The Current Status of Global Pentecostalism: A Brief Overview



Global Christian Forum

Committee meeting, Istanbul Turkey, January 2011

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr.

The Current Status of Global Pentecostalism: A Brief Overview

Introduction

If I were to summarize the current status of global Pentecostalism in a word, it would have to be the word “diversity”. Pentecostalism is a movement that is constantly evolving. There was a time when Pentecostals thought they knew who they were. In North America and its mission churches, for example, the Pentecostal Movement has historically viewed its primary contribution to the Church in these “last days” as the recovery of an experience known as baptism in the Holy Spirit, said to empower ordinary Christians to do extraordinary things, and evidenced by speaking in other tongues.[1] In recent years, the methodologies used and the definitions given to those who are understood to be Pentecostal have helped to sort through a number of issues. Yet, they have also blurred earlier lines of thought and self-understanding. In some ways, the discussion has evolved to such an extent that neither researchers nor Pentecostals are as clear about who is and who is not a Pentecostal as once they were.

For at least the past 35 years, it has not been possible to speak of this movement as though it could be represented by the singular noun, Pentecostalism, with a singular definition. It has become necessary to think of a plurality of Pentecostalisms or to think of it as a Movement described with a singular noun to which a series of adjectives must be added, leading to such combinations as Holiness Pentecostalism, Oneness Pentecostalism, Classical Pentecostalism, Neo-Pentecostalism, Catholic Pentecostalism, Progressive Pentecostalism, Global Pentecostalism, and the like.[2] The Pentecostal Movement is now more accurately viewed as a collection of related groups, some of which are better known than others, some of which are in close cooperative relationships with others, some of which have sprung from others, some of which desire to distinguish themselves over against the others, some of which have developed independently of most others, and some of which are not always recognized as legitimate bearers of the “Pentecostal” name.[3] What is it that makes one a Pentecostal? When does a group become a Pentecostal group? Does the manifestation of one or another charism make one a Pentecostal, whether or not that person or that group has either a Pentecostal self-understanding and/or a developed Pentecostal theology? In spite of these questions, Pentecostals are remarkably similar at their core.

Who Has the Right to the Pentecostal Name?

Perhaps the oldest and most widely known designation within the Movement is “Classical Pentecostalism”, a designation given to it in 1976 by Fr. Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B. who wanted some way to identify those Pentecostals with whom the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity had begun to engage in dialogue. His definition of “Classical Pentecostals” was “those groups of Pentecostals which grew out of the Holiness Movement at the beginning of the [20th] century.”[4] It is a North American based historical definition that carries the implicit theological undertone of “holiness”. While this definition may have been useful in 1976, even at that time it lacked precision. It assumed that North American Pentecostal denominations spoke for most Pentecostals around the world. It was clearly an inadequate designation even for those Pentecostal groups that grew out of the Holiness Movement. It was too inclusive.

By McDonnell’s definition, Pentecostals with a classical Trinitarian understanding with whom the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has had fruitful dialogue[5] and Oneness Pentecostal churches with whom dialogue has thus far not been possible[6] could both be designated as “Classical Pentecostal”. Yet, these two strands of Pentecostalism with their deep division over the nature of the Godhead seldom recognize one another as fully legitimate carriers of the Pentecostal name and more often than not they are antagonistic to one another.[7]

The designation “Classical Pentecostal” is also insufficiently specific. Not all Pentecostals who might otherwise be covered by this designation would necessarily claim the Holiness Movement as their direct antecedent. There were other backgrounds that came into play as well. [8]

Very early in his important introduction to Pentecostalism, Professor Allan Anderson made his readers aware of the naming problem.[9] He maintained that the doctrinal construct used by U.S. based Pentecostals in particular, was too narrow since it did not do justice even to the classical European Pentecostal churches that had come into being, in part, under their influence. While he acknowledged the value of McDonnell’s “Classical Pentecostal” designation, he pronounced it overly restrictive given that most U.S. based groups emphasize the specific doctrinal component of baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, while there were other Pentecostal groups existing within the same timeframe that did not. Anderson chose a more globally inclusive definition for Pentecostalism based not so much upon its history or doctrine as important as these factors might be, but one that was more phenominologically (thereby including experience) and practically (making use of practical theology and general practice) based.[10]

More recently, Michael Bergunder, Professor of Religions and Mission Studies at the University of Heidelberg raised similar questions in his study of Pentecostalism in South India. He decided that any attempt to define Pentecostalism had to include both what he termed a diachronic component by which historical links between individuals, congregations, ministries, and denominations together with their splits might be mapped, and a synchronic component that demonstrated the links across these individuals, congregations, ministries, denominations, and their resulting networks. Even so, the gaps that exist in both components continue to cause confusion and frustration as the researcher attempts to make sense of global Pentecostalism.[11]

Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, the noted Ghanaian historian and theologian, has also successfully pointed out that it is critical in this age of globalization, to assess Pentecostalism in terms of its intercultural character. By doing so, it allows new voices, voices from cultures previously overlooked or marginalized, to enter the conversation on the nature of Pentecostalism as peers, with the result that the contextual diversity of Pentecostalism becomes more readily apparent.[12]

There are a host of other designations and definitions by which Pentecostals are or have been known around the world. They have been ridiculed as “Holy Rollers” and “Tangled Tonguers”, and just plain “Tongues People” as though speaking in tongues were all that they ever preached or all that they practiced.[13] In addition, Pentecostals have chosen for themselves names as diverse as “Apostolic”[14], “Full Gospel”, “Sanctified”[15], “Deliverance”, “Latter Rain”[16], “Word of Faith”, “Charismatic”,[17] and “Neo” just to list a few. So it should be clear that the naming of Pentecostals is a highly complex matter.

Pentecostalism has also been described using a “wave” analogy. Frank Bartleman, the preeminent participant-observer of the famous 1906-1909 Azusa Street revival, may have popularized this idea when he noted the waves of revival that rose and fell in history, of which he considered “Azusa Street” to be only the latest.[18] Picking up on this theme, C. Peter Wagner popularized the idea that the earliest Pentecostals formed the “First Wave” of renewal that the Holy Spirit brought to the 20th Century, the Charismatic Movement within historic churches was the “Second Wave” and the “Third Wave” was a description he gave to what he called “Evangelical” churches such as the Vineyard that shared most of the Pentecostal characteristics, but which he wanted to differentiate from older Pentecostal groups so as to paint them as passé.[19] A “Fourth Wave” has been linked to the Toronto Blessing, a “New Apostolic Reformation,” a merger of second and third wave movements, and even to movements associated with young people and deliverance ministries.[20] And then there are the sociologists and anthropologists who employ the same “wave” imagery but fill it with other meanings.

The sociologist Paul Freston for instance, has described the first wave of Pentecostalism in Brazil as occurring during different time periods. The first wave came during the period of the “origin and international expansion”[21] of the Movement. The second wave began when “urbanization and mass society…made possible a form of Pentecostalism” that broke “with existing models” and was fueled by a church that reflected, “enterprising methods forged in the birthplace of mass-media, interwar California.”[22] The third wave began once the majority of Brazilians had been urbanized, a time period following “the authoritarian modernization of the country, especially in communications….”[23]

Still, when others have studied Brazilian Pentecostalism they have linked the “wave” analogy to different doctrinal emphases. Pentecostal groups that emphasize “baptism in the Spirit and sanctification” have been described as “First Wave” Pentecostals [e.g. Assembleias de Deus and the Christian Congregação Christã no Brasil]. Those that emphasize “deliverance and healing” are described as “Second Wave” Pentecostals [Igreja do Evangelho Quadrangular no Brasil and certain evangelists].[24] Televangelists and others who emphasize a “prosperity gospel” are referred to as “Third Wave” Pentecostals [Igreja Pentecostal Deus es Amor and the Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus].[25] But here again we see a problem since how to name those who preach a “prosperity gospel” are frequently described as or claim the self-designation, “Neo-Pentecostal”.[26] Historically, the designation “Neo-Pentecostal” has been used to describe the Charismatic Renewal within mainline Protestant and Catholic churches since at least the late 1960s.[27]

