What is Pentecostalism? The World Encyclopedia of Christianity notes that approximately a quarter of the world’s Christian population is Pentecostal, but fail to qualify Pentecostalism or give any comprehensive understanding of what it is. The Dictionary of Christianity in America defines Pentecostalism as “a twentieth-century Christian movement emphasizing a post-conversion experience of Spirit baptism evidenced by speaking in tongues.” While many will champion this definition, it is too narrow and excludes certain denominations or independent churches that consider themselves Pentecostal and exhibit many traits that affirm their Pentecostal leanings. Initial physical evidence is often seen as the mark of true Pentecostalism, but that is only true mostly in North American Pentecostal churches. Pentecostal churches elsewhere in the world often diverge on the issue of initial physical evidence. There is undoubtedly a lack of consensus on what exactly it takes to be considered Pentecostal. Miller and Yamamori note the differences in classical Pentecostal denominations, the “indigenous and independent Pentecostal churches,” and neo-Pentecostal churches. Beyond even those, there exist a significant amount of churches that consider themselves Pentecostal, but have an emphasis on the Prosperity Gospel and other churches that focus on healing, evangelism, or ecstatic worship. Some may identify as Charismatic or “spirit-led” but do not feel that they are Pentecostal. So what is the essential quality of a Pentecostal Christian or Church? Allen Anderson narrows the definition by saying that, “Pentecostalism is…correctly seen in a much broader context as a movement concerned primarily with the experience of the working of the Holy Spirit and the practice of spiritual gifts.” Pentecostalism is flexible, which bodes well for a rapidly expanding movement, but does not allow for a narrow definition. . Still, the understanding from Anderson offers a solid foundation on which to build. Wonsuk Ma notes that because Pentecostalism is not a monolithic movement, and because it has existed for only a century, it cannot build on ecclesiastical traditions like other Christian movements. Moreover, Pentecostalism has not produced serious theological literature until recently. That may be in part because Pentecostalism came out of an experiential movement, rather than a theological one. This is a really key understanding for me and cleared up so much as I was studying last semester.

