1
Pentecostal Definition & Speaking in Tongues
Introduction
Early Pentecostal pioneers originally envisioned their mission as one of sparking revival within existing church structures and denominations.1 However, the rejection of the Pentecostal message by “most of organized Christendom” quickly caused early Pentecostals to adjust their goals.2 Their ideal of awakening a spiritual renewal in what they perceived as frozen and lifeless religious institutions gave way to a practical need for some sort of formal organization for themselves.3 As Pentecostal groups began to form—some more loosely than others—the need for a consensual self-definition naturally became important. Discussion concerning what exactly constituted the essentials of Pentecostalism commenced. In the Assemblies of God, the doctrine of initial evidence—that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of a Christian’s Baptism in the Holy Spirit—emerged as their “distinctive testimony.”4 Yet this doctrinal stance may not be the most accurate way to articulate the Pentecostal’s “distinctive” contribution to the church either in North America or around the world.
Before 1990, historical research on Pentecostalism tended to focus on North America as the defining point of the worldwide movement based on various interpretations of the origins of Pentecostal distinctives.5 However, recent studies of the origins of Pentecostal movements in other parts of the world have called into question the validity of a view of history that places North American Pentecostalism at the center of the worldwide movement.6 Along with the question of Pentecostal origins, answers to the question of Pentecostal definition have also shifted. In recent years, many scholars have sought to look anew at the history of Pentecostalism in order to identify that which is essentially Pentecostal. As a result, the eschatological, sociological, and pragmatic impulses of Pentecostalism have been brought to the fore in debates concerning the driving forces behind Pentecostalism. Studies of the origin and development of Pentecostal movements in non-Western countries have encouraged broader definition and application of the term “Pentecostal.” Some scholars have even challenged the validity of any core Pentecostalism, instead proposing a range of “Pentecostalisms.”7 In an effort to define Pentecostalism in a way that encompasses the range of diversity present in Pentecostal groups around the world, global Pentecostal scholars have tended to move away from the traditionally accepted delineation of Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals along doctrinal lines. Seeing Pentecostalism as having a kind of amalgamation of doctrines with varying emphases, these scholars have upheld an experience of Spirit Baptism as an equally valid, perhaps more valid, way of defining a Pentecostal.8 The growing trend in Pentecostal scholarship to define Pentecostals experientially rather than doctrinally has led to the initial evidence doctrine being removed from its place of primacy as the defining point of Pentecostalism.
As the doctrine of initial evidence has been increasingly questioned as “a shibboleth of orthodoxy” for Pentecostals,9 the validity and necessity of such a rigid doctrinal formulation has also been questioned. Its positivistic dualistic slant toward irrefutable proof, its over-reliance on the Book of Acts, and its modernistic approach to the freedom of God’s Spirit and Word have all been cited against the classical Pentecostal doctrine.10 Many of these criticisms are not new. Pentecostals were challenged to defend the exegetical basis for their beliefs about Spirit Baptism and speaking in tongues from the beginning. However, these criticisms are now coming from Pentecostals—Pentecostals whose identity and self-definition are no longer intimately tied to the results of such a debate.
The move away from this doctrine as the “core” Pentecostal teaching in the academic world reflects what is happening in Pentecostal congregations. Empirical evidence suggests that there is an increasing gap between the beliefs of denominational leaders and pastors and the beliefs of lay people concerning the doctrine of initial evidence in “classical” Pentecostal churches. William Kay is responsible for obtaining many of these figures in Britain, and Margaret Poloma has gathered survey data corroborating this phenomenon in the United States.11 In fact, Walter Hollenweger noticed a conflict between doctrine and practice among modern-day Pentecostals over two decades ago. He noted,
Important Pentecostal churches (e.g. in Chile, Germany, Great Britain and other countries) disagree with the doctrine of “the initial physical sign” and believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not always accompanied by this sign. In fact in many Pentecostal churches a great proportion of the members (and sometimes even some of the pastors) have never spoken in tongues. How the Assemblies of God and other similar bodies are going to solve this conflict between their doctrine and their praxis is an open question.12
Pentecostal scholars have proposed many different solutions for dealing with this conflict. Some understand the weakness of classical Pentecostals to be in their defenses of their positions rather than in their positions themselves. As a result, they have written new expositions and canonically grounded treatises on the connection between speaking in tongues and Spirit Baptism that call for the reaffirmation of the classical Pentecostal doctrine of initial evidence in the face of increasing criticism from Charismatics, neo-Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals. They assert the normative character of the classical Pentecostal doctrine of initial evidence even though, in practice, some Pentecostals do not adhere to it.13 Other theologians have understood the gap between doctrine and practice among Pentecostals as a call to broaden the theological base upon which Pentecostal doctrine is developed.14 Finally, the last decade of Pentecostal scholarship has often wondered if a formal doctrinal change might be in order, and possibilities for reinterpreting or reformulating the doctrine of initial evidence have been explored.15
How are classical Pentecostals experiencing the conflict articulated by Hollenweger to decide between these proposed solutions? Certainly, such proposals raise some pressing questions that need to be answered. First, where did the doctrine come from? In order to assess the veracity of a particular doctrinal statement one must understand how the doctrine came into being and how it developed over time. Second, why is the doctrine important? In order to assess or assign value to a doctrine one needs to understand how the doctrine has functioned in community over time. Third, what are the practical consequences of the doctrine? In order to judge whether a doctrine is operational or non-operational within a community one needs to explore how the doctrine presently works itself out in the beliefs and practices of the community. In the following chapters, each of these questions will be addressed. In order to set the stage for what follows, I will now undertake some preliminary discussion to: 1) Define the parameters of this project: classical Pentecostalism; 2) Survey significant research contributions in the field of study that will bear on the whole research project; and 3) Describe the chosen methodology for the current research project.
Defining Pentecostalism
A Latter-Rain Movement
Early on, Pentecostals collectively viewed their movement as that which would usher in the Second Coming of Christ by calling believers to be baptized in the Spirit. How exactly this baptism would prepare the way for Christ’s return was debated. For some, this would be accomplished through an inward purifying work of the Spirit outwardly testified by speaking in tongues resulting in the emergence of a “spotless Bride.” For others, the baptism served the more pragmatic purposes of identifying who was and who was not part of the Bride and calling others to join the Bride through the gift of foreign tongues on the mission field. The common denominator between these two views of Spirit Baptism is their understanding of the Pentecostal movement as a “Latter-Rain” movement.16 In the early years of the movement, Pentecostals sought to define themselves as a missionary movement preparing the way for Christ’s imminent return through the full gospel message. While speaking in tongues was a core element of the Pentecostal experience, Pentecostals sought to focus on Christ’s calling out a group of overcomers as his Bride—a call which was signaled by one’s reception of this heavenly gift of foreign languages. The Pentecostals’ understanding of their movement being formed by God is evident in their providential understanding of Pentecostal history.
The rapid, seemingly unconnected growth and spread of Pentecostal experiences around the world made it easy for those involved in the movement to believe that they were a part of something bigger and greater than themselves.17 As early as 1907 reports from missionaries sent out around the world by the Azusa Street Mission made their way back to the United States confirming that the Spirit was being experienced with power and manifestations all around the world.18 The testimony of missionaries led early Azusa reporter Frank Bartleman, along with many others who w...