There are other labels that are sometimes invoked when speaking of Pentecostals, labels such as “New Apostolic” not to be confused with (1) those churches who claim apostolicity through the instrument of apostolic succession,[28] or (2) churches such as “The Apostolic Church” a Pentecostal denomination in the U.K., Australia and New Zealand that has since the beginning of the 20th Century claimed the restoration of the apostolic office in its midst[29], or (3) “Apostolic Faith” denominations that stem from the earliest days of the Pentecostal revival in the United States,[30] or (4) the “Apostolic” claim describing “Oneness” Pentecostalism[31] which seeks to follow the literal apostolic example in the Book of Acts by baptizing only in the name of Jesus Christ, thereby rejecting the Trinitarian Formula of Matthew 28:19, or (5) the African Instituted churches,[32] called “Apostolic”, “Pentecostal” or Pentecostal-like”, but rather, (6) newer, often independent and mega-churches that claim to have identified contemporary “apostles” for today’s Church.[33]

The term “Pentecostal-type” has been used to describe a large number of African Independent Churches, many of which have broken with existing Pentecostal denominations for a variety of reasons while others have clearly emerged with more indigenous and autocthonous beginnings. Many such African churches might easily fit into a broader definition of contextualized Pentecostalism.[34] Even the designation “Emerging” is being used to describe certain newer independent churches open to experiencing the Holy Spirit in keeping with traditional Pentecostal doctrine and practice.[35]

There are also those who include Pentecostals among evangélicos, a term used throughout Latin America to refer to non-Catholic Christians.[36] While as many as 75% of those designated as evangélicos in Latin America may be identified as Pentecostals, when this term is taken as an equivalent to “evangelical” either in the United States or in Europe or when Pentecostals are defined simply as “evangelicals” or worse, view themselves as nothing more than evangelicals,[37] more confusion is inserted into the definition of Pentecostalism.[38] Fr. Edward Cleary pointed to the obvious when he observed that evangelicals have often marginalized Pentecostals as “unreliable”, “theologically naïve”, and “heterodox”.[39] One need only think of the books that Evangelicals published on sects and cults prior to 1960 that included Pentecostals, or books by Evangelicals since that time, that attack Pentecostals, in order to see his point.[40] It should be noted that such diversity of nomenclature often obscures issues of identity, structure, leadership, emphasis, and practice, to say nothing of the Pentecostal family tree either diachronically or synchronically. This list of designations which is by no means a comprehensive one should make it clear that there is a rich array of Pentecostalisms in the world today.

Pentecostals form a diverse movement perhaps better described in terms of a medley, a mosaic, or even a musical theme with variations.[41] There is a great deal of overlap between most Pentecostal groups. There is a good deal of harmony between many of them. But there are substantial differences between some of them, which provide them with unique qualities or voices, emphases such as apostolicity, holiness, deliverance, healing, prosperity, ethnicity, and the like. More often than not Pentecostals like their forebears tend to emphasize their differences more often than they do their common features. For many “outsiders” the variety in the highly creative and colorful assortment of denominational and congregational names like Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God with its rhythmic cadence, to say nothing of the multitude of names chosen by independent Pentecostal congregations and ministries, presents a confusing display of differentiation, with little apparent internal cohesiveness.

Not to acknowledge that such differences exist between Pentecostals or that many of these groups should not be placed under the singular rubric of “Pentecostalism” is to ignore the obvious. This variation also encourages untoward triumphalism especially with respect to the size of the movement by any of its constituent parts. In one sense, it is easy to claim today some 614,010,000 “renewalists” [or Pentecostals?] as its portion of the Christian pie and ignore the fact that no more than 20% looks or sounds exactly the same.[42] There is a body of shared belief and practice, but there are also unique characteristics that separate them from one another. While many of the churches described under the Pentecostal rubric could become members in the Pentecostal World Fellowship, the largest of any Pentecostal umbrella organizations, a large percentage would never fit, given its current membership guidelines. Membership requires that applicants subscribe to the Statement of Faith, which affirms that they “believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance according to Acts 2:4, and in the operation of the spiritual gifts and ministries.”[43] As a result, the defining narrative regarding the origin of virtually any Pentecostal stream or family is currently being hotly debated by scholars of the Movement.[44]

To acknowledge this diversity as representing genuine or legitimate manifestations of multiple Pentecostalisms may seem to be the right thing to do given all the nuances that need to be applied when speaking of any Pentecostal group, but for others, especially denominational leaders, it is often viewed as an act of disloyalty. This is especially the case for those who have historically believed that their definition of Pentecostalism is or should be considered normative for all who have a genuine claim on the name “Pentecostal”. They seem to understand this as part of their leadership mandate. Their fear is that by recognizing so many different definitions under the same rubric, they effectively lose control of what that name might mean for their own constituency. As a result, the Movement that they represent runs the risk of blurring its boundaries or erasing aspects of its core identity.[45] This struggle over what constitutes the Pentecostal identity, is clearly a symptom of the times in which we are living, times in which, as the Canadian Pentecostal sociologist, Michael Wilkinson, has clearly demonstrated, the issue of globalization triggers such questions and concerns.[46]

All of this diversity holds implications for how Pentecostals are numbered these days. A term such as “renewalist,” offered in the Atlas of Global Christianity might be useful as a generic umbrella for all of these related “Pentecostal” movements, but that remains to be seen.[47] Who knows? Perhaps the term “Pentecostalism” is no longer viable for the larger movement since it must be so carefully proscribed in so many different ways that it may become virtually meaningless. The Holiness Movement came to that conclusion when those who began to speak in tongues, took the name “Pentecostal” for themselves, changing the meaning that the Holiness Movement had used for itself in earlier times.[48]

It is difficult to keep up with all aspects of a Movement that even a decade ago reportedly opened up five churches a week in greater Rio de Janiero,[49] a Movement in which migrant churches are burgeoning throughout Europe and North America, often outstripping the indigenous population in church attendance[50] while at the same time transforming the nature of what it means to be Pentecostal in their adopted land,[51] a Movement that is both entrepreneurial and overwhelmingly polycephalous in its organization and structures,[52] a Movement whose most significant commodity, even in the churches that proclaim the prosperity gospel, may simply be received by the faithful as hope, rather than the materialism so often displayed in mass media appeals and criticized by so many,[53] a Movement that may have many millions of adherents in a land such as China, where it is difficult at best to obtain reliable numbers, a Movement that works undercover to evangelize Muslims throughout a range of countries where Islam is the dominant force, a Movement that may slowly be emerging as a force to be reckoned with in many countries of the world as it awakens to its potential political power.[54]

What Is the Essence of Pentecostalism?

If we are to make any headway on the question of numbers and any headway in understanding the future of Pentecostalism, it is probably best to ask what its core values are, for this is most likely something that most, if not all of these forms of “Pentecostalism” hold in common. In earlier years, and especially among North American Pentecostals and the missions that they established around the world, it was almost universally understood that a Pentecostal was one who had received a post-conversion baptism in the Holy Spirit that empowered the recipient to minister effectively and the evidence of that baptism was the ability to speak in other tongues.[55] While this may have been the most common position that the earliest Pentecostals held and most Classical Pentecostals still do, especially in North America, even from the earliest years of the Movement, it was not the only position that was held.[56] While the position that speaking in tongues is the evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit is still the official position of the Pentecostal World Fellowship,[57] and it is the position held by the largest of the classical Pentecostal denominations, the Assemblies of God (It claims 63,000,000 members and adherents on its website!)[58], it has also been the subject of much discussion and debate, even among Pentecostals.[59]

In earlier days, for instance, the Open Bible Standard Churches, now known as the Open Bible Churches, held that “The initial evidence of this experience is the speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance”.[60] There was no room for equivocation. More recently, its doctrinal statement has changed, noting only that “believers should anticipate Spirit-baptism to be accompanied by speaking in tongues and other biblical manifestations”.[61] For many Classical Pentecostals, such a change points to a troubling erosion of Pentecostalism’s “core identity”, of what it means to be genuinely Pentecostal.[62] But it seems that if there is a common core that includes all those who claim the Pentecostal name, then what unites them must be understood as even more basic than baptism in the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues.

Pentecostalism, and hence, the multitude of Pentecostalisms that make up this movement is as much a specific type of historically based spirituality as it is anything else. It is a spirituality of encounter with the Triune God.[63] It is a spirituality that recognizes that within the Divine-human encounter with God’s Spirit, a profound transformation in the believer is possible. It changes how one lives one’s life and how one ministers to others.[64] It anticipates the presence and manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the midst of God’s people. Pentecostals of all types hold the expectation that something extraordinary will happen as a result of these encounters, and that some type of spiritual manifestation will be experienced. The expectation that something will happen is as important as the encounter itself. Pentecostals have often maintained that “If people do not expect something from God, they will certainly not receive it”.

