West Side Story: the Heritage of One Indianapolis Congregation

West Side Pentecostal Church is one of the oldest Apostolic assemblies in the city of Indianapolis, beginning in 1912, just a few short years after the Pentecostal message was introduced to the city. In January 1907, Bro. Glenn Cook, an evangelist from the Azusa Street Mission in Los Angeles, began holding Pentecostal meetings in the on Shelby Street in the Fountain Square area of Indianapolis. Another evangelistic party arrived from Azusa in March, including Thomas Hezmalhalch, Fred Dexheimer, Celia Smock, and Lenora Hall. These early workers helped spread the revival, and congregations began to form throughout the city (Flower 5-6).

The roots of West Side Pentecostal Church begin with Bro. Joseph Rodgers, who opened a mission in 1912 on the corners of West Ohio and Minker Street (now Reisner Street). A Bro. Edwards served as Assistant Pastor of the fledgling congregation, and the work was called Apostolic Faith Helping Hands Mission. It is interesting to note that Bro. Rodgers chose to name the mission. Many Pentecostal assemblies were simply known only by their location, a nomenclative tradition, which grew out of early Pentecostal suspicions about denominationalism and formal organization. Bishop G.T. Haywood’s large Indianapolis church was simply known as 11th and Senate. Additionally, in August 1912, E.N. Bell published an article in Word and Witness, a widely-read Pentecostal circular, asking ministers not to use the terms “mission” or “Apostolic Faith” in their church names: “Nowhere in the Bible is a congregation of believers in Christ called a ‘mission’ nor an ‘Apostolic mission’ but we read of the ‘Church of God at Corinth.’” Bell favored “Church of God in Christ” as a suitable name, which undoubtedly reflects some of the early ministerial connections with the organization of that name (Bell 2).

Bro. Rodgers continued to lead the church that he started, and the congregation steadily grew under his leadership. Unfortunately, the pastor, who was an interior decorator by trade, was tragically killed while working on a church. The scaffolding collapsed, and he fell to his death.

Part of the church’s history is rather nebulous, but it is likely that the church joined the Assemblies of God at its formation in 1914. Following naming conventions of that fellowship, the church name became West Side Assembly Church. However, Bro. Jim Jackson, who succeeded Bro. Rodgers, must have been a key figure in moving the church into the Oneness camp when the message came to Indianapolis in 1915.

Bro. Jackson’s pastorate was followed by the ministry of Bro. Hedges, who was saved at West Side Assembly. After only a few years at the church, Bro. Hedges became ill and called on the help of Bro. Delbert Spall, a young minister from Christian Tabernacle, one of the most well-established Apostolic assemblies in Indianapolis. When Bro. Hedges went to be with the Lord on 15 July 1954, Bro. Spall became the pastor. Bro. Spall recalled that the last time Bro. Hedges ministered in the West Side pulpit, he felt the spiritual mantle from Bro. Hedges pass to him.

Bro. Delbert Spall was born in Carothersville, Indiana in 1919. As a child, Bro. Spall had attended Christian Tabernacle with his parents Freeman and Freda, a dynamic Apostolic church led by Sis. Lena Spillman. At the age of 17, Bro. Spall had an attack that brought him near to death. His family called for Sis. Spillman to come and pray. The young man received the Holy Ghost and was healed and became a faithful member of Christian Tabernacle. In 1950, Bro. Spall recognized his call to the ministry.

Bro. Spall’s wife, Mary Ellen (McMorris) also has a wonderful Pentecostal heritage. As a baby, her first trip outside of the house was to Oak Hill Tabernacle, one of the oldest Pentecostal works in Indianapolis led by Bro. L.V. Roberts. Sis. Spall’s mother, Dora McMorris, was purportedly amongst the first group of Indianapolis Pentecostals to be immersed in the Name of Jesus by Bro. Glenn Cook on 6 March 1915.

This wonderful couple led West Side Pentecostal through decades of Holy Ghost revival, completing a new sanctuary in 1959. In May of 1989, they retired from full-time ministry, but both are still living and are wholly committed to the Lord.

Bro. Donald Winters became the pastor of West Side at the Spalls’ retirement. Recently, his son, Donald Jo Winters assumed the pastorate, and Bro. Anthony Oliver is his Assistant Pastor.

The West Side Pentecostal Church continues to stand strong on its historic foundations of faith and service. From its most humble beginnings as a small Apostolic Faith mission to a well-established Pentecostal congregation, West Side Pentecostal Church is undoubtedly the oldest Indianapolis congregation in the fellowship of the United Pentecostal Church International. Their unwavering commitment to the cherished doctrines of Bible salvation, holiness, and the mighty God in Christ are a testament to generations of solid, anointed leadership as they continue to “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jud. 1.3).

Sources:

Bell, Eudorus N. “Not Missions, but Churches of God in Christ.” Word & Witness Vol. 8, Is. 6. 20 August 1912, p. 2.

Flower, Alice Reynolds. “When Pentecost Came to Indianapolis, a First-Hand Report of the Revival which Began in 1907.” Heritage 5 (4) Winter 1985/1986, pp. 5-6.

*Special thanks to the Spall family for conducting this interview at a difficult time.

Revisiting the Upper Room

‘And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room . . . ‘ (Acts 1:13)

The Day of Pentecost marks the birth of the apostolic Church of the New Testament. According to the Lukan narrative in the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Ghost swept into the Upper Room where the disciples abode and where the disciples gathered with the female followers and relatives of Christ, including His mother. In this sacred space, cloven tongues of fire appeared above those who tarried for the Father’s promise, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost, speaking in other tongues. In this dramatic moment, the everlasting Church was established, and the Upper Room became one of the most hallowed sites of Christianity.

