Midterm Paper for 20th Century Church History

20th Century Church History Midterm Paper


I want to focus on “baptism of the Spirit” doctrine to begin with in this subjective review of the text. The rise of Charismatics and Pentecostals in the 20th Century was significant with connections to the Azusa Street Revival beginning in 1906 and the Welsh Revival beginning in 1904. Many Pentecostals trace the beginning of their movements in some way to these events.

The Scriptural basis for these events in Los Angeles and in Wales can be found in Acts 2:4, 17-18 (Joel 2:28-29), 43 KJV:

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

To begin, I will be focused primarily on the influence of the Azusa Street Revival in the beginning of the Pentecostal (& Charismatic) Movement with evidence of the move of the Holy Spirit. Persons like Evan Roberts (Welsh Revival) then William J. Seymour and Frank Bartleman realized that there was a key ingredient missing in the churches, namely the Holy Spirit and its effects (tongues and prophecy).

According to the text, a little prayer meeting in Topeka, KS led to the Azusa Street revival in California. Former KC missionary, Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues after midnight on January 1, 1901 following laying on of hands and prayers by Charles Parham and some of his students at Bethel Bible College in Topeka. This baptism spread across Kansas, into Missouri, into Texas, and then Los Angeles at Azusa.

William J. Seymour learned at a later Parham school by listening through a cracked door due to Parham’s strict segregation. He did not receive his baptism before leaving. Seymour’s leadership was rejected by a mission congregation after a week so he began a little prayer group. God used this little prayer group as an origin point for a revival with world-wide effects that changed church history.

Methodist minister G. B. Cashwell received his baptism with tongues at Azusa Street in 1906. He became a leader in the International Holiness Church and helped facilitate the same blessing with A. J. Tomlinson, General Overseer for Church of God (Cleveland), now 2nd largest Pentecostal body.

Another minister C. H. Mason investigated Azusa Street. Mason’s new teaching on baptism of the Holy Spirit led the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) to reorganize as a Holiness Pentecostal body.

My impressions of the effects of the Azusa Street revival are positive with God bridging the racial divide and the gender gap and using humble origins for starting new churches/movements and missions in the world. Negatives would have been disagreements over theology (Seymour vs. Parham), doctrine (Pentecostal vs. Holiness), and practice (i.e. Cashwell vs. Crumpler, Mason vs. Jeter & Jones).

For the second question, I decided to examine 3 church leaders that intrigued me—Aimee Semple McPherson, Richard Rossi, and John Wimber.

One of the first things that stood out with these leaders was the exercise of spiritual gifts and callings. McPherson became a popular faith healer and evangelist during the 1920’s and 1930’s. Her “Foursquare Gospel’ showed “Jesus is Savior (man), Jesus is Healer (ox), Jesus is Baptizer in the Holy Spirit (lion), and Jesus is Coming King (eagle)” based on her vision in connection with Ezekiel 1. “Pastor to the Stars” Richard Rossi’s underground house church movement emphasizes charismatic ministry especially healing. The Vineyard Movement with John Wimber evidenced unusual manifestations of the Spirit even in the face of controversary and questions.

An intense revival in Oakland, CA set the stage for the Foursquare Gospel vision of Aimee Semple McPherson while John Wimber faced criticism with the “Toronto Blessing”—Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship. Richard Rossi ministers to modern day “lepers and Samaritans” in the form of AIDS patients and homosexuals. He, like his hero Aimee Semple McPherson, ministered to celebrities in Los Angeles and Hollywood.
John Wimber emphasized strong teaching and knowledge of Scripture, but he challenged “Sola Scriptura” with the power of experiential spiritual revelations. Early disciples and apostles were not just stories in a book but living examples of ministry, faith and miracles like these 3 inspirational leaders.

Aimee Semple McPherson was not stopped by her gender, marital issues, and persecutions from leading her ministry as a healing evangelist, apostolic teacher, and gospel proclaimer. These ministries ranged from the small and personal (house churches of Rossi) to large, early “mega-church” (Angelus Temple of McPherson) to both large and small (Calvary Chapel of John Wimber). All of these are reflected in the book of Acts—large gatherings (Acts 2:9-11, 41) and household salvations (Cornelius-Acts 2:44-48).