This line of thinking is clearly articulated in the testimony of Robert W. Cummings, reared in a Presbyterian family on the mission field of India. When he received his Pentecostal baptism in the Holy Spirit and subsequently left the Presbyterian Church to become an Assemblies of God missionary in India, he wrote in his testimony,

Shameful neglect of the Holy Spirit is the great sin of the Christian Church, and it is the greatest sin of the average Christian. We forget that when the Church came into being at Pentecost every member, the least as well as the greatest, was supernaturally filled with the Holy Spirit….We, however, of this enlightened (?) age, instead of believing the testimony of the Scriptures have taken it for granted that great experiences in the Holy Spirit are only for a favoured few; and we have made demigods of those favoured few….We have told the men and women of our own day who have had great experiences to keep them in the background lest ordinary Christians, our sons and daughters and young people who are hungry for reality, should get the idea that they, too, may have such wonderful experiences. We sum it all up when we piously sing, “I ask no dreams, no prophet ecstasies; no sudden rending of the veil of clay; no angel visitant, no opening skies:-” So we get none.[65]

On the other hand, one can argue, as some have, that the whole Church of Jesus Christ is a Pentecostal or Charismatic Church, since it did receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and the Church as a whole continues to acknowledge both the person and the work of the Holy Spirit. [66] Of course, they are correct in these claims, but even though the Church as a whole has become highly “charismaticized” as a result of the influence of Pentecostalism,[67] that does not make all Christians part of the Pentecostal Movement. As Cummings has suggested, large segments of the Church acknowledge the person of the Holy Spirit, even invoke the Spirit’s presence in their midst, but they seem otherwise to have ignored the Holy Spirit’s work to such an extent that the Spirit is hidden away, or they have institutionalized the Spirit’s work to such an extent that the Holy Spirit seems no longer to be free to move in any but narrowly proscribed ways.[68] There are also segments of the Church that have completely denied specific workings of the Holy Spirit for today, having relegated these workings to some distant generation in the past.[69]

The Pentecostal Movement contends that the Holy Spirit is to be understood as equal with the Father and the Son, and yet different in His work and in the manifestations that mark the Spirit’s presence, and it suggests that the Holy Spirit should be recognized today as being vital to the health of the Church as well as actively present and completely free to do whatever the Spirit of God wishes to do within the Church and in the world. For its part, the Pentecostal Movement claims that it desires to be a willing partner in these actions. As a result, it seeks the presence of the Holy Spirit, expects the Holy Spirit to work in and through ordinary people in extraordinary ways, and anticipates that the Holy Spirit will manifest His work of bearing witness to Jesus Christ, especially through the evangelistic and missionary efforts of its people.[70]

For the Pentecostal Movement, the experience of God may be more important ultimately than are the doctrines they develop when they speak of God. [71] This does not mean that doctrine is unimportant to Pentecostals, for they are just as capable of arguing the finer points of their doctrine as the rest of the Church is. I wish only to suggest that for Pentecostals, the experience of God is very highly valued, but it does come with its own limitations. The late Assemblies of God professor, Gary McGee, summarized this point both as a mark of Pentecostal identity and a challenge for its ongoing existence when he wrote,

In light of the experiential nature of revival (renewal), initial dynamics usually last only for one generation; sometimes they may last longer. In any event, the effects shape the generations that follow, which then ordinarily seek to perpetuate it through the creation of new institutions. For Pentecostals, this has presented a particular dilemma since the attempt to legislate the charismatic work of the Holy Spirit by means of doctrinal statements and denominational requirements can encourage but not guarantee the perpetuation of the prescribed spirituality. Each generation must experience Pentecostal manifestations for the movement to advance on its idealized trajectory.[72]

For Pentecostals to take their experience seriously, they must be willing to submit it to a careful discernment process. Discernment is intended to be a community project and many times the discernment process, especially at the local level, is accomplished in helpful and redemptive ways within the context of oral prayer requests, times of shared prayer, personal testimonies, charismatic manifestations, especially in prophecy, words of wisdom, words of knowledge, even in tongues and the interpretation of tongues, personal times of prayer around the altar, reading the Bible, discussing the Bible, and after discerning the voice of the Holy Spirit, preaching the Word of God,[73] as well as hearing the Word of God preached. There are failures to be sure and there is a need within Pentecostal circles to take the community aspects of discernment more seriously,[74] but on the whole, it functions remarkably well. Most Pentecostal congregations are stable congregations, where people are nurtured and challenged to grow.

Some methods of discernment are more formulaic than are others, as Professor McGee suggested. While discernment often functions well at the local level, the need for discernment has also led to institutional, though some would call them bureaucratic developments, within the larger movement. This movement toward institutionalization, whether through incorporation, setting Bylaws, constructing creeds, or establishing physical structures is frequently guided by leaders who are generally well respected by large numbers of constituents as being men or women of God with the gifts commensurate to their job descriptions. Admission to leadership is earned “through a lifetime of experimentation within the arms of a loving community.”[75] Within a changing world, Pentecostal pastors and denominational executives are expected to lead in the discernment process, pointing the way to what they believe is the leading of the Holy Spirit and in keeping with the community’s agreed standards and expectations. At times such leaders can be very helpful, providing the people with new vision, facilitating the implementation of that vision, or aiding the development of a new program.

On other occasions Pentecostal leadership may serve as sources of deep frustration. As one of my friends working in Argentina noted in an email to me last month, many though by no means all Pentecostal leaders in Argentina seem to be “more concerned with the idea of big church success and the leadership of apostles” than they are in actually engaging in the kind of “apostolic leadership that reaches out to and embraces the small and seemingly insignificant.”[76] This is a criticism that I have heard voiced many times in Brazil as well as in parts of North America and Africa. At its core, this may be a problem in which appropriate discernment has not taken place or does not continue to take place.

This apparent inability to discern appropriately or to allow the freedom of the Spirit within the larger institution as leaders have sought to temper the challenges of individualism such as the personal quest for power has at the same time also discouraged more entrepreneurial leaders who find it difficult to work in and through established structures. Ultimately, this has led to breaks in relationships, some more amicable than others, and the establishment of new ministries and networks.[77] At times the lack of adequate communal discernment at the local level results in congregational splits. And when the communal discernment process at the macro-level is rejected by an individual[78] or even by a group[79] as lacking legitimacy, it often results in splits and new ministries.[80] It can even result in tragedy.[81] The activist approach of many Pentecostals to being the Church in the world has frequently outpaced itself and any desire to grow a well developed theological tradition that could aid in both the visionary and discernment processes.[82]

When the Church is a global reality, the result of any discerning activity that speaks on behalf of the Church should represent something of the global breadth of the Church. Unilateral decisions by any single Christian body are very problematic, as we have seen in recent issues related to the Anglican world. At the same time, any community-based conversation that is less than global runs the risk of not getting the entire story. Too often, the “story” or “truth” that emerges is more a reflection of community desires than it is of the work of God in the world. In recent years, the Pentecostal Movement, including all of the variations on its central theme, has grown dramatically though some parts of it are growing more rapidly than others. Some parts of the Movement have come to a virtual standstill.[83] Many would argue that the Movement has grown because of the leading and nurture of the Holy Spirit. Yet there are still Pentecostals living, who can remember the reverse of that reasoning being used in their apology for why they were so small. The means by which growth is attained and the quality of that growth are both subject to and in need of greater discernment.

Sometimes the desire to evangelize throughout the world, zealously obeying Christ’s command to “Make disciples” has gone beyond the bounds of what it means even to be a good neighbor. This uneven or indiscriminate approach to discerning the leading of the Holy Spirit has left some Pentecostals open to criticisms ranging from proselytism to outright heresy.[84]

What Does the Future of Pentecostalism Look Like?

In a sense, this has been an elitist discussion, an overview of some of the problems researchers and church leaders are facing when speaking about Pentecostalism. It is important to remember that most Pentecostals are subjects in the decisions made in favor of globalization by others. They are not typically the decision makers who are forming globalization policy. Most Pentecostals are far more concerned with how they will feed and clothe their families today and how they will meet the needs of their children for the future, than they are with the shape of Christianity in the world. At the same time, they do raise questions for us to consider, though they would most likely not be able to articulate or nuance them in any sophisticated way.