Today, pilgrims and tourists daily fill a 45’ x 29.5 ‘Gothic room built in the 14th century to commemorate the descent of the Spirit following Christ’s resurrection. In Catholic tradition the Upper Room is known as the Cenacle, derived from a Latin word for dining and is believed to be the site of the Last Supper and the place where the Apostles gathered and lived. As such, the ancient building that stood in the chapel’s place was the site of many of the most important events in the Gospel, including the washing of the disciples’ feet, the appearance of Christ after His resurrection, and the ratification of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Meagher 232). The Upper Room is hailed as the epicenter of formative Christianity and the worldwide revival that emanated from the initial descent of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2.1-4.

Eusebius (d. 339), who chronicled early Christian history, is credited with identifying the site as the “Holy Church of God.” In his Catechetical Lectures, Cyril (d. 386) called the building “the Upper Church of the Apostles.” Epiphanus (d. 403), who was Bishop of Caesarea, said that the small church survived the decimating attacks of Titus and Hadrian on Jerusalem. Theodosius called the Cenacle “mater omnium ecclesarium,” the “Mother of all Churches.”

Following the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., it was St. Helena, the mother of Constantine, who went to Jerusalem in an effort to rediscover the ancient Christian landmarks. Under her direction, the Cenacle was purified and consecrated, and masses were said in the small church (Meagher 233). In 350 A.D., the church was restored; and in 390, a large basilica known as Hagia Sion (Holy Zion) was erected nearby (Lussier 332-333). The traditional Upper Room became a cathedral and flourished until 636 A.D., when Jerusalem was overtaken by the Moslem invaders. Omar, cousin of the Mohammed, negotiated with the Jerusalem Christians and allowed them to retain the Cenacle as a church, but the influence of Christianity was stymied by the Moslem occupancy (Meagher 233).

When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they found the Upper Room and Holy Zion in ruins. A Romanesque structure was erected at the site of the basilica, but this was again destroyed by invaders when the Sultan of Damascus conquered Jerusalem in 1219 (Lussier 332-333).

In 1342, the Franciscans were granted perpetual custody of the Cenacle by a papal bull issued by Clement VI. The order erected the present Gothic chapel. Interestingly, during the Byzantine period, it became popularly believed that King David was also entombed at the site of the Upper Room. When the occupying Moslems learned of the tradition, Suliman the Magnificent, hastily ejected the Franciscans, an effort to protect the sacred soil of David’s bones. In a missal to the Governor of Damascus, he wrote:

By the receipt of this august and imperial sign, know that by the request addressed to our Sublime Porte we have been made aware that near to the noble city of Jerusalem there is the tomb of the Prophet David . . . and that the convent and church of Mount Sion, possessed and inhabited by the religious Franks, are next to the tomb. The latter, in making the processions required by their false beliefs, cross the earth, which covers the tomb of the Prophet David—may peace be upon him. It is neither just nor appropriate that this most noble place remain in the hands of the infidels, and that in obedience to their impious customs, their feet foul the places sanctified by the prophets who have a right to our complete veneration. We order, then, upon receipt of this august order, that you expel from the church and convent immediately and without delay the religious and all those who reside there. (qtd. in Cunliffe 105)

For a time, Franciscans were still allowed to live in a nearby house but were finally evicted in 1551. In 1936, the Franciscans were permitted to return to a monastery near the Cenacle, but they evacuated during the conflicts of 1948. In 1960, they regained occupancy of both the monastery and the Cenacle, which had been badly damaged by mortar fire and continue as custodians of the structure today (Lussier 332-333).

Though the biblical site of the Upper Room described in Acts 2 is in some doubt, the legacy of that sacred space is unquestionable. Whether the Spirit fell in the exact location of today’s Franciscan chapel or on another Jerusalem tract, we know that the chamber where the 120 followers of the resurrected Christ gathered became the birthing room of the invincible Apostolic Church. With rushing wind and cloven tongues of fire, the Jerusalem saints were baptized with the Spirit. The tourist experience of standing in a place that may have been the point of that first Pentecostal visitation pales in comparison to the Upper Room experience recreated in countless lives as the miracle of Pentecost is repeated in the seeking souls and the believing hearts of the faithful. Every time we witness the outpouring of God’s Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues, we return to the Upper Room and relive the seminal moment when the Holy Ghost first empowered the Church with the enflaming presence of the Comforter and began the spiritual conflagration that now engulfs the globe in end-time revival! The authenticity of the Cenacle is in dispute but the authenticity of the Apostolic experience is incontrovertible.

Sources:

Cunliffe, Barry, ed. Oxford Archaeological Guides: the Holy Land. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Germano, Michael P. “The Ancient Church of the Apostles: Revisiting Jerusalem’s Cenacle and David’s Tomb.” Biblical Archaeology.

Lussier, E. “Cenacle.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 332-333. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Ball State University. 9 Nov. 2009 <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=GVRL&u=munc80314>.

Meagher, James. How Christ Said the First Mass, or the Lord’s Last Supper. New York: Christian Press Association Publishing Company, 1908.

