This book discusses P. in the different continents from its inception to present day, as well as the relationships b/t P. and Charismatics and their religious, political, and social contexts. It provides a non-parochial, global, and contextual perspective on the history and theology of P. He does not narrow the term P. to mean only those who speak in tongues, but rather broadens it to include those who are phenomenologically alike unto ‘classical’ P.’s; in fact, he thinks “Pentecostal” is appropriate for all churches who emphasize the workings of the Spirit. Augustine despised the idea of speaking in tongues (21), noting that it was only for infidels and fools. Luther said tongues were a sign for Jews and were no longer needed; Calvin said tongues facilitated preaching in other languages but are now no longer needed (23).
Charles Fox Parham was a Methodist preacher (resigned 1895), and moved to Topeka Kansas in 1898, where he began a healing ministry and the periodical The Apostolic Faith. By the turn of the 20th century, there existed 3 distinct groups of Holiness adherents: 1) the Wesleyan position, which held that ‘entire sanctification’ or ‘perfect love’ was the ‘second blessing’ or BHS; 2) the Keswick position that held BHM was an enduement with power for service; and 3) the ‘third blessing’ position, composed of the second blessing along with the later ‘baptism with fire’ – the US Pentecostals would follow this third position, but would equate the third blessing with BHS, evidenced by speaking in tongues(29). When Parham began a bible school in Houston TX, in 1905, William Seymour, a black preacher, listened in on his lectures through a half-opened door, and was persuaded by Parham’s views on BHS. Seymour was later invited to be the pastor of a small African American Holiness church in Los Angeles; when he arrived, he preached about speaking in tongues(though he had done so yet) , and the church later locked him out. He continued to meet with people at a house on Bonnie Brae ST. Within a week, 7 people had received BHS through Seymour, and the group moved into an old AME building on 312 Azusa St., where meetings were held daily from 10AM until late at night. People falling to the ground ‘slain’ was a common experience (39).
In what could have been a type of ecumenical leaning, Seymour employed a thoroughly integrated approach to leadership, using white and black women and men. In fact, Bartleman says that ‘the color line was washed away by the blood’. Seymour saw the P. movement as breaking down human barriers, dissolving race/class/gender distinctions, creating instead one family (60-61). Parham tried to take over the group in 1908 b/c he could not submit to black leadership, but failed. Nevertheless, by 1912, Seymour’s congregation at Azusa St. had become a small black-only congregation, and a constitution ruled in 1915 that a black man must always lead the movement. Seymour rejected Parham’s “initial evidence” doctrine, note. Note that Seymour was greatly disturbed by these divisions, due to his ecumenical vision. Bartleman even saw the erection of the sign that read “Apostolic Faith Mission” at Azusa St. as divisor, as ‘there can be no divisions in a true Pentecost, and it proves to the world that we cannot get along [with each other]’ (Azusa Street, 42).The early P. saw unity as spiritual, invisible unity and did not initially place emphasis on unity of doctrine. Robeck does not think P. has lived up to its ecumenical potential (empster, Klaus and Petersen, Globalization of P., 341). Hollenweger asserts that P. began as an ecumenical renewal movement, leading people to incorporate new P. beliefs and practices with their older, more mainline beliefs and practices. Donald Gee stated that the best answer to modernism is not fundamentalism, but Pentecostalism in all its fullness. Hollenweger outlines 4 phases of ecumenical development in P., with each phase taking about 25 years: 1) the beginning, which witnessed the breaking down of denominational boundaries, race and class; 2) localized congregations that accepted the thought forms of their Evangelical antagonists; 3) new denominations form; and 4) a return to the ecumenical root with dialogue b/t P., Catholics, and other ecumenicals. Robeck suggests that those P’s who do not engage in ecumenical activities are arrogant, self-serving, and condescending (“Pentecostals and Ecumenism”).Moreover, he elsewhere says that b/c P.’s have not resolved the issue of identity as related to what being a P. means, they would be hindered from being truly ecumenical . What Yong calls the “Pneumatological imagination” – that is, the experiences of the Spirit – creates tremendous potential for ecumenical co-operation across the divides b/t faith groups. Indeed, the unifying experiences of the Spirit have enormous scope for genuine ecumenical co-operation.
Anderson affirms Hollenweger’s analysis of the black contribution to P.: 1) oral liturgy, 2) narrative theology, and 3) maximum participation by the community (43).
Parham, Seymour, and other early N. American Pentecostals thought they had received tongues in order to evangelize globally, and hundreds attempted to do just that. Indeed, early P. believed the Spirit had been poured out on them for the end-time harvest of souls. Yes, from the beginning P. has been known for its evangelistic zeal, proclaiming Jesus as the Savior, healer, baptizer, and coming king. B/c they saw the world coming to an imminent close (premillennialism), they stressed evangelism more than education. Most were paternalistic, making a dependent convert, and some were even overtly racist. The missions would not have been successful w/o the influence and help of virtually unknown women and men who networked together across regional and national boundaries.
The first missionaries went out only 5 months after the Azusa St. revival begun; by 1910, there were P. missionaries in over 50 nations worldwide. Today, there are ~141 million P. in Latin America, 135 million in Asia, 126 million in Africa, 80 million in N. America, and 38 million in Europe. Latin American P. took place when N. American P. was still emerging (63). Schisms make it difficult to categorize P. in Latin America, and N. American categories simply will not fit (64). Europe has a different and less developed (SMALL, i.e.) P. movement than either Latin or N. America. Portugal is the only European country in which more than 2% of the population is P. and only 10 European countries have more than 1%. There were stronger influences from the Keswickian side of the Holiness movement and Pietism in Europe than in N. America. Most would identify with a “finished work” position in keeping with Reformed theology. In Africa, P. is big business. According to one estimate, 11% of Africa’s population is P/C. In Africa, there are allot of AIC’s (African Initiated Churches) that are phenomenologically P., esp. re: prophecy, speaking in tongues, healing, and exorcism. In Asia, P. permeates every denomination of Christianity and Anderson predicts that the 21st century may see Asia become a world leader in the P. movement re: influence and extent. Anderson says that most of the growth of P. worldwide in the 20th century was not due to the labors of the N. American and European missionaries, but to the uncanny ability of P. to spontaneously contextualize to the situation at hand (175).
The globalization of Charismatic Christianity is verified by 1) the use of the mass communication media to disseminate ideas; 2) a social organization that promotes internationalism through global travel and networking; and 3) a global ‘meta-culture that transcends locality and denominations.
In 1967, the Charismatic movement entered the Catholic Church, beginning at Duquesne University after a couple of students had read “The Cross and the Switchblade”. It spread from there to Notre Dame.
Harvey Cox notes the primal speech, primal piety, and primal hope that P. restored in the 20th century, leading to a renewed primal spirituality (in Fire From Heaven, I.e.).