For me to make such statements should not let any of us believe that questions regarding the relationship between Pentecostals and globalization should not be raised. They simply must be raised if we are to take seriously the shape of the whole Church in the world. We need to be asking what it means that Pentecostalism is so much at home within the developing world and yet it can be easily transferred by migrants, often in new forms, to the developed world. What unique role, might the underclasses of the world play as they continue to enter Pentecostal churches? What does it mean that Pentecostalism is at home within a rural setting, but when Pentecostals move to the city, they find that their faith is sufficiently portable that they can take it with them, transforming the city, while at the same time, being transformed by the city? What role, will the continued urbanization of our world and with it the arrival and development of new forms of Pentecostalisms play in the future?

On a warm Sunday evening in May 2000, I visited a congregation of Igreja Pentecostal Deus Es Amor in São Paulo, Brazil. The sanctuary, a converted cigarette factory I was told, could hold up to 20,000 people, and it was probably 70% full. I was met at the door by several men, who asked what my business was. I explained to them that I was in the city for a conference, and since I had the evening free, I wanted to experience one of their services. I was interviewed for 15 minutes because they thought I might be a journalist, looking to write an exposé. After assuring them that all I really wanted to do was to pray and to observe, they allowed me in.

I was still somewhat off balance as a result of the interview, so I took a seat near the rear of the sanctuary. I had no more than sat down, when another group of four men let me know that I was sitting in a section reserved solely for women. They escorted me to the men’s section. I watched in amazement as the multitude held their offering envelopes in the air and prayed over their offering. These envelopes were marked conspicuously with red ink that made the words look like they were bleeding, “Prosperidade pelo Sangue de Jesus” (Prosperity through the Blood of Jesus). It went on to promise that it was through the blood of Jesus that their victory was assured.

I did some more looking around, and realized that their bookstore was open, so I thought I would investigate. For about 30 minutes, I attempted to purchase one of the Portuguese language Bibles published by the church. At first they would not sell it to me. I ended up telling them that I was a Pentecostal minister and I wanted it for personal study. Finally, the clerk relented. It turned out that it was a translation of the Bible notably out of date, probably equivalent to the King James Version for English speakers, a trusted, conservative translation. More importantly for my sake, it contained a 32 page section of Regulamento Interno (Internal Rules) and another 50 plus pages of songs.

At one level, I was surprised to find such a long list of “Internal Rules”. Upon closer examination, I saw that it covered some doctrine (baptism is Trinitarian), made some sectarian apologetic points (Catholic baptism is a pagan rite because Catholics also sacrifice to idols), and it contained some pastoral thoughts about baptism and minors, baptism and epileptics, and even baptism and divorced people. As I dug further into the “Internal Rules” I found an outline for a highly regulated society. Girls may begin dating at 16 years of age, for instance, and boys at age 18. They must undergo at least one year of dating, supervised by a church elder, and permission may be granted by the church, for them to marry after that year. If they become sexually involved before their engagement is up, they will be punished by the church and if they are permitted to continue dating, the dating period will be extended. Clearly, the church plays a central role in family life.

Many of the rules were the same as many of the rules that have graced the lists of sanctifying borders in other Holiness and Pentecostal congregations, for example it prohibited alcohol, smoking, drugs, cinemas, night clubs, and discotheques. It reflected a conservative class of Pentecostalism, prohibiting jewelry other than a wrist watch or a simple wedding band, and owning or watching a television, and it regulated the modest style of clothing that was to be worn as well as the fact that women were not to cut their hair. I was struck by some of the unique issues that were raised specifically with respect to Brazilian life. Participation in Carnival is prohibited, as is going topless at the beach.

The list of sexual boundaries was long, spelling out in detail what was prohibited, masturbation, fornication, adultery, the use of any form of artificial birth control including surgery (except in cases of health), homosexual activity, and the level of punishment that would be overseen by the church with any violation. But the list was longer than that, for it included things as simple as urinating in a public drinking or bathing fountain and as formidable as pedophilia and bestiality. Clearly, the entire life of an individual was highly regimented according to these internal rules and yet it ministered to thousands of people.

When I raised the question of why this would this be, the response that I received was that the people this particular church brings in, are among the poorest of the poor, who because of their poverty have lived without rules for so long, in essence, like animals, that it is the church’s function to bring the hope of becoming fully human to them by providing a strict discipline on how to live one’s life. These “Internal Rules” may look extremely harsh to the outsider, especially to those of us coming from the developed world, but as my favorite correspondent with the National Catholic Reporter, John Allen, noted in a recent column, “Democracy and the rule of law are sometimes conspicuous for their absence” in the developing world.”[85] I would suggest that this may be especially the case among those who are on the margins of the margins.

On that same trip to São Paulo, I also ventured into a Sunday evening service at a downtown Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus congregation. When I entered the sanctuary, I was handed a leaflet on which I was instructed to write my name and the problems for which I wished to have prayer. The leaflet instructed me to place my request in the hand of a pastor who would pray for me and my family. The only promise on it was “A miracle is waiting for you!”

I knew that the church was one of those that preached a “prosperity gospel,” but it was not readily apparent on that leaflet. Instead, on the reverse side, it proclaimed in large print, “Stop Suffering! There is a solution to your problem. Our doors are open every day for you. Choose and participate in a prayer chain.” A passage of Scripture was given for each one of these groups, and it pointed to the hour that specific requests were addressed. At 2 PM, they prayed regarding one’s thoughts, at 3 it was health needs, at 4 it was for renewal of the Holy Spirit, at 5 it was for one’s salvation and that of his or her family, and at 6 it was for deliverance from sin. Saturday was said to offer a gathering of petition according to James 5:4, and Sunday spoke to spiritual salvation according to Psalm 68:19. In each of these cases, it was clear that what was being offered to those who entered the door of the church, was not an articulated theology of prosperity, but a genuine attempt to point people to those who could help to meet their personal needs.

Conclusion

As I look at Pentecostalism around the world, a number of issues attract my attention. It is not the Movement’s diversity alone that contributes to my interest nor is it necessarily the phenomenal growth rate that we have witnessed in this Movement in recent years, though both of these points are worthy of further reflection. It is that Pentecostalism has much to offer to its participants that seem not to be always obvious or readily available in other religious traditions. It is that Pentecostalism seems to be more at home in the developing world than it is in the developed world. It is that the contextual differences that are possible within Pentecostalism seem to have fewer limits than might be the case in many other traditions. It is the nature of Pentecostalism as a religion developed “from below” rather than a reasoned religion “from above” to include more flexibility. It seems to show up in the tension that exists between charisma and institution. In many traditions, this tension seems to have been resolved almost entirely in institutional terms, leaving little for the average layperson to do except be a spectator. It is a fact that unlike most other theological traditions and denominational families, Pentecostalism has found ways to permeate virtually all parts of the Christian family.

While these appear to be a few positive features that Pentecostalism brings to the Church, the Movement is not without its problems. Many of my most significant concerns focus on the kind of leadership that is currently in place within the movement, or the kinds of leadership I think it needs if it is going to continue to offer the vitality that it seems to have in so many places, especially in the developing world.

It seems to me that the Pentecostal Movement needs leaders who can attract and hold the interest of younger people. In many places that is being done well, but it is also the case that in many places, the once vibrant character of the Movement is definitely waning. This needs to be addressed. Young people are often being educated past the level of their pastors. It seems to me that the Pentecostal Movement needs leaders who are better equipped theologically. As it stands, it is commonly the case that those from within the Movement who go on for advanced theological education, end up leaving the Movement altogether. They are in need of mentors and financial assistance that will help to facilitate their continuation with the Movement. The Pentecostal needs leaders who are not afraid, who are not led solely by marketing concerns, or by the fear that disagreement means betrayal. The Movement needs leaders who are personally secure in what they know to be true, and able to combat the kinds of anti-intellectualism that has been so much a part of many Pentecostal churches.

I am also interested in the fact that in recent years, Pentecostalism has become much more politically active than it was earlier in its existence. We have yet to see what this portends for the future of Pentecostalism. It is clear that the idea of Christendom, in which Church and State were theoretically if not actually aligned with one another, presented some positive features, but it also presented some major challenges. The Church was not always successful in that relationship. In a sense, the breakdown of Christendom was a good thing. I don’t posit a new Christendom, but it is clear that something new is in the process of appearing, and it will continue to include Pentecostalism even as it struggles with its various forms in an attempt to keep from fracturing still further.