D.C.O. Opperman: Pentecostal Pioneer and Pedagogue

September 15, 1926, Daniel Charles Owen Opperman was tragically killed in a car accident on his way to preach an evening service in the Baldwin Park area of Los Angeles.  After the Sunday morning service, Bro. Opperman was invited to dinner at the home of the Hoag family.  A daughter-in-law of the couple was driving a carload back to the church.  Crossing a track, the car was struck by a train.  Bro. Opperman was thrown from the vehicle, and his neck was broken.  His Bible lay beside him, and the coroner remarked at his dignified appearance, suspecting he was a doctor or lawyer.  So departed a great Pentecostal pioneer who was a dedicated teacher, evangelist, and pastor.

Charles Owen Opperman was born in Goshen, Indiana on July 13, 1872.  His parents, German immigrants, were members of the Dunkers, a sect that had left Prussia because of religious persecution.  Charles was raised to be God-fearing and developed a sober spirit.  When his father died, Charles was only fifteen and assumed responsibility for his widowed mother, two brothers and one sister.

Charles Opperman was hungry for knowledge.  In 1890, he graduated from Manchester College in North Manchester, Indiana, where he met Ella Syler, who he married on March 10, 1890.  Charles Opperman taught in several schools from 1892.

In 1899, Opperman was attending the famous Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and became acquainted with the work of John Alexander Dowie, an Australian evangelist whose meetings attracted thousands nightly.  In 1900, Dowie began Zion City, Illinois as a permanent home for his Christian Catholic Apostolic Church and a spiritual haven for his followers.  Drawn to Dowie’s message of holiness and healing, Opperman joined the community and added Daniel to his name.  He began teaching in the Zion school.  He also taught in the city’s college and was later named the Superintendent of Zion’s schools.  On the first Sunday in January 1902, John Alexander Dowie ordained D.C.O. Opperman as a deacon in the Chicago Auditorium.  Bro. Opperman said:  “God confirmed with a remarkable healing on the following Wednesday.  Mr. J.J. Smith was instantly healed of the grippe [influenza] in answer to prayer.”

Opperman was very active in the Zion work.  He was part of Dowie’s monumental campaign in New York City in October 1903.  Suffering from tuberculosis, D.C.O. Opperman resettled for a short time in San Antonio, Texas and worked alongside a Zion elder named Lemuel C. Hall.  Despite his failing health, Bro. Opperman was determined to preach.  He describes his miraculous healing in San Antonio:

In March 1905 went to San Antonio, Texas.  Health in a very dangerous condition.  Climate helped me some, but God helped me more.  Partial deliverances [sic] in answer to prayer.  On April 8, 1905 at about 7:30 P.M. stepped into Houston St. San Antonio near P.O. [post office] to herald the gospel of the kingdom.  God marvelously healed me and sanctified me.  God gave me great joy in my ministry in the street.

He returned to Zion in April but went back to Texas in March 1906 to preach at Zion gatherings in Houston.
In Houston, he became acquainted with Charles Fox Parham, who had moved Apostolic Faith operations from Topeka, Kansas.  Parham was preaching the Pentecostal baptism, and Opperman believed the message, though he did not initially receive the actual baptism.  He sent letters to Zion, urging followers to accept the Bible teaching of speaking in tongues.  In June 1906, Bro. Opperman traveled with Charles Parham to an Apostolic Faith convention in Galena, Kansas.  After those meetings, Parham accompanied Opperman to Kansas City, Missouri and spent five weeks preaching the Pentecostal message to the Zion faithful there.

In October 1906, Bro. Opperman began joint meetings of Zion and Apostolic Faith people in San Antonio.  He says: “Turned work over to Bro. Farr in November.  About 15 saved, several sanctified, several healed, and seven Pentecosts.”  Bro. Opperman did not personally receive the Holy Ghost until 1908.  His grave personality may have hindered him from yielding to God; but on January 13, 1908, he spoke in tongues privately for the first time in Belton, Texas. Bro. Opperman recorded twenty other “Pentecosts” during the nine-week Belton campaign. But on March 5, 1908, he spoke publicly in tongues at a meeting in San Antonio in an American Indian language that was translated.

On July 28, 1907, D.C.O. Opperman, who had lost his first wife in childbirth, married Hattie Ruth Allen, a young Pentecostal from San Antonio.  A year later, in July 1908, Bro. Opperman assumed duties as the State Director of the Apostolic Faith Movement in Texas and began traveling throughout the district, encouraging the fledgling missions and spurring revival.

Bro. D.C.O. Opperman is probably best remembered for his role in beginning Bible training schools for Pentecostal workers.  He conducted many short-term schools where Holy Ghost-filled saints were transformed in Gospel missionaries.  Many future leaders in the Pentecostal movement attended Opperman’s schools, including Ralph M. Riggs, who later became a General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God.  Originally known as Schools of the Prophets, Opperman’s training centers were run along the faith line—no tuition.  Attendees prayed for what they got and got what they prayed for!  He assembled schools in such diverse places as Houston, Texas, Joplin, Missouri, Anniston, Alabama, Des Moines, Iowa, and Hot Springs, Arkansas.  In October 1915, Bro. Opperman organized the Ozark Bible and Literary School, a permanent Bible training institution under the auspices of the Assemblies of God, which he served as an executive presbyter.

