Norming the abnormal : the development and function of the doctrine of initial evidence in classical Pentecostalism

267 Pages·2013·2.99 MB·English

by  Friesen

Norming the Abnormal
The Development and Function
of the Doctrine of Initial Evidence
in Classical Pentecostalism
Aaron T. Friesen
NORMING THE ABNORMAL
The Development and Function of the Doctrine of Initial Evidence in Classical Pentecostalism
Copyright © Aaron T. Friesen. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or
2013
reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the
publisher. Write: Permissions. Wipf and Stock Publishers, W. th Ave., Suite , Eugene, OR .
199 8 3 97401
Pickwick Publications
An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers
W. th Ave., Suite
199 8 3
Eugene, OR
97401
www.wipfandstock.com
ISBN :
13 978-1-62032-236-9
EISBN
13: 978-1-62189-567-1
Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
Friesen, Aaron T.
Norming the abnormal : the development and function of the doctrine of initial evidence in classical
Pentecostalism.
xxii + p. ; cm. —Includes bibliographical references.
298 23
: -- - -
ISBN13 978 1 62032 236 9
. Glossolalia. . Baptism in the Holy Spirit. . Pentecostalism. . Language and languages—Religious
1 2 3 4
aspects—Christianity. I. Title.
BT . F
1225 8532013
Manufactured in the U.S.A.
Dedicated to Heather,
my partner in life and ministry
Foreword
W quinnquennium of the International Catholic-Pentecostal
HEN DURING THE FOURTH
Dialogue David Barrett published research reporting that a mere 35 percent of
Pentecostal church members have actually spoken in tongues, the following
exchange took place:
“So,” the Catholic team began, “you have told us that a Pentecostal is a person
who has received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.”
“Yes,” the Pentecostals replied.
“And the initial evidence of having received the Baptism with the Spirit is
speaking in tongues.”
“Yes,” answered the Pentecostals.
“Well then,” the Catholics queried, “are these percent of the people in your
65
churches who do not speak in tongues Pentecostal?”
It was a logical and good question.
Though in its earliest days there was certainly diversity within the burgeoning
Pentecostal movement on the question of whether or not speaking in tongues
constituted the initial, physical evidence of having received the Baptism with the
Holy Spirit, by the Assemblies of God could assert that the doctrine
1918
constituted its “distinctive testimony.”
The wider embrace of the doctrine was at first strengthened through the
formation of the World Pentecostal Fellowship and The Pentecostal Fellowship
of North America, both of whose statements of faith affirmed it.
But slowly things began to change.
For one thing, beginning in the late s, Pentecostals began having more
1940
fellowship with Evangelicals, some of who eventually wrote influential books
that called into question the biblical validity of the doctrine. Through the
Charismatic Movement of the s and s and then later through the so-called
1960 1970
“Third Wave” Pentecostals, such as John Wimber and the Vineyard Movement,
classical Pentecostals began to meet believers who embraced the Baptism with
the Holy Spirit but did not consider it to be a distinct work of grace subsequent
to salvation and who may or may not have spoken in tongues.
By precise doctrinal formulations of Baptism with the Holy Spirit had
1988
diversified to the point where Henry Lederle’s taxonomy could identify over
twenty different ways of formulating the experience and doctrine! By the time of
the publication of Margaret Poloma’s study of the beliefs and practices
1989
concerning a variety of charismatic experiences in the Assemblies of God, USA
it had become clear that there was significant conflict in classical Pentecostal
churches between their stated belief and the actual practices in their churches, a
conflict even more notable among younger adherents.
For denominational officials of classical Pentecostal churches this conflict and
diversity of perspective represents a challenge to some of the traditional
formulations of their respective churches and raises a question of how to
respond. For Pentecostal pastors on the ground, like myself, who are attempting
to negotiate the reality of peoples’ increasingly busy schedules and limited
grounding in particular sectarian doctrines in a decidedly post-denominational
age, and who themselves have often run into significant biblical, theological, and
pastoral problems with a rigid doctrine of evidential tongues, it raises questions
of precisely how they can incorporate Baptism with the Holy Spirit and speaking
in tongues into the evangelistic, instructional and liturgical life of their
congregations.
What should we think about this? Is the doctrine of speaking in tongues as the
initial physical evidence of having received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit
important? Is it a non-negotiable core distinctive of Pentecostalism? Or can the
biblical and historical experience of Spirit Baptism be thought about and
expressed in different ways? Is it important for classical Pentecostal
denominations to retain this doctrine? Or is it helpful for them to rethink it? And
what might be some ramifications of either retaining or reconsidering it?
This demands some hefty conversation! But our discussions will be wiser and
more helpful if we take time to consider such questions as how the doctrinal
formulations of Spirit Baptism originally took place, how they were affected by
developments over the past century of Pentecostal-Charismatic history and
especially what functions those doctrines have performed in the life and ministry
of classical Pentecostal churches. And here is where contributions such as Aaron
Friesen’s can help.
After defining his terms and the limits and methodology of his research,
Friesen charts the history of the doctrine of initial evidence, beginning with three
representatives of the earliest period, Charles Parham, William Seymour, and
Alexander Boddy. An explication of the emergence of the classical tradition of
Pentecostalism in North America from is followed by a survey of the diverse
1910–40
developments of the period from to the present that began to criticize and
1940
question some of the classical Pentecostal formulations and practices.
At this point Friesen uses the categories of George Lindbeck and Alistair
McGrath to explore the precise functions the doctrine of initial evidence has
performed in the classical Pentecostal churches. Then, interacting with survey
data obtained from three “finished-work” classical Pentecostal denominations—