Finally, I am interested in the fact that some aspects of the Pentecostal Movement seem to be becoming more ecumenically aware. A series of events at the recent meeting of the Pentecostal World Conference in Stockholm, Sweden (August 2010) leave me cautiously optimistic about future ecumenical openings that are yet difficult to predict. The Pentecostal World Fellowship probably represents the interests of 100 million mostly Classical Pentecostals, though without much work, I believe that it could easily double that number. During its recent meeting, several points need to be recognized as opening up new opportunities. The new General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, Olav Fykse Tviet, was invited to attend the Conference and to bring greetings during a morning plenary session. In addition, several WCC staff members and related persons participated in the meeting. Dr. Geoff Tunnecliffe, General Secretary of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEF) was also given the opportunity to greet a plenary morning session of the Conference.

The number of times that speakers mentioned the need for Pentecostals to seek greater unity with the larger Church, with some of them addressing the topic at length, was extraordinary. The Global Christian Forum figured heavily in the growing openness of Pentecostal leadership to greater ecumenical cooperation. Because of his experience with the Forum, Bishop James Leggett, then Chairman of the Fellowship, invited me to meet with the Executive Committee of the Pentecostal World Fellowship for 15 minutes, so that I could present them with a report on the status of the ecumenical opportunities currently confronting the movement. Since that meeting, I have received several notes from various members of that committee supporting further thought by the Pentecostal World Fellowship.

At this meeting, the Reverend Prince Guneratnam was elected to succeed Bishop James Leggett as Chairman of the Pentecostal World Fellowship.  Prince Guneratnam, former General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God in Malaysia may have become the first person from outside North America to hold this position. He has participated in and made a substantial commitment to the Global Christian Forum and currently serves on its board.  Dr. Isak Berger, President of the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa was elected Vice-Chairman. And the newly elected Secretary of the Pentecostal World Fellowship is Dr. Matthew Thomas, President of the Fellowship of Pentecostal Churches in India and President of Central India Pentecostal Seminary. Such changes bring about new possibilities and point quite clearly that the center of gravity for the Pentecostal Movement has definitely moved to the South and East.

-----------------------

[1] “The Pentecostal Baptism Restored,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles, CA] 1.2 (October 1906), 1.1; “Bible Pentecost,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles, CA] 1.3 (November 1906), 1.1; “The True Pentecost,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles, CA] 1.4 (December 1906), 2.5.

[2] Cecil M. Robeck, Jr, “Making Sense of Pentecostalism in a Global Context,” an unpublished paper presented to the Society for Pentecostal Studies in Springfield, MO (March 13, 1999), 18; Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 10; Miller and Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism, 1-2.

[3] See, for instance, the discussion in Ogbu Kalu, African Pentecostalism: An Introduction (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2008), 65-83, who explains the complicated relationship between the more Classical Pentecostal churches in South Africa and the Pentecostal-type AICs in the region.

[4] Kilian McDonnell, Charismatic Renewal and the Churches (New York NY: The Seabury Press, 1976), 2.

[5] For all reports from this dialogue, see: .

[6] Oneness Pentecostals tend to embrace a modal expression of the Godhead. See, David A. Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”: The History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 31 (Blandford Forum, UK: Deo Publishing, 2008), 394 pp. It must be acknowledged that in 1976, Kilian McDonnell knew who Oneness Pentecostals were and he knew that Rome was not in dialogue with Oneness Pentecostals at that time [nor even now] so his definition may simply have assumed a classical Trinitarian intention. But that is not stated.

[7] Within the larger context of his argument regarding the need for “real” Pentecostals to be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ as in Acts 2:38 rather than with the Trinitarian formula, an anonymous author wrote, “To be truly Pentecostal, one must follow the pattern established on the Day of Pentecost. It’s that simple. Read Acts 2 again to see what happened and what they did on that day. Only those who completely follow the Pentecostal pattern have a right to the name. However, many do use the term “Pentecostal” whose only claim would be that they “speak in tongues”. “Will the Real Pentecostals Please Stand Up?” (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1973), 8.

[8] William W. Menzies, “The Reformed Roots of Pentecostalism,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 9 (2006), 260-282; Edith Waldvogel, “The ‘Overcoming’ Life: A Study in the Reformed Evangelical Contribution to Pentecostalism,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 1:1 (Spring 1979), 7-19; Peter Althouse, “The Influence of Dr. J. E. Purdie’s Reformed Anglican Theology on the Formation and Development of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 19:1 (1997), 3-28.

[9] Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, 9-15.

[10] Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, 13-14.

[11] Michael Bergunder, The South Indian Pentecostal Movement in the Twentieth Century (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 11-14.

[12] J. Kabena Asamoah-Gyadu, African Charismatics: Current Developments within Independent Indigenous Pentecostalism in Ghana (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2005), 10-14.

[13] “Rollers in Frenzy,” Los Angeles Herald Wednesday (July 17, 1907), 12; “Tangled Tonguers Holding Monster Revival in Ohio,” The Oregon Daily Journal (June 16, 1907), 2; “Effect of the Tongues Movement,” The Free Methodist [Chicago, IL] (November 6, 1906), 8-9 (712-713); “‘Tongues’ People,” The Burning Bush 7:49 (December 3, 1908), 4-5; “Origin of the Tongues Movement,” Pillar of Fire 11:28 (July 13, 1910), 6-7.

[14] Many Pentecostal groups include this term in their name (e.g. The Apostolic Church of God, Apostolic Faith Mission, Church of our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith) though not all churches that include this designation are Pentecostal (e.g. The Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church, the Apostolic Christian Church of America). See the Apostolic World Christian Fellowship at .

[15] These churches most frequently found within the African American community should not be confused with strictly Holiness churches that use this term as well. See Cheryl J. Sanders, The Holiness-Pentecostal Experience in African American Religion and Culture Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1999.

[16] This term has been used to describe both early Pentecostal churches (e.g. D. Wesley Myland, The Latter Rain Covenant and Pentecostal Power Chicago, IL: The Evangel Publishing House, 1910, 2nd Edition, 1911) and a group of more or less independent churches that emerged from several North American Pentecostal denominations during the late 40s and 50s [Richard Riss, “The Latter Rain Movement of 1948,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 4:1 (Spring, 1982), 32-45, reprinted as “The New Order of the Latter Rain,” Assemblies of God Heritage 7:3 (Fall, 1987) 15-19].

[17] These churches should not be confused with those of the Charismatic Renewal with ties to the historic Protestant, Anglican, Catholic, or Orthodox Churches

[18] In 1928, Frank Bartleman published an six page tract titled “Pentecost – Or No Pentecost,” 5, in which he likened God’s dealings with the Church as occurring in waves, with each new wave being resisted by the previous one as its influence receded. “The last wave of restoration,” he contended, “will bring Jesus,” a clear reference to the Second Coming.

[19] C. Peter Wagner, The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit: Encountering the Power of Signs and Wonders (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1988), 15-19; Samuel Escobar, Changing Tides: Latin America and World Mission Today (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002), 78-82.

[20] Mark Stibbe, Times of Refreshing: A Practical Theology of Revival for Today London: Marshall Pickering, 1995; William John Lyons, “The Fourth Wave and the Approaching Millennium: Some Problems with Charismatic Hermeneutics,” Anvil 15:1998), 169-180; R. T. Kendall, The Anointing Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999; C. Peter Wagner, Churchquake! How the New Apostolic Reformation Is Shking up the Church as We Know It (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1999), especially 33-53; Biola University professor, Brad Cristerson speaks about it in terms of young people and deliverance ministries at: biola.edu/news/articles/2010/101015_christerson.cfm.

[21] Paul Freston, “Pentecostalism in Brazil: A Brief History,” Religion 25 (1995), 120.

[22] Freston, “Pentecostalism in Brazil: A Brief History,” 120.

[23] Freston, “Pentecostalism in Brazil: A Brief History,” 120.

[24] André Corten, Pentecostalism in Brazil: Emotion of the Poor and Theological Romanticism (London, UK: MacMillan Press, Ltd / New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, Inc., 1999), 46-58; André Droogers, “Paradoxical Views on a Paradoxical Religion: Models for the Explanation of Pentecostal Expansion in Brazil and Chile,” in Barbara Boudewijnse, André Droogers, and Frans Kamsteeg, Eds. More Than Opium: An Anthropological Approach to Latin American and Caribbean Pentecostal Praxis (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1998), 2, 8; Andrew Chesnut, Born Again in Brazil: The Pentecostal Boom and the Pathogens of Poverty (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997), 34-48.

[25] André Droogers, “Globalisation and Pentecostal Success,” in André Corten and Ruth Marshall-Fratani, Eds, Between Babel and Pentecost: Transnational Pentecostalism in Africa and Latin America (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001), 46-47.