I believe in active use of spiritual gifts in homes, “Temple” (churches), and community locations. I believe in revelation, visions, healing capable by all, and in dealing with strong, positive use of Scriptures but not in “dogmatic or dead” way. I do not want to limit God or ministry by only specific persons (ordained clergy and not others) and ministry not to modern “tax collectors, Samaritans, and lepers”. I also want to follow the leading and anointing of the Spirit and Its gifts and blessings. I have “heroes of the faith” (Jesus of course, Peter, John, Paul, and now Frank Bartleman and Aimee Semple McPherson) and believe in miracles and the overcoming work of Jesus in the face of persecutions and difficulties.

For the third question, Richard Rossi was instrumental in founding underground house churches in S. California. The Vineyard Movement emphasizes a main service connecting with God through worship and small “house groups”. The great revivals of Azusa Street in Los Angeles and the Welsh Revival began with small prayer meetings and small church groups.

“The Early Church succeeded so well, without all the things we have today. For instance, they had no church buildings, professionally trained clergy, Bible school, hymnals, overhead projectors, wireless microphones, CD copiers, computers, Sunday School curriculum, youth ministry, worship team, copy machine, choir, TV studio or station to broadcast over, nor even personally owned Bibles. Yet they made disciples because those things were not required to do so then, and they are not necessary to do so today. In fact, if we would be brutally truthful, they did a better job without all these things than we do with them!”

Proof of this rests with the House Church movement in China with an estimated 75-100 million believers—the majority without Bibles. It is the 3rd largest body of Christian believers in the world—greater than the Anglican Communion and Assemblies of God. “In the People’s Republic of China, the Simple House Church has grown exponentially, though it is illegal. As with the experience in China, historian Del Birkey’s studies cause him to conclude that the house church is the best hope for renewal today.”

In this last section, I wanted to focus on a topic that really interested me personally. I just finished reading Organic Church by Neil Cole. I could not put it down one night. Between reading the above and the section on “Simple House Churches” (pp. 42-48), I really garnered much to think about in what constitutes a church. Is “church” as we know it and practice it really Biblical? Or is it an institution that does not really match the Scriptures—dogmatic and “dying” (spiritually) and not making disciples, reaching the lost, and not affecting the overall community in Christ-like ways with the Holy Spirit? Are most churches living out the “Way, Truth, and Life” (John 14:6) or establishing something of a “social club” or static institution? These are tough questions that need asked in relation to conventional churches and church practices.

House or “organic” churches are modeled with D.N.A.—D.ivine Truth—Greatest Commandment (Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27): Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; N-Nurturing relationships—2nd Greatest Commandment (Mark 10:31, Luke 10:27)—Love your neighbor as yourself; A—Apostolic Mission—Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-18, Luke 24:46-49) or known as D.N.A.--D.ivine N.ature A.pplied. Jesus embodies all these concepts, and the Scriptures back up these important principles. Another interesting thing is the study of statistics on house churches showing significantly more satisfaction (13-20% more) in regards to leadership, faith commitment, connection with community, and spiritual depth. Moreover, house churches have also grown from 1% to 9% in a decade. Also, “the evangelistic effectiveness of mini-churches is statistically 1,600 % greater than megachurches!”

In conclusion, I learned that small church meetings and small churches can make a tremendous difference in the world in building the kingdom and in evangelizing the lost. This is an uplifting revelation. I have also learned about interesting church leaders such as William Seymour and Aimee Semple McPherson that stoked revival fires and promoted baptism of the Spirit and Pentecostal manifestations. McPherson had an early “mega-church” while the examples of Richard Rossi and house churches in China showed me their ability to take the gospel to unreached places and to reproduce in reaching the lost and advancing the kingdom. I’ve learned the importance of digging deep in Scriptures to examine what “church” was really like in the New Testament compared to most “church” situations in the U.S. today. My studies in revival, spiritual gifts, and organic churches give me much food for thought and heroes from which to learn.