, 1941. https://books.google.co.kr/books/about/The_Pentecostal_Movement_A_Short_History.html?id=IBh9CgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y. Accessed January 12, 2018.
. All with one Accord. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1961.
Goff, James Rudolph. “Charles F. Parham and His Role in the Development of the Pentecostal Movement: A Reevaluation.” Kansas History. Vol. 7 (Autumn, 1984): 226-37.
. Fields White unto Harvest [UMI] : Charles F. Parham and the Missionary Origins of Pentecostalism. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas, 1987.
Günther, Franz und Paul Kirn. Thomas Müntzer: Schriften und Briefe. Gütersloh, 1968.
Hardon, John A. The Protestant Churches of America. Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1957.
Hofmeyr, J. W. and Kalu, O. U. “Modelling the Genealogy and Character of Global Pentecostalism : an African Perspective (part 1).” Dutch Reformed Theological Journal = Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif. Vol. 47, No. 3-4 (September, 2006): 506-518.
Hollenweger, Walter. “Charisma and Oikemene, The Pentecostal Contribution to the Church Universal.” One in Christ. Vol. 7, No. 4 (1971): 325.
. The Pentecostals. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsbury Publishing House, 1972.
. “‘After Twenty Years’ Research on Pentecostalism.” International Review of Mission. Vol. 85, Issue 297 (January, 1986): 3-12.
. Pentecostalism : Origins and Developments Worldwide. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1997.
. “The Black Roots of Pentecostalism.” eds. Allan Anderson and Walter J. Hollenweger. Pentecostals after a Century: Global Perspectives on a Movement in Transition. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999: 42-3.
Homrighausen, Elmer G. “The Church in the World, Pentecostalism and the Third World.” Theology Today. Vol. 26 (January, 1970): 446-455.
Horton, Stanley. “Pentecostal Explosion.” Pentecostal Evangel. Vol. XLIV (April 8, 1956; October 7, 1962): 8f.
Irvin, Dale T. “Pentecostal Historiography and Global Christianity: Rethinking the Question of Origin.” Pneuma. Vol. 27, No. 1 (2005): 35-50.
Jacobsen, Douglas. Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement. Bloomington & Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2003.
Kay, William K. “Three Generations on: The Methodology of Pentecostal History.” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association. Vol. XI: 1-2 (1992): 58-59.
Kendrick, Klaude. The Promise Fulfilled: A History of the Modern Pentecostal Movement. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1961.
Lawrence, Bennet F. The Apostolic Faith Restored. St. Louis, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1916.
Lovett, Leonard. “Perspective on the Black Origins of the Contemporary Pentecostal Movement.” Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center. Vol. 1, No. 1 (Fall, 1973): 36-49.
. “Black Holiness Pentecostalism: Implications For Ethics and Social Transformation.” Ph. D. dissertation, Emory University, 1978.
Luther, Martin. WA. 9. 632. 25.
Martin, Larry E. ed.. Azusa Street Sermons. Joplin, Missouri: Christian Life Books, 1999.
McGee, G. G. “Historical Background of Pentecostal Perspective.” Systematic Theology, ed. Horton, Stanley. Springfield, Missouri: Legion Press, 1994: 9-38.
Menzies, William. Anointed to Serve: The Story of the Assemblies of God. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1971, 6th printing 1988.
. “The Movers and Shakers. Pentecostals from the Inside Out. ed. Harold B. Smith. Christianity Today Series. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1990: 29-41; “제 2 장 오순절 운동의 주역들.”『안과 밖에서 본 오순절운동의 기원과 전망』박정렬 역. 군포: 순신대학교출판부, 1994: 27-41.
Montgomery, G. H. “The Origin and Development of the Pentecostal Movement.” Pentecostal Holiness Advocate (March 14, 1946): 3-5, 10.
Morgan, G. Campbell. “Lessons of the Revival.” In Arthur Goodrich and others, Story of the Welsh Revival. New York, New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1905: 36-53; http://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1539&context=ecommonsatsdigitalresources, accessed November 10, 2017.
Müntzer, Thomas. “에그라누스에 대한 명제들.” Klaus Ebert 편.『토마스 뮌처』오희천 역. 충남 천안: 한국신학연구소, 1994, 96-97.
Nelson, Douglas J. “For Such A Time as This: The Story of Bishop William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Birmingham, England, 1981.
Nichol, John Thomas. Pentecostalism. New York, et al.: Harper and Row, 1966.
Parham, Charles F. “Baptism of the Holy Ghost. The Speaking in Other Tongues and Sealing of the Church and Bride.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness. Joplin, Missouri: Joplin Printing Cooperation, 1910.
. “The Latter Rain.” The Everlasting Gospel. Baxter Springs, Kansas: Apostolic Faith Bible College, 1911.
Parham, Sarah E. The Life of Charles F. Parham. Baxter Springs, Kansas: 1930, 1969; New York, New York: Garland Publishing, Incorporated, 1985.