[26] Leonido Silveira Campos, Teatro, Temple e Mercado: Organizaçã e Marketing de um Empreendimento Neopentecostal (Petrópolis, Brasil: Vozes / São Paulo: Simpósio Editora e Universidade Metodista de São Paulo, 1997;

[27] Walter Wietake and Jack Husted, Towards a Mutual Understanding of Neo-Pentecostalism Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press, 1973; Richard Quebedeaux, The New Charismatics: The Origins, Development, and Significance of Neo-Pentecostalism (New York, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1976), 252 pp.; Charles Edwin Jones, The Charismatic Movement: A Guide to the Study of Neo-Pentecostalism with Emphasis on Anglo-American Sources ATLA Bibliography Series, No. 30 (Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. and the American Theological Library Association, 1995) 2 Volumes; Michael Girolimon, “‘The Charismatic Wiggle’: United Methodism’s Twentieth-Century Neo-Pentecostal Impulses,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 17:1 (Spring 1995), 89-103.

[28] See, for example, the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church whose history is described in Aziz S. Atiya, History of Eastern Christianity (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967; Millwood, NY: KrausReprint, 1991), 303-356 and Manoushag Boyadjian, “The Armenian Church: Cultural Role and Heritage,” in Habib Badr, Suad Abou el Rouss Slim, and Joseph Abou Nohra, Eds, Christianity: A History in the Middle East (Beirut, Lebanon, Middle East Council of Churches, 2005), 361-376.

[29] J. E. Worsfold, A History of the Charismatic Movements in New Zealand with a breviate of the Catholic Apostolic Church in Great Britain (Bradford, England: Julian Literature Trust, 1974), 241. The pedigree of the Apostolic Church goes back to 1908.

[30] These would include the Apostolic Faith Church (Baxter Springs, KS), The Apostolic Faith (Portland, OR), Church of God of the Apostolic Faith, and the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa.

[31] One can find such websites as apostolic-, which features an Apostolic Church Directory with access to some 1421 “Apostolic Pentecostal Churches and Ministries on the World Wide Web,” , a website that features an Apostolic Pentecostal Churches U.S. Directory with over 5000 entries, a list of over 1500 Apostolic churches worldwide, and another 150 apostolic ministries. These are all “Oneness” Pentecostal groups.

[32] B. G. M. Sundkler, Bantu Prophets in South Africa (Oxford, England: The International African Institute/ Oxford University Press, 1948, Second Edition, 1961), 38-59; Anderson, Zion and Pentecost: The Spirituality and Experience of Pentecostal and Zionist/Apostolic Churches in South Africa African Initiatives in Christian Mission 6 (Pretoria, RSA: University of South Africa Press, 2000), 30-40, has a very helpful discussion of the issues surrounding the naming this particular segment of African Christianity.

[33] C. Peter Wagner, Ed. The New Apostolic Churches Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1998; C. Peter Wagner, Apostles and Prophets: The Foundation of the Church Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2001; C. Peter Wagner, Apostles Today Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2006.

[34] There are scores of examples that could be cited here. For a discussion on this subject, see Allan Anderson, Introduction to Pentecostalism, 103

[35] Earl Creps, “Postmodern Pentecostals? Emerging Subcultures among Young Pentecostal Leaders,” in Eric Patterson and Edmund Rybarczyk, Eds. The Future of Pentecostalism in the United States (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007), 27-39.

[36] Frans H. Kamsteeg, Prophetic Pentecostalism in Chile: A Case Study on Religion and Development Policy Studies in Evangelicalism, Nr. 15 (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Ltd., 1998), 9.

[37] Edmund J. Rybarczyk, “Introduction: American Pentecostalism: Challenges and Temptations,” in Patterson and Rybarczyk, Eds. The Future of Pentecostalism in the United States, 7-8.

[38] A number of Pentecostal denominations are members of the World Evangelical Alliance, for instance, although their distinctive contribution as “Pentecostals” is ignored. It should be noted that Pentecostals were first courted by the Evangelical community not because of their distinctive qualities, but in spite of their distinctive qualities. Margaret M. Poloma, The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas (Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 1989), 241-243, noted two decades ago, the high cost that Pentecostals have paid to be numbered among Evangelicals. More recently, she has conceded Pentecostalism to be a subset of Evangelicalism. See Margaret M. Poloma and John C. Green, The Assemblies of God: Godly Love and the Revitalization of American Pentecostalism (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2010), 3-6, especially 4.

[39] Edward L. Cleary, “Introduction: Pentecostals, Prominence, and Politics,” in Edward L. Cleary and Hannah W. Stewart-Gambino, Power, Politics, and Pentecostals in Latin America (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), 8. See, for instance, Michael Moriarty, The New Charismatics: A Concerned Voice Responds to Dangerous New Trends (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 353, who describes Pentecostals as “experience-centered”, “personality-centered”, “theologically thin”, and “divisive”. Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (London, UK: T & T Clark, 2008), 262, notes that many evangelicals were opposed to Pentecostal participation in Lausanne II in 1989.

[40] See, for instance, Carroll Stegall, Jr. and Carl C. Harwood, The Modern Tongues and Healing Movement (Denver, CO: The Western Bible Institute, no date), 56 pp; E. E. Shelhamer, False Doctrines and Fanaticism Exposed (Syracuse, NY: The Wesleyan Methodist Publishing House, no date), especially 62-64; R. P. (Bob) Shuler, “McPhersonism”: A Study of “Healing” Cults and Modern Day “Tongues” Movements (Los Angeles, CA: J. R. Spencer, Publisher, 1924; John R. Church, Which is Right – One – Two – or Three Works of Grace? Is Speaking in Tongues a Sign of the Baptism of the Spirit? Louisville, KY: Pentecostal Publishing Company, no date; Robert G. Gromacki, The Modern Tongues Movement, Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1967, J. J. Pollock, Modern Pentecostalism, Foursquare Gospel, “Healings” and “Tongues” Are These of God? London, England: The Central Bible Truth Depot, no date.

[41] Gary B. McGee, Miracles, Missions, and American Pentecostalism American Society of Missiology Series, No. 45 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010), 207, calls it “a plurality of revivals …with similar phenomena, but with somewhat different emphases.”

[42] Vinson Synan, The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 372. In 2001, Synan referred to 530,000,000. As early as 1994, Gary B. McGee, “Pentecostal Missiology: Moving Beyond Triumphalism to Face the Facts,” Pneuma: The Journal of The Society for Pentecostal Studies 16 (1994), 276, raised questions about whether the process of naming so many groups under the rubric of Pentecostalism was not the result of a flawed research methodology.

[43] See about/aboutus.htm#beliefs . It seems clear that the Statement of Faith is open to interpretation, for some Pentecostal organizations that belong to the Pentecostal World Fellowship do not view this particular statement in the same way that the majority do. The leadership of the Pentecostal World Fellowship is currently concerned with dwindling interest and is attempting to discern the future of the organization. Part of the problem is that it has been dominated by Classical Pentecostal leadership from the United States of America since its inception in 1947. Another problem is that the desire of many European and North American Pentecostals to form an organization at that time in order to conduct business of mutual concern was scuttled, largely because Lewi Pethrus and the Scandinavians and Brazilians who followed his lead said that they would not participate if that were the case. Their radical congregational polity allegedly does not allow them to participate in such an organization.

[44] See, for example, Allan Anderson, “Varieties, Taxonomies, and Definitions,” in Allan Anderson, Michael Bergunder, Andre Droogers and Cornelis van der Laan, Eds. Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2010),13-29; Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, 166-183; Cornelis van der Laan, “Historical Approaches,” in Allan Anderson, Michael Bergunder, Andre Droogers and Cornelis van der Laan, Eds. Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2010),202-219; Gary B. McGee, Miracles, Missions, and American Pentecostalism, 206-209;

[45] A similar frustration with events within the Anglican community has been expressed in these terms in Caroline A. Westerhoff, Good Fences: The Boundaries of Hospitality (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 1999, 2004), xii. For the story in the Assemblies of God, see Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “An Emerging Magisterium? The Case of the Assemblies of God,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 25:2 (2003), 164-215 and in Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies, Eds. The Spirit and Spirituality: Essays in Honour of Russell P. Spittler, JPT Supp. 24 (London, England: T. & T. Clark International/Continuum, 2004), 212-252.

[46] Michael Wilkinson, The Spirit Said Go: Pentecostal Immigrants in Canada Series VII, Theology and Religion, Volume 257 (New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2006 ), 30

[47] Todd M. Johnson and Kenneth R. Ross, Eds., Atlas of Global Christianity (Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 100.