When the revelation of the mighty God in Christ spread throughout the Pentecostal movement, Bro. Opperman accepted the message and was rebaptized in Jesus’ Name on September 12, 1915.  Interestingly, a final announcement of the Ozark school still appears a year later in August 1916 in The Latter Rain Evangel, a Trinitarian Pentecostal publication. Bro. Opperman began publishing his own paper, The Blessed Truth, propagating the Oneness message.  With the exodus of the Jesus-Only faction from the Assemblies of God in 1916, Opperman assumed the role of chairman in the General Assembly of Apostolic Assemblies. The Ozark school followed D.C.O. Opperman into the Oneness movement and became the Pentecostal Bible and Literary School with the GAAA’s merger with the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World in 1917. Bro. Opperman continued to labor for the Lord and led a German congregation in Lodi, California from 1923 to 1925.  His untimely death was sadly remarked by Bro. Howard Goss, who described him as “a handsome and commanding figure amongst us, full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.”  Eternity will measure the extent of his Godly influence on the Pentecostal movement and the multitude of lives changed through the seeds of faith and knowledge that he sowed throughout his remarkable life.

Andrew Urshan and Apostolic Baptism

In the April 19, 1919 issue of Christian Evangel, Eudorus N. Bell, first chairman of the Assemblies of God, published an article entitled, “Andrew Urshan’s New Stand, a Bit of Sad News,” confirming Bro. Urshan’s alignment with the “New Issue”, or Oneness, Pentecostals. While Bell expresses sincere concern for Bro. Urshan and appeals to readers to “pray for God to guide Bro. Urshan,” it is clear that Bro. Urshan’s declaration for the truth of the mighty God in Christ signaled his complete disassociation with the Assemblies of God. Bell writes: “Brother Urshan has offered to turn in his credentials held from the General Council, if they cannot endorse his teaching, and I am sure they cannot endorse it.”

It is interesting that Bro. Urshan remained in the Assemblies of God following the 1916 General Council, which ratified a strongly Trinitarian statement of faith and forced the withdrawal of Oneness adherents. Though he remained in the Assemblies of God, Bro. Urshan was suspected of Oneness leanings. He issued a “Confession of Faith” in 1918 answering accusations of his sympathy with the “New Issue” proponents. He said: “This is absolutely not so.” By April 1919, Bro. Urshan was publishing overtly Oneness views. E.N. Bell quotes a tract by Bro. Urshan reading:

The name of the Father, as we said first, is JEHOVAH, the Lord—thank God! Jesus has that name now; so to be baptized into—or in—the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, LORD, is the exact Holy Ghost interpretation and application for Matt. 28:19.

According to his autobiography, he had been employing the Jesus’ Name baptismal invocation since 1910, when God showed him that “’The Lord Jesus Christ” is the one proper Name of God for this gospel dispensation.” In his missionary work in Persia and Russia, he was undoubtedly somewhat removed from the raging controversies in America, but Bro. Urshan was aware of the growing schism in the Pentecostal movement. After preaching in St. Petersburg, Russia at the Free Protestant Mission, many wished to be water baptized. Bro. Urshan prayed:

Oh Lord, if Thou art going to make me baptize converts in this meeting, and if Thou will have me to baptize them in the Name of the Lord Jesus, as in the Book of Acts, please cause the first one who may ask me to baptize him, or her, to ask to be baptized according to the Book of Acts. Make that candidate show me the verse and chapter, referring to the water baptism. This I asked to know God’s will for me, concerning my practice of the real Apostolic formula; lest I be influenced by either party in America—to do as they thought—and not according to God’s leading and teachings on Baptism.

During the meeting, a large man rose from his seat and approached the platform with his Bible in his hand: “’Oh! Bro. Urshan, the Lord Jesus told me last night to ask you to baptize me, just like this text.’” The man pointed to Acts 8.16: “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus.” Eleven converts were baptized in Jesus’ Name at the initial baptismal service, and many more followed.

While Bro. Urshan made a clear stand for baptism in the Name of Christ, he was reluctant to allow rebaptism of those already immersed according to the Matthew 28.19.

At a subsequent baptismal service in St. Petersburg, Bro. Urshan delivered an exposition on his conviction about the Apostolic baptismal formula, with an unexpected result. Many of the baptized saints wished to be re-immersed in the Name of Jesus. Bro. Urshan said: “I did my best to discourage it, telling the folks it was not necessary at all, and that it would bring trouble and division among them . . . I prayed harder than all against rebaptism, and branded it to be a trick of the enemy to destroy our good revival.” While he resisted, the Lord spoke to him: “’Will you fail me, and despise my name given under heaven whereby men must be saved? Arise and be baptized in the true apostolic manner’” Bro. Urshan joined about 75 others in the freezing stream, receiving the true New Testament baptism: “Rebaptism? No! In the real Bible Christian-baptism.”

The Oneness insistence on rebaptism of Trinitarians was at the center of the “New Issue” controversy, and members of the Assemblies of God presbytery released a “Personal Statement” in the September 1915 Pentecostal Evangel attempting to assuage the schism. The statement allowed ministers to follow their convictions on the matter of baptismal invocation for new converts and discouraged the practice of rebaptism. The declaration was strategically issued before the upcoming General Council to be held in St. Louis in October and reads, in part:

1. That the Scriptures give no example of any one who has once had Christian baptism over [sic] being re-baptized.

2. That, therefore, re-baptizing of converts who have been once buried with Christ in baptism should be discouraged, and that ministers should respect, as a rule, such baptisms performed by their fellow ministers.

3. That in the case of individual conscience, each minister or candidate should have the full liberty to be personally baptized with any words he prefers, so long as he stays within the Scriptures on the subject . . .