Robeck Jr., Cecil M. “Pentecostal Origins from a Global Perspective.” in All Together in one Place: Theological Papers from the Brighton Conference on World Evangelization. eds. Harold D. Hunter and Peter D. Hocken. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1993: 166-180.
. “The Origins of Modern Pentecostalism.” in The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism. ed. Cecil M. Robeck Jr. & Amos Yong. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014: 13-30.
Pomerville, P. A. The Third Force in Missions: A Pentecostal Contribution to Contemporary Mission Theology. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1985.
Ringer, David. “J. Roswell Flower: Pentecostal Servant and Statesman.” Assemblies of God Heritage (2012): 15-23.
Sepulveda, J. “Pentecostal Theology in the Context of the Struggle for Life.” in D. Kirkpatrick (ed.). Faith Born in the Struggle for Life: A Re-Reading of Protestant Faith in Latin America Today. trans. L. McCo. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1988: 299-318.
Shopshire, James Maynard. “A Socio-Historical Characterization of the Black Pentecostal Movement in America.” Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1975.
Shumway, Charles William. “A Study of The Gift of Tongues.” A. B. thesis, University of Southern California, 1914.
. “A Critical History of Glossolalia.” Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1919: https://archive.org/details/criticalhistoryo00shumf. Accessed January 13, 2018.
Stephens, Randall J. “Assessing the Roots of Pentecostalism: A Historiographic Essay.” http://are.as.wvu.edu/pentroot.htm. Accessed January 18, 2018.
Synan, Vinson. The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971.
. “The Origins of the Pentecostal Movement.” http://www.oru.edu/library/special_collections/holy_spirit_research_center/pentecostal_history.php. Accessed January 15, 2018.
Tinney, James S. “William J. Seymour: Father of Modern-Day Pentecostalism.” Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center. Vol. 4, No. 1 (Fall, 1976): 34-44.
Tuttle, Capt. L. H. “Preface.” in Charles F. Parham, A Voice Crying in The Wilderness, second edition, (1910).
“BRO. SEYMOUR’S CALL.” The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 1 (September, 1906): 1
“Christ’s Messages to the Church.” The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 11 (January, 1908): 2.
“Editors Receive the Pentecost.” The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 3 (November, 1906): 3.
“Pentecost with Signs Following: Seven Months of Pentecostal Showers. Jesus, Our Projector and Great Shepherd.” The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 4 (December, 1906): 1.
“The Holy Spirit Bishop of the Church.” The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 9 (June, 1907): 1.
“The Pentecostal Baptism Restored: The Promised Latter Rain Now Being Poured Out on God's Humble People,” The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles) 2 (September, 1906): 1.
<other sources>
“Allan Anderson.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Anderson_(theologian). Accessed January 12, 2018.
“Donald Gee.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Gee. Accessed January 13, 2018.
“Glenn Cook: oneness Apostle.” The Old Landmark. October 16, 2010: https://oldlandmark.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/glenn-cook-oneness-apostle. Accessed January 19, 2018.
“Rev. Dr. Leonard Lovett.” Interfaith Worker Justice. http://67.199.88.109/detail/person.cfm?person_id=125. Accessed January 12, 2018.
“Stanley Frodsham.” http://www.smithwigglesworth.com/pensketches/frodshams.htm. Accessed February 10, 2018.
“Walter Hollenweger.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Hollenweger. Accessed January 12, 2018.
Abstract
Who is the Father of Pentecostal Movement?
Lee, Chang-Soung
There are many theories of the origin of Pentecostal Movement or Pentecsotalism. Which is true among them? The origin is closely connected with the identity of Pentecostalism. Therefore, to define Pentecostalism, one more inquiry of the origin is needed. Examining various theories of the origin: Parham theory, Pneumatic theory, Seymour theory, and Spontaneous/simultaneous theory, this article insists the father of Pentecostalism is Charles F. Parham. Although the heavenly father and spiritual base of Pentecostalism is the Holy Spirit, but to speak earthly, Pentecostalism was started by Parham’s establishing the doctrine: the Spirit baptism should be companied with speaking in tongues, and then was spread from Los Angeles to all over the world by William J. Seymour in 1906. Historically and doctrinally, the earthly father or founder of Pentecostalism is Parham. The yardstick for the determination of the origin is not race mixture, orality, or manifestations of gifts of the Spirit, but the theological proposition, doctrine: the Bible evidence of the Spirit baptism is speaking in tongues. The identity of Pentecostalism, as it is included in the name already, must be based on the historical fact: the first Pentecostal Spirit baptism of Acts 2 was accompanied with speaking in tongues. Parham became the father and origin of Pentecostalism through establishing such a theological doctrine of Pentecostalism.
Keywords: the Origin/Father of Pentecostalism, Parham origin, Seymour origin, Pneumatic origin, Spontaneous/simultaneous origins, the Identity of Pentecostalism, Speaking in tongues as the Bible evidence