[48]

[49] Richard Shaull and Waldo Cesar, Pentecostalism and the Future of the Christian Churches: Promises, Limitations, Challenges (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 4.

[50] Claudia Währisch-Oblau, The Missionary Self-Perception of Pentecostal/Charismatic Church Leaders from the Global South in Europe (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2009), 5-6; André Droogers, Cornelis van der Laan, Wout van Laar, Eds. Fruitful in This Land: Pluralism, Dialogue and Healing in Migrant Pentecostalism Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 2006; Michael Bergunder and Jörg Haustein, Eds. Migration und Identität: Pfingstlich-charismatische Migrationsgemeinden in Deutschland Beiheft der Zeitschrift für Mission, No. 8, Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Verelag Otto Lembeck, 2006.

[51] Michael Wilkinson, “What’s ‘Global’ about Global Pentecostalism?” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 17 (2008), 107-108.

[52] Gotthard Oblau, “Pentecostal by Default? Contemporary Christianity in China,” in Allan Anderson and Edmond Tang, Eds. Asian and Pentecostal: The Charismatic Face of Christianity in Asia Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies Series 3 (Oxford, England: Regnum Books International, 2005), 416.

[53] The idea of hope stands at the heart of the Pentecostal message. That is what Pentecostals preach. While Pentecostal prosperity preachers are rightly criticized when abusing their flocks by making outlandish claims, making the quest for material things appear to be consistent with the Bible, and living lavish lifestyles, I have yet to see any treatment of prosperity preachers that assesses their role as dispensers of hope to people who often come from hopeless situations. See, for instance, Paulo Romeiro, SuperCrentes: O Evangelho Segundo Kenneth Hagin, Valnice Milhomens e os Profetas da Prosperidade (São Paulo, Brazil: Mundo Cristão, 1993, Sixth Edition, 1996; Leonildo Silveira Campos, Teatro, Templo e Mercado: Organização e Marketing de um Empreendimento Neopentecostal Petropolis, Brazil: Vozes / São Paulo, Brazil: Simpósio Editoria e Universidad Metodista de São Paulo, 1999; Simon Coleman, The Globalization of Charismatic Christianity: Spreading the Gospel of Prosperity Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000; Andrew Perriman, Ed. Faith, Health and Prosperity: A Report on ‘Word of Faith’ and ‘Positive Confession’ Theologies by The Evangelical Alliance (UK) Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2003; Milmon F. Harrison, Righteous Riches: The Word of Faith Movement in Contemporary African American Religion New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005; Stephanie Y. Mitchem, Name It and Claim It? Prosperity Preaching in the Black Church (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2007; and Jonathan L. Walton, Watch This! The Ethics and Aesthetics of Black Televangelism, New York, NY: New York University Press, 2009.

[54] So far, the verdict is mixed. Pentecostals have not been effective or well received in the political arena in places like Guatemala (Rios Montt) or the United States of America (Pat Robertson, John Watt, John Ashcroft, and Sarah Palin). They seem to be more effective in Brazil. Edward L. Cleary and Hannah W. Stewart-Gambino, Eds. Power, Politics, and Pentecostals in Latin America (Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1997; Corten, André Corten and André Mary, Eds. Imaginaires politiques et pentecôtismes: Afrique / Amérique latine, Paris, France: Éditions KARTHALA, 2000, each contain several articles on Pentecostal political engagement. There are many other articles and a few books on the subject as well. Cf. Timothy J. Steigenga, The Politics of the Spirit: The Political Implications of Pentecostalized Religion in Costa Rica and Guatemala Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2002. Javier Orozco, “Los Pentecostales durante los diez años de gobierno sandinista,” in Tomás Gutiérrez S. Ed. Protestanismo y Politica en America Latina y el Caribe: Entre la Sociedad Civil y el Estado (Lima, Peru: CEHILA, 1996), 223-234; Calvin L. Smith, “Revolutionaries and Revivalists: Pentecostal Eschatology, Politics and the Nicaraguan Revolution,” Pneuma: the Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 30 (1008), 55-82; Paul Freston, “Brother Votes for Brother: The New Politics of Protestantism in Brazil,” in Virginia Garrard-Burnett and David Stoll, Eds. Rethinking Protestantism in Latin America (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1993), 66-110; Roberto José Schuler, Pfingstbewegungen in Brasilien: Sozio-politische Implikationen der neuen Pluralität Theologische Dissertationen, Band 23 (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 2004), 188 pp.; Frans Kamsteeg, “Pentecostalism and Political Awakening in Pinochet’s Chile and Beyond,” in Christian Smith and Joshua Prokopy, Ed, Latin American Religion in Motion (New York: Routledge, 1999), 187-204., to name a few

[55] C. F. Parham, Kol Kare Bomidbar: A Voice Crying in the Wilderness (Kansas City, MO: privately published, 1902, rpt. Joplin, MO: Joplin Printing Co., 1944), 25-38; “The Baptism with the Holy Ghost,” The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles] 1:11 (October [1907] to January 1908), 4.1; Minutes of the Twenty-Ninth General Council of the Assemblies of God Convened at Portland, Oregon August 23-29, 1961 (Springfield, MO: Office of the General Secretary, 1961), 22.

[56] See for instance, C. Alvarez, P. Correa, M. Poblete, P. Guell, Historia de la Iglesia Pentecostal de Chile (Santiago, Chile: Ediciones Rehue Ltda, n.d.), 54, which includes the affirmation long held in the Declaracion de Fe de la Iglesia Pentecostal de Chile. It reads, [Section 10] “CREEMOS: en el Espíritu Santo como una gracia y promesa para todos los creyentes en EL. [Section 11] Que: el hablar en otros lenguas, danzar, tener visiones, profetizar o cualquier manifestacíon conforme a la palabra de Dios, son una evidencia del bautismo del Espíritu Santo.”

[57] See its official website at: for a copy of its Statement of Faith.

[58] See the official website of the Assemblies of God for a copy of the Statement of Fundamental Truths, Articles 7 and 8 at: .

[59] See, for example, Jack Hayford, The Beauty of Spiritual Language: My Journey Toward the Heart of God (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1992), 96; Gary B. McGee, Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991; Simon Chan, “The Language Game of Glossolalia, or Making Sense of the ‘Initial Evidence’,” in Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies, Eds. Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William W. Menzies, JPTSupp. 11, Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 80-95; Simon Chan, “Evidential Glossolalia and the Doctrine of Subsequence,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2:2 (1999), 195-211; Mathew S. Clark, “Initial Evidence: A Southern African Perspective,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 1:2 (1998), 203-217; Harold D. Hunter, “Aspects of Initial-Evidence Dogma: A European-American Holiness Pentecostal Perspective,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 1:2 (1998), 185-202; David Lim, “A Reflection on the ‘Initial Evidence’ Discussion from a Pentecostal Pastor’s Perspective,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2:2 (1999), 223-232; Frank D. Macchia, “Groans too Deep for Words: Towards a Theology of Tongues as Initial Evidence,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 1:2 (1998), 149-173; Robert P. Menzies, “Evidential Tongues: An Essay on Theological Method,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 1:2 (1998), 111-123; David Petts, “The Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Theological Distinctive,” in Keith Warrington, Ed., Pentecostal Perspectives, (Carlisle, Cumbria, England: Paternoster Press, 1998), 98-119; Jean-Daniel Plüss, “Initial Evidence or Evident Initials?: A European Point of View on a Pentecostal Distinctive,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2:2 (1999), 213-222.

[60] “Articles of Faith of the Open Bible Standard Churches, Inc,” Article J.1, “Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” in Minister’s Manual Containing the Policies and Principles of the Open Bible Standard Churches, Inc., (Des Moines, IA: Open Bible Standard Churches, Inc., 1969, amended through June 1977), 51.

[61] This quotation is taken from the article on “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” contained in the Statement of Faith found at about_faith.aspx. Accessed January 7, 2011. On this change, see David Cole, “Heritage and Horizons: The Derivation and Destiny of Open Bible Churches,” in Patterson and Rybarczyk, Eds. The Future of Pentecostalism in the United States, 165.

[62] Michael J. Bare, “The Editors,” Agora, 1:2 (Fall, 1977), 15; James K. Bridges, “Assemblies of God Schools and Scholars for the 21st Century,” Enrichment: A Journal of Pentecostal Ministry 4:4 (Fall 1999), 96; James K. Bridges, “The Full Consummation of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit”, 92.