The resolution does seem to allow ministers to be guided by their personal scruples if a request for rebaptism is initiated by a believer: “. . . nothing herein said shall hinder any minister from dealing, as he sees best, with cases whose consciences are not satisfied with their former baptism” and ultimately aims at a prevailing unity and mutual respect for the divergent positions: “All division or strife over mere phrases, as that there should a fixed or invariable formula, is wrong on both sides of the question.”

Bro. Urshan’s baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ post-dates the division of the organization over the Oneness issue and had real consequences. With the surrender of his credentials in the Assemblies of God, Bro. Urshan fully cast his lot with the “New Issue” brethren, going on to become an influential organizer and leader in many Oneness fellowships including the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, the Pentecostal Ministerial Alliance, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, and the United Pentecostal Church. E.N. Bell’s prayer for “God to guide” Bro. Urshan was surely answered, as the Lord led him into the fullness of Apostolic truth and anointed his ministry and work to spread the full gospel of Jesus Christ.

Beyond I Corinthians 11: Holiness, Hair, and Ancient History

Modern Apostolic believers give great emphasis to St. Paul’s teachings to the Corinthians concerning head covering and appropriate hair length; but increasingly, less attention is devoted to other Pauline New Testament directives concerning the superfluous dressing of the hair: “ . . . not with broided hair” (I Tm. 2.9) and “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair . . . “ (I Pt. 3.3). Patristical writings, appealing to the epistlary precepts of Paul and Peter, preserve for us a solid record of ecclesiastical stricture on the ostentatious and vain arrangement and alteration of the hair.

Like St. Paul, the Church Fathers viewed hair as a signification of order. The beauty of hair was seen in its simplicity rather than ornate arrangement or adornment. One of the earliest descriptions of acceptable hairstyles for women comes from Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.), who wrote in his Pædagogus: “It is enough for women to protect their locks, and bind up their hair simply along the neck with a plain hair-pin, nourishing chaste locks with simple care to true beauty.” It is clear from this passage that Christian women were expected to care for their uncut (chaste) hair and to wear it in a style consistent with modesty and simplicity.

Clement’s contemporary, Tertullian (160-220 A.D.), vehemently criticizes women for their elaborate hairdressing, asking: “What service, again, does all the labour spent in arranging the hair render to salvation?” He continues:

Why is no rest allowed to your hair, which must now be bound, now loosed, now cultivated, thinned out? Some are anxious to force their hair into curls, some to let it hang loose and flying; not with good simplicity: beside which, you affix I know not what enormities of subtle and textile perukes; now, after the manner of a helmet of undressed hide, as it were a sheath for the head and a covering for the crown; now, a mass drawn backward toward the neck. The wonder is, that there is no open contending against the Lord’s prescripts!

There is absolutely no toleration for immodest peacockery amongst these early Christians, and the hair was not to be piled with either jewels or bands.

Patristical writers also universally condemned the tincture of hair with dyes. Tertullian says:

I see some women turn the color of their hair with saffron. They are ashamed even of their own nation, ashamed that their procreation did not assign them to Germany or to Gaul. Thus, as it is, they transfer their hair thither! Ill, ay, most ill, do they augur for themselves with their flame-colored head . . . God saith, “Which of you can make a white hair black, or out of a black a white?” And so they refute the Lord! “Behold!” say they, “Instead of white or black, we make it yellow—more winning in grace.”

For Tertullian, the coloring of hair was an affront to the Creator. He believed that all cosmetic alteration of the person was adulterating and indicated dissatisfaction with the artistry of God Himself. In further disapproval of dyeing, he cites the damage that these chemicals cause to the hair: “Nay, moreover, the force of the cosmetics burns ruin into the hair; and the constant application of even any undrugged moisture, lays up a store of harm for the head.”

Cyprian, third century Bishop of Carthage, also laments the increasing ignorance in the Church of what believers had “done before in the time of the Apostles”, saying that “in women, their complexion was dyed: the eyes were falsified from what God’s hand had made them; their hair was stained with a falsehood. Crafty frauds were used to deceive the hearts of the simple, subtle meanings for circumventing the brethren.”

Commodianus, another Christian writer of the third century, in an address to the “Matrons of the Church of the Living God” rails against Christian women who embrace vanity “with all the pomp of the devil,” saying:

Thou art adorned at the looking-glass with thy curled hair turned back from thy brow . . . thou dyest thy hair that it may be always black. God is the overlooker, who dives into each heart. But these things are not necessary for modest women. Pierce thy breast with chaste and modest feeling.

Early Christian writers viewed undue attention to appearance and personal decking as diametric to Christian virtue.

Men also were censured by Clement and Tertullain for their effeminate attention to the arrangement and care of the hair and general appearance. Clement says: “they become effeminate, cutting their hair in an ungentlemanlike and meretricious way.” He also attacks the vanity of elderly men feigning youth with hair dye:

As for dyeing of hair, and anointing of grey locks, and dyeing them yellow, these are practices of abandoned effeminates; and their feminine combing of themselves is a thing to be let alone. For they think, that like serpents they divest themselves of the old age of their head by painting and renovating themselves. But though they do doctor the hair cleverly, they will not escape wrinkles, nor will they elude death by tricking time.

Tertullian’s writings also rebuke elderly brethren who would “ . . . arrange the hair, and disguise its hoariness by dyes . . . “

The Apostolic Constitutions, which date from the early centuries, also warn Christian men:

it is not it is not lawful for thee, a believer and a man of God, to permit the hair of thy head to grow long, and to brush it up together, nor to suffer it to spread abroad, nor to puff it up, nor by nice combing and platting to make it curl and shine; since that is contrary to the law, which says thus, in its additional precepts: “You shall not make to yourselves curls and round rasures” [Lev. 19.27].