Origins The origins of the modern Pentecostal movement are debated, but generally fall into two camps: Azuza Street or a multi-locus view. Robeck and Anderson are the two major proponents of these views. Anderson argues that Azuza Street was not an isolated event and reminds us that there were major Welsh and Indian revivals at the same (or even earlier) time. The Muki revival in India was a predecessor to Azuza and some leaders of Azuza used the messages and quotes as support for their revival. He also stressed the preexisting missionary routes as being foundational in spreading Pentecostalism around the world in the early 20th century. Robeck on the other hand argues that while other revivals existed, Azuza was far more central in the explosion of global Pentecostalism. He also argues that the resistance Azuza Street encountered helped to spur on the movement more than any other revival. Personally, I tend to agree more with Anderson, but Azuza Street is still signoificant. It is also interesting to note that Robeck lives in L.A. (near Azuza Street), while Anderson lives abroad in the east. Side note, the Holiness Movement is also an ancestor of the Pentecostal Movement (Robin’s book). As people became less confident or more questioning of total sanctification many begane to seek this “second experience.” If you want to know more about this check out Robin’s book. Also, Robins makes a good point when he says that tracing the origins of the modern Pentecostal movement is not the same as tracing who was the first to speak in tongues.For a history of “Spirit-Filled People,” read Stanley Burgess’ “Christian People of the Spirit.” A bit dense and at times it’s a stretch, but very interesting. Initial Physical Evidence This is one of the greatest areas of contention in Pentecostalism and the A/G in particular. At my University every year students struggle with this. I can’t say for sure, but it seems to me that many students who go interview for orientation lie or at least sit quiet on this issue in order to get licensed. Anyway, onto the actual topic. The Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination/fellowship in the world, define the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues as distinct and subsequent to regeneration. Historically, Pentecostals have understood initial evidence to be a phenomenon that was lost after the apocalyptic age. It was similar to Martin Luther’s rediscovery of justification by grace through faith alone. Originally, some of the earliest Pentecostals believed that the gift of speaking in tongues would be used in a missional role; so, believers would be filled with a new language for a people groups that they would go and share the gospel with. Charles Parham was the chief proponent of this idea, and it seems that for some of the formative years of Pentecostalism, the theory went largely uncontested. One of the earliest Pentecostal missionaries, Alfred Garr, thought that he was given the language Bengali, only to find that when he traveled to Calcutta, India, he could not speak the language (this is hilarious to me, but give the guy credit for his dedication, right?). Garr soon after alters his view of tongues and initial physical evidence; alterations that proved controversial. Garr said that baptism in the Holy Spirit is always paired with speaking in tongues, and if you didn’t speak in tongues, you were not truly baptized in the Spirit. Essentially, when the doctrine of tongues for preaching failed, early Pentecostals were forced to reexamine their doctrine.As this doctrine of initial evidence developed, you can imagine the confusion it had on congregations. Both Paul and Luke seem to give different understanding of tongues and initial evidence is never stated directly in Scripture. It has been claimed, and rightly so, that Pentecostals have tried to exegete from their experience. Fee attributes this to the fact that the Pentecostal experience is so life-changing and empowering that they believe it “must be from God. Fee does a wonderful job showing that the Pentecostal experience can, for the most part, be well supported by the New Testament. However, the subsequent experience of speaking in tongues as the evidence for Spirit baptism, according to Fee, is not exegetically sound. In contrast to this Edwards argues that reading Luke (the canon within the canon for Pentecostals) as “historical truth in imaginative form” (imaginative in a literary sense) shows us that Luke is using type-scenes to show initial evidence as normative. He argues that Luke uses Acts 2 as the archetype and then explains every other Pentecostal event in the book in motifs and language similar to Acts 2. He list 23 motifs that occur and several large ones that exist in almost every instance of Pentecostal events. Tongues is only cited in 3 of the scenes in Acts, but for Edwards this is not too significant. What is significant, is the fact that Luke decided to set Acts 2 as the main type-scene and tongues is included in that scene. The only miracle that is repeated more than once in any of these scenes in tongues, and for Edwards this is the glue that holds tongues as normative together. Luke was “depending on the weight of the type-scene…rather than focusing on the details of the phenomena of how one is baptized in the Spirit. Fee and Edwards both offer legitimate arguments for their positions, but I believe that overall Fee offered a more structured and supported thesis. It may be that Edwards is just a less skilled writer, but his points were harder to follow to me, but it still was worth the read and offered a unique idea. Experiential Use of Tongues Now that tongues has been theologically discussed, what is its significance for the daily lives of a Pentecostal? If you believe in initial physical evidence, what role does tongues play after the initial evidence? John Bertone offers several answers to this in his analysis of Romans 8:26. He understands the verse to be speaking of glossolalia, and shows why it cannot simply be “silent prayer.” (This view of Romans 8:26 referencing tongues not without precedent either; both Origen and Chrysostom understood it this way.) His evidence for this is wonderful, but how he explains tongues after this is what makes his article a gem. He says that Paul’s main point in Romans 8:26 Is to show that the Spirit has “emotional alignment” with the believer in his/her weaknesses. Believers are caught in the “All Ready, but Not Yet” conflict, and the experience of glossolalia here is life giving to the believer. Moreover, Bertone shows that when Paul says “When my Spirit prayers, my mind is unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14, ESV) he is not saying that this type of prayer is “mindless.” Rather, he is saying “When I pray in a tongues, the very depths of my emotions are stirred up but my cognition is unaffected.” Bertone calls Pentecostals to see tongues as more than just Acts 2, because when we look at the whole Scripture, a more complete view of tongues is given to us. We see how God empathizes with us in our weaknesses. We must be careful here though. Tongues is not meant to be a “dream-state” that takes us away from reality. Moreover, the “abandonment of language…in our encounter with God does not imply unfaithfulness to the mind, for the struggle to express the inexpressible is at the root of creativity in art and scholarship.” Most importantly, and it is easy to forget this, tongues is meant for the empowering of believers to reach the lost. It is easy to forget the context of Pentecost in Acts 2, but in the end, that is why tongues is give, so that all may come to know him. Whew, that was a lot. We could still talk about Pentecostal’s and the role of women, the AG’s history with pacifism, and how introverts and Pentecostalism work together. If you want to know more about this, feel free to ask.

/u/CrossBowGuy237 - I am a Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal, and a member of the United Pentecostal Church International.

/u/Malachris - I'm a senior at an A/G university studying Biblical Studies and Biblical Languages. I grew up in the AG, but I'm not sure exactly where I'll land after school. I would like to pastor and/or teach one day--hopefully make enough money for food and books!

/u/thrownundere

/u/JoshTheGMan97