[63] Mark J. Cartledge, Encountering the Spirit: The Charismatic Tradition Traditions of Christian Spirituality Series (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006), 19, 25-27; Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 1-16, 20-27; Simon Chan, “Encountering the Triune God: Spirituality since the Azusa Street Revival,” in Harold D. Hunter and Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., Eds. The Azusa Street Revival and Its Legacy (Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 2006), 215-226.

[64] Matthew S. Clark and Henry I Lederle, What Is Distinctive about Pentecostal Theology? (Pretoria, South Africa: University of South Africa, 1989), 43-65; Mark J. Cartledge, Encountering the Spirit: The Charismatic Tradition Traditions of Christian Spirituality Series (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006), 19, 25-27; Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (London, UK: T & T Clark, 2008), 1-16, 20-27; Simon Chan, “Encountering the Triune God: Spirituality since the Azusa Street Revival,” in Harold D. Hunter and Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., Eds. The Azusa Street Revival and Its Legacy (Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 2006), 215-226.

[65] Robert W. Cummings, “Unto You Is The Promise: A Personal Testimony,” (Lucknow, India: Lucknow Publishing House, 1941), 1-2. This pamphlet was subsequently reprinted many times by the Assemblies of God in the United States (e.g. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1948). Italics are in the original text. The words to the hymn that he quotes are taken from the second verse of the Anglican priest, George Croly’s, “Spirit of God, Descend upon My Heart.” Donald Gee, All With One Accord (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1961), 24-28 takes a similar position to that of Cummings.

[66] Arnold Bittlinger, The Church Is Charismatic: The World Council of Churches and the Charismatic Renewal Renewal and Congregational Life (Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications, 1990), 241 pp.

[67] Russell P. Spittler, “Are Pentecostals and Charismatics Fundamentalists? A Review of American Uses of These Categories,” in Karla Poewe, Ed. Charismatic Christianity as a Global Church (no city: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 112-113 speaks of the Pentecostalization of evangelicalism, while John Allen, The Future Church: How Ten Trends Are Revolutionizing the Church (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2009), 375-413, views pentecostalization as one of the most significant trends affecting the Catholic Church.

[68] Robert W. Cummings, “Unto You Is The Promise,” 2; Donald Gee All With One Accord, 24, observed, “The Christian denominations as a whole either deny the possibility, despise the value, or deplore the lack of such supernatural elements in the work and worship of the churches.” On the first claim see Benjamin B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (London, England: Banner of Truth Trust, 1918, rpt. 1972), 24. On the second, see, J. L. Ash, “The Decline of Prophecy in the Early Church,” Theological Studies 37 (1976), 252

[69] W. J. Chantry, Signs of the Apostle: Observations on Pentecostalism Old and New (Edinburgh, Scotland: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 27; T. R. Edgar, Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today? (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1983), 83-84; John F. MacArthur, Jr., Charismatic Chaos (Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 64-65.

[70] Gary B. McGee, “To the Regions Beyond: The Global Expansion of Pentecostalism,” in Vinson Synan, Ed The Century of the Holy Spirit, 70-71.

[71] Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 15; So, too, Donald Gee, All With One Accord, 53-61.

[72] Gary B. McGee, Miracles, Missions, and American Pentecostalism, 206-207.

[73] Shane Clifton, Pentecostal Churches in Transition: Analyzing the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 3 (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2009), 130.

[74] Larry Parker as told to Don Tanner, We Let Our Son Die: A Parent’s Search for Truth (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1980), 204 pp.; Jone Salomonsen, “The Dark Side of Pentecostal Enthusiasm: Abraham’s and Sara’s Sacrifice in Knutby, Sweden,” in Sturla J. Stålsett, Ed., Spirits of Globalization: The Growth of Pentecostalism and Experiential Spiritualities in a Global Age (London, England: SCM Press, 2006), 107-130.

[75] Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. “A Pentecostal Perspective on Leadership,” in Richard J. Mouw and Eric O. Jacobsen, Eds., Traditions in Leadership: How Faith Traditions Shape the Way We Lead (Pasadena, CA: De Pree Leadership Center, 2006), 143. .

[76] Personal email received from the Reverend Kathleen Griffin, December 7, 2010. Kathleen is an American missionary with the Presbyterian Church USA, working in Argentina. Her husband is an Argentine and a Pentecostal pastor.

[77] Margaret M. Poloma, The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas (Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 1989), 130-134, cites Loren Cunningham’s “Youth with a Mission” work (See ) as well as the ecumenical work of David du Plessis as examples where such breaks have taken place.

[78] Jimmy Swaggart is a prime example of this. The Assemblies of God discerned the need for him to resign from ministry and undergo a process of confession, healing, and restoration in keeping with the constitution and bylaws he had long affirmed. His refusal to accept their judgment and participate in the prescribed disciplinary and restoration process resulted in his expulsion altogether from ministry in the Assemblies of God under discipline. He subsequently reorganized as an independent ministry known as Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, see, .

[79] One can look at the 1916 break between the Trinitarian majority in the Assemblies of God and the proponents of the Oneness position, who formed the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, as an event during which a group of pastors rejected the decision based upon the “discernment” and vote of the majority. See, William W. Menzies, Anointed to Serve: The Story of the Assemblies of God (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1971), 120-121, who claimed simply that “The doctrinal statement as adopted militated against the Oneness views, which resulted in the loss of some of the brethren,” while Talmadge L. French, Our God Is One: The Story of the Oneness Pentecostals (Indianapolis, In: Voice and Vision Publications, 1999), 72 described the same incident much more negatively as a “stunning blow” that resulted “from the expulsion from the Assemblies of God.”

[80] David Edwin Harrell, Jr. All Things Are Possible Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1975 notes that many of the healing evangelists of the 1940s and 50s in the USA were once part of specific Pentecostal denominations. Many of them went on to establish their own ministries and networks of churches. Oral Roberts was originally ordained with the International Pentecostal Holiness Church. One could add some prosperity preachers such as Kenneth Hagan with the Assemblies of God. The action of John Wimber toward the Toronto Vineyard may be construed in these terms. Not only did the Toronto Vineyard not conform to the expectations of John Wimber and the larger Vineyard Association, it was joined by others who supported its position. To a lesser degree, one might also view the establishment of the Anaheim Vineyard by John Wimber as a break Chuck Smith and the Calvary Chapel Movement over the legitimate role of certain charisms.

[81] While Jim Jones was recognized as a minister of the Disciples of Christ when he led the massacre in Jonestown, Guyana, he was formed within the “Latter Rain” movement tat appeared in the Pentecostalism of the late 40s and early 50s, which featured apostolic ministry, often viewed by Pentecostal denominations as nothing less than demagoguery. On the Latter Rain Movement see, Richard Riss, “The Latter Rain Movement of 1948,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 4:1 (Spring 1982), 32-45, and Richard M. Riss, A Survey of 20th Century Revival Movements in North America Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1988. On Peoples Temple and Jonestown see, Deborah Layton, Seductive Poison: A Jonestown Survivor’s Story of Life and Death in the Peoples Temple (New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1998), 309 pp.; Rebecca Moore, Anthony B. Pinn, and Mary R. Sawyer, Eds., Peoples Temple and Black Religion in America (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2004), 204 pp.

[82] Shaull and Cesar, Pentecostalism and the Future of the Christian Churches, 227. Rick M. Nañez, Full Gospel, Fractured Minds? A Call to Use God’s Gift of the Intellect Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005; Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 17.

[83] The General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God in the United States noted recently that 59% of the Assemblies of God congregations in the US showed no growth last year.

[84] Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Mission and the Issue of Proselytism,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 20:1, (1996), 2-8; “Evangelization or Proselytism of Hispanics? A Pentecostal Perspective,” Journal of Hispanic/Latino Theology 4:4 (1997), 42-64; “Do We Agree as to When Evangelism Becomes Proselytism?” Ecumenical Trends 29:10 (November 2000), 7/151-14/158; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Proselytism and Church Relations: Theological Issues Facing Older and Younger Churches,” The Ecumenical Review 52:3 (2000), 379-390; Hank Hanegraff, Counterfeit Revival: Looking for God in All the Wrong Places, (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1997), argues that John Arnott, Paul Cain, Benny Hinn, Rodney Howard-Browne, Charles and Frances Hunter, and John Wimber have all participated in what he has termed a counterfeit revival.

[85] View John L. Allen, Jr., “Most under-reported Vatican Stories of 2010,” National Catholic Reporter (December 31, 2010) at: http:// blogs/all-things-catholic/most-under-reported-vatican-stories-2010 .

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download