Clearly, men were not exempt from sins of vanity or clerical invectives.

Interestingly, the wickedness of wiggery is consistently upheld amongst early post-apostolic Christians. While the Bible says little about the practice of wearing wigs, their use dates from Ancient Egypt, where they were worn by all but labourers and slaves. In his excellent study of hirsute history, At the Sign of the Barber’s Pole (1904), William Andrews catalogs the consensual condemnation of the Church Fathers. Gregory of Nazianzus, praising his modest, Christian sister, Gorgonia said: “She neither cared to curl her own hair, nor to repair its lack of beauty by the aid of a wig.” St. Jerome called wig-wearing “unworthy of Christianity” and relates a harrowing, didactic tale of one Praetexta who, at the bidding of her husband, ornately fixed the hair of her virgin niece, Eustachia, with false ringlets. In a dream, an angel of judgment appeared to Praetexta and declared:

Thou has obeyed thy husband rather than the Lord, and hast dared to deck the hair of a virgin, and make her look like a daughter of earth. For this do I wither up thy hands, and bid them recognise the enormity of thy crime in the amount of thy anguish and bodily suffering. Five months more shalt thou live, and then Hell shall be thy portion; and if thou art bold enough to touch the head of Eustachia again, thy husband and thy children shall die even before thee.

St. Bernard found the wearing of wigs to be no laughing matter: “There is no joke in the matter, the woman who wears a wig commits a mortal sin.”

Clement of Alexandria would not confer a blessing on wearers of wigs because, said he, the blessing would remain on the wig rather than the wearer.

Tertullian also denounced false hair, which seem to have been worn by some in an effort to increase their natural height: “It has been pronounced [by the Lord] that no one can add to his own stature. You, however, do add to your weight some kind of rolls, or shield-bosses, to be piled upon your necks!” He also makes an intriguing argument that believers should not be covered with the locks of those who may be prepared for eternal punishment: “If you feel no shame at the enormity, feel some at the pollution; for fear you may be fitting on a holy and Christian head the slough of some one else’s head, unclean perchance, guilty perchance and destined to hell.”

Whether condemning ostentation and superfluity or the utter falseness of appearance, these early writers, from diverse regions and time periods, agree on issues of hair! The moral detectable in each instance is that Christians must flee all vanity and maintain a visage consistent with a life of moderation and holiness. It seems that many modern Pentecostals content themselves with the observance of I Corinthians 11 without stringently applying the equally apostolic precepts of Paul and Peter concerning the ornamentation of hair. If we accept the historicity of these writings as valid applications of the epistlary principles of adornment in Timothy and Peter, we must question whether our sisters should garnish their crowning glory with twinkling trinkets or whether our brothers should tint their temples with Grecian Formula! Certainly, human nature is not much altered from the time of the patristical writers of the early centuries, and their arguments stand nearly 2,000 years later, validated by our carnal tendency toward pride. We would all do well to set ourselves before the looking-glass of God’s Word and study our personal appearance in the light of Christ’s perfect likeness.

Vanity, Pride, and the Mediaeval Pulpit

During the Middle Ages, fashion became increasingly sumptuous and outrageous. Rich, imported textiles, intricate embroidery, jeweled belts, and ermine-lined coats and dresses clad the wealthy, landed gentry of continental Europe and England. The absurd attirement raised the ire of many preachers, and history preserves a strong record of ecclesiastical and social comment against the mediaeval excess in dress and adornment that made mockery of professed faith and ascetic Christianity, which was founded on apostolic precedent and the patristic stricture on dress and adornment found in early Christian writers such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Chrysostom. Like their predecessors, many mediaeval ministers fought against worldly fashions and the vanity and pride that accompanied them.

In England, it became customary for nobles to enter church late “more to be seen there, than for their soul’s health” (qtd. in Owst 170). One preacher said: “There is most pride in entering of holy church with pomp, vainglory, with noble attire . . .” and another complained of “great lords and ladies that cometh to holy church in rich and noble apparel of gold and silver, pearls and rich stones, and other worldly, worshipful attire” cautioning that such “should take ensample of the noble Queen Esther,” who “did away [with] all her rich apparel and humbled herself meekly before God.” He concluded that “God taketh no heed of such worship” (qtd. Owst 170-171). One English manuscript appeals directly to Pauline epistle as a guide for acceptable headdress, especially at church: “Saint Paul teacheth how women should array themselves when they go to church, for to pray to God . . . And also Saint Paul saith and counseleth them that they not attire their heads, neither with silver, gold, nor pearl, nor other rich stones; but that they cover their heads with clean veils, and namely at the church, when they be to fore God, and show themselves there as good women should do” (qtd. in Owst 172). Clearly, all sense of moderation had been lost in some mediaeval churches.