The Assemblies of God, (which he terms “Distinctive”) the Open Bible Standard
Churches (“Post-distinctive”) and The Foursquare Church (“Non-distinctive”),
Friesen asks whether the doctrine is still performing these functions today. He
concludes with considerations for charting a course for the future that can be
both faithful to the original Pentecostal movement and more consistent with the
present experience of its members.
The precise location of Pentecostal origins will continue to be debated, as will
the essential nature of its genius. In the meantime Pentecostal and Charismatic
scholars, leaders and pastors must wrestle with how the fourfold gospel can be
talked about and practiced in a new and global century. Friesen’s contribution
provides both knowledge and wisdom that can help us fulfill our desire to move
forward in ways that are pleasing to the Lord and a true blessing to the peoples
of the world.
Reverend Steve Overman
Eugene, Oregon, USA
Acknowledgments
T have been written without the help of many people and institutions
HIS WORK COULD NEVER
along the way. It is truly humbling to realize how many people have supported
this project in various ways. Although I am very grateful for the help I have
received in the research and writing of this work, I am ultimately responsible for
the contents. Any mistakes are my own.
First, I want to acknowledge those who inspired me to pursue this research
project. I am a fifth generation Pentecostal. Even though I grew up attending a
Pentecostal church, I didn’t become interested in Pentecostalism as a movement
until learning about my own family history. My great-grandmother’s stories
about the Welsh Revivals, my grandmother’s experiences of visiting Angelus
Temple as a little girl, my grandfather’s accounts of “holy-roller” churches in the
small farming communities of Southern California, and my parents’ stories of
worshipping as youth at Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California, all
introduced me to the depth and variety that exist in North American
Pentecostalism. Their stories inspired me to look at my own heritage more
closely.
As a graduate student at Fuller Theological Seminary, I took an
independent study class from Dr. Cecil Robeck on Pentecostal history that
changed me forever. It was Dr. Robeck who first exposed me to the whole field
of Pentecostal studies and encouraged me to explore the wealth of historical
documentation on Pentecostalism in the Fuller Seminary Archives.
Second, I want to acknowledge some of the many individuals who helped
with the research and writing for this project. I want to thank my doctoral
supervisor, Professor William Kay, for his encouragement and help in narrowing
the scope of the project and his great insights into Pentecostal history. I am
especially grateful for his extensive help in constructing the research survey and
the presentation of the results in chapter six. William has not only been a great
supervisor, but a great friend in this process. I am also thankful to Dr. Andrew
Davies for his insights and constructive criticisms on the historical portion of the
dissertation.
I was very blessed to have Gary Matsdorf take time to be a proofreader and
editor for this work in the final stages of writing.
I am indebted to all the librarians and archivists who have helped me in
finding and documenting many of the sources in the historical portion of this
dissertation: William Molenaar, Catherine McGee and Darren Rodgers at the
Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center; Jan Hornshuh-Kent and Sharon Welker at
the Open Bible Heritage Center and Open Bible National Office; Jorge Sandoval
at the Foursquare Church Archives; Nancy Gower at the Fuller Theological
Seminary Archives (David du Plessis, Society for Pentecostal Studies); Erica
Rutland at the International Pentecostal Holiness Church Archives and Research
Center; and David Garrard at the Donald Gee Pentecostal Research Center. I am
especially grateful for the generous help from the Inter-Library Loan office at the
Iowa State University Library that retrieved sources for me from all over the
United States and even overseas with efficiency and accuracy.
I am very appreciative of those people who trusted me and worked with me to
disseminate the research survey to ministers in their respective denomination:
Sherri Doty, Gary Allen and George Wood in the Assemblies of God; Lisa
Penberthy, Glen Burris and Beth Mead in the Foursquare Church; Mary Johnston
and Jeff Farmer in Open Bible Churches. I am also grateful to the many
members of Lifehouse Community Church in Des Moines who gave their
feedback on the survey.
I am also grateful to Gavin Wakefield and Kim Alexander for allowing me
early access to articles before publication.
Third, I want to acknowledge all those who helped me finish this project by
encouraging and supporting me throughout this difficult season of life. My
employers during this time have been gracious and understanding. Lifehouse
Community Church and New Hope Christian College not only allowed me time
away from other important duties to research and write, but also encouraged me
along the way.
I am thankful for the encouragement, support and criticism I received from
many friends in the Society for Pentecostal Studies.
I am very grateful to my friend and mentor, Paul Leavenworth, who not only
arranged a workspace for me to write at the Open Bible National Office, but also
pushed me and challenged me to keep going when I felt like quitting. I am also
indebted to my parents and grandparents for their support of this project
financially and, more importantly, with their hearts. Their legitimate interest in
this project, and their belief that this project was valuable and beneficial for the
church, were a great encouragement to me through difficult times of research
and writing.
Most of all, I am thankful for my wife, Heather. She has owned this project as
much as I have. Through working, mothering, housekeeping, and countless other
roles she has done whatever was needed for me to finish this project and still
maintain a somewhat comfortable and normal life for our family. She has given
me constant encouragement to “go write,” even when she could have reasonably
expected me to spend time with her and the boys. Throughout the entire process
from start to finish, she has not only allowed me the freedom to go and write, but
encouraged me that this was a valuable project and worth all the effort and
sacrifice. She has been much more than an equal partner in this endeavor, and
there is no way this work could have been finished without her love and support.