Many viewed extreme fashion and luxury as a threat to Godliness and morality. Jean de Meun, a French novelist of the 13th century, complains that even nuns in abbeys and cloisters seem consumed by vanity, taking “great trouble to deck” themselves in order to “wage war on Chastity” (qtd. in Blamires 156). Maurice de Sully, a twelfth century Bishop of Paris, denounced outrageous cosmetic alteration, immodest habiliment, and proud walking:

Those women who bear their necks and heads and grease their eyebrows and paint their faces like images, lace up their arms and bodices and walk with mincing steps like a crane, face uplifted so as to be seen, these women are burning fires of licentiousness married to the devil, with hell as their dowry. They make many around them burn through their lustful tricks. (qtd. in Burns 40)

In his famous tale, “The Wife of Bath,” Geoffrey Chaucer’s female speaker laments the restriction of women’s adornment and evidences female resistance to such regulation:

And you say if we make ourselves
It only puts at risk our chastity;
And then, confound you, you must quote this text,
And back yourself up with the words of Paul,
As thus: ‘In chaste and modest apparel
You women must adorn yourselves,’ said he,
‘And not with braided hair and jewelry
Such as pearls and gold; and not in costly dress.’
But of your text, and your red-letter rubric,
I’ll be taking no more notice than a gnat! (qtd. in Blamires 208)

Ecclesiastical art also portrayed the demonic influences of vanity in the Middle Ages. Several extant woodcuts portray devils riding on the long train of women’s dresses, a style anathematized by the Church. And there are others depicting women preening in a mirror, observed by an on-looking devil. Medieval illustrated allegories known as Danse Macabre (Dance of Death) show Death, a skeletal figure, snatching gorgeously adorned men and women from life, didactically demonstrating that temporal luxury is meaningless in the face of mortality.

Perhaps one of the most outlandish developments in mediaeval dress was the elaborate headdress worn by women. While it was customary for women to wear veils; in the 1380s, they began introducing hideous conical bonnets and horn-shaped hats. The hennin was a cone-shaped bonnet that extended from the back of the head with veils of various lengths attached. Extreme examples measured from 10-12 feet in length. The escoffion, popular in France, was a two-horned accessory, each horn measuring approximately one yard in length on either side of the head, covered with a starched veil. Preachers castigated wearers of these extremities. One Catholic bishop promised ten days of pardon to any who would scream “Beware the ram!” at the approach of such a woman (Lester and Oerke 18).

Throughout the Middle Ages excesses in dress and adornment provoked preachers to call for a return to modesty and moderation in dress. To the modern eye, many of these fashions appear comical and even unattractive; but in the height of their adoption, they seemed a badge of licentiousness and an affront to Christianity. The fact of such preaching assures us that the Church has consistently recognized a marked border between the sacred and profane; and even in a historical period characterized by widespread apostasy, superstition, and Scriptural ignorance, some still contended for a standard of holiness and separation amongst the faithful. The historical documentation supports our modern continuation of the battle against pride, vanity, and immodesty and reminds us that human nature, from generation to generation and era to era, remains largely unchanged.

Sources:

Blamires, Alcuin, ed. Woman Defamed and Woman Defended: an Anthology of Medieval Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

 

Burns, E. Jane. Courtly Love Undressed: Reading through Clothes in Medieval French Culture. U of Penn Press, 2002.

Lester, Katherine and Bess Viola Oerke. Accessories of Dress: an Illustrated Encyclopedia. Dover Publications, 2004.

Owst, Gerald R. Preaching in Medieval England. New York: Russell and Russell, 1965.

Extra! Extra! Editorial Portrayals of the Early Oneness Movement

May 11, 1915, the Executive Presbytery of the Assemblies of God convened for a semi-annual meeting in St. Louis, Missouri. The announcement in the Weekly Evangel urged all presbyters to attend “as a number of important matters will be presented for deliberation and discussion.” Undoubtedly, the emerging “New Issue”, an early euphemism for the Oneness movement, was amongst the most important topics of the meeting. The Oneness doctrine, which spread quickly throughout the ranks of the Assemblies of God, represented a serious crisis for the fledgling organization as whole churches accepted the message of the Mighty God in Christ and submitted to rebaptism in the Name of Jesus. The printed call to the St. Louis meeting proved to be the commencement of the press war against Oneness, largely waged by Eudorus N. Bell, General Chairman of the Assemblies of God, and his powerful secretary, J. Roswell Flower. These men used the Weekly Evangel (later the Pentecostal Evangel), the official organ of the Assemblies of God, and other widely-read circulars to provide Trinitarian apologetics, discredit Oneness proponents, and to forge a semblance of unity that later led to the defection of the Oneness faction.

The germination of the Oneness movement actually predates the formation of the Assemblies of God, which organized in April 1914. Following the World Wide Apostolic Faith Camp Meeting held in April 1913 in Arroyo Seco, California, several attendees began a careful study of the Scriptures and became convinced that Jesus Christ was indeed God Himself rather than God the Son. April 15, 1914, Bro. Frank Ewart, who was solidly persuaded of the scriptural teaching, erected a tent in Belvedere, California and began preaching the Oneness message and the corollary doctrine of baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ. The moment was pivotal for the Pentecostal movement, and Bro. Ewart said: “The shot had been fired, and its sound was destined to be heard around the world.” Like the allusive shot that began the American Revolutionary War, the rediscovery of New Testament truth revolutionized the Pentecostal movement, with soldiers on both sides volleying for their respective positions.

The first mention of some doctrinal disruption is made in the August 1914 Word and Witness. J. Roswell Flower published a short editorial admonishment entitled “In Doctrines”:

In doctrinal teaching we shall stand for the certain truths as ever and against the doubtful and uncertain. We do not believe in keeping the saints confused and divided over men’s new theories [illegible] in wild fanatical tendencies which tear up more than they build up. Yet, we must keep our sky-lights open so as not to reject any new light God may throw upon the old Word. We must not fail to keep pace in life or teaching with light from heaven. To this end we earnestly ask the prayers and cooperation of every child of God.

While there is no specific mention of the “New Issue” doctrine, it is clear that Flower is attempting to steady the ship. However, we should recognize that his language is tolerant, if not expectant. Flower is clearly concerned about the unity of Pentecostals on issues of doctrine but is also careful about encouraging openness toward spiritual revelation that is consistent with the Scriptures.

Following the meeting of the Executive Presbytery in St. Louis, Flower printed a front-page piece, “Preliminary Statement. Concerning the Principles Involved in the New Issue by the Presbytery”, in the Weekly Evangel. While the statement was ratified by the presbyters, it bears a marked resemblance to the August 1914 comments by Flower: “We stand for everything clearly revealed and set forth in the written Word of God . . . In so far as there is anything in the Scriptures which we have not seen as yet, or have neglected, we stand ready to accept and teach this whenever the same is shown to be the teaching and practice of the Lord and His apostles.” Interestingly, the dictum seems much less focused on modes of baptism than another controversy equating the Holy Ghost with the blood. Evidently, some were teaching that the resurrected Christ had “spiritual blood” which was the same as the “new wine.” As such, proponents were teaching that the Lord’s Supper commemorated the resurrection rather than his death. All said, the statement does evidence growing doctrinal diversity amongst Pentecostals. However, the fact that the statement is merely “preliminary” indicates that the presbyters believed that further study was necessary before making a solid pronouncement of any kind.

In May 1915, E.N. Bell authored a four-part series for the Weekly Evangel on the baptismal debate. This study clearly elevated the visibility of the Oneness controversy, and Bell painstakingly attempts to nullify “in the Name of Jesus Christ” as a “fixed formula”, arguing that baptismal references in the New Testament indicate only that the rite was performed “under the power of Christ and the anointing of the Holy Ghost” but that “the mere phrase is not the essential thing.” In June, Bell published the final article in the series devoted to examining the Book of Acts. Surveying the controversial history of Christian baptism amongst the early post-apostolic believers, Bell admits that history supports the use of both singular and trine invocation, but he clearly believes Trinitarian baptism to be the default form. He explicitly rails against the “modern Los Angeles explanation” (a reference to the work of Frank Ewart and Glenn Cook): “But these new revelators have turned the table. They have reversed all history. They have done the new and unheard of thing.” Bell is clearly attempting to expose Ewart, Cook and company as mere innovators, manufacturers of an extra-biblical doctrine.

In an apparent reversal of his early opinions, Eudorus Bell caused a great stir in the summer of 1915 when, after so vehemently opposing the “New Issue”, he was reimmersed in the Name of Jesus Christ at the Third Interstate Encampment of the Assemblies of God in Jackson, Tennessee. The act made front page news in the August 1915 Word and Witness. In September 1915, Bro. Bell published a statement in the Weekly Evangel tellingly entitled: “Who is Jesus Christ? Being Exalted as the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the True God of the New. A New Realization of Christ as the Mighty God.” Though he claimed to retain his Trinitarian view, which he admits he does not and cannot comprehend, the article is essentially an Oneness exposition of the doctrine of Jesus Christ as God Himself:

I can say to-day [sic], before God and all men, that His joy is rolling in my soul now as never before. As I write His glory convulses my whole physical frame, and I have to stop now and then and say ‘Glory’ or ‘Oh Glory’ to let some of it escape. Night before last, as I lay on my bed, I heard in the Spirit the sweetest, most soul-thrilling song of the wonderful name of Jesus I ever heard since I was born. If people knew what God is putting in my soul by a brand new vision of Jesus and the wonders hid in His mighty and glorious name, they would begin to shout and help me praise the Lamb that was slain who is now beginning to receive some honor and praise, but who will eventually make the whole universe-sea, earth, and sky, reverberate with the universal praise and honor to His great name. Hallelujah to His Name forever and ever.

He continues throughout the piece to expound on Christ as Jehovah, Father and Creator, revealed and uses a collection of traditionally Oneness reference to buttress his arguments (Is. 9.6, Jn. 10.30, Col. 2.9, and Rev. 1.17). Bell ultimately never disconnected himself from the Trinitarian Assemblies of God, but this interesting episode clearly wrecks his nascent, stalwart stand against the Jesus’-Name formula.

Another function of the Pentecostal circulars was to keep a clear roster of who was aligned with whom. Bro. Ewart, who viewed Bell’s rebaptism as a victory for the Oneness camp, printed an expanded version of Bell’s Weekly Evangel article in his own Oneness publication, Meat in Due Season. In fact, Bro. Ewart proposed in his history, Phenomenon of Pentecost, that the Word and Witness version was edited to the point of mutilation, omitting some of the stronger Oneness statements made by Bell (Ewart 103).

When Andrew Urshan cast his lot with the Oneness pariahs after his return from foreign missions work in 1919, the subject re-erupted in the Trinitarian Pentecostal press. Bell made the announcement of Urshan’s defection in the Christian Evangel in an article entitled, “Andrew Urshan’s New Stand. A Bit of Sad News.” Citing Bro. Urshan’s strong confession of faith in the Mighty God in Christ as published in his own periodical, Witness of God, Bell indicates that Bro. Urshan was willing to forfeit credentials with the Assemblies of God. He concludes the article with heartfelt concern for Bro. Urshan: “The above is given with deep, loving concern for Bro. Urshan and with no prejudice or illwill [sic] against him, only as new to the saints. Pray for God to guide Bro. Urshan.”

After the clear division of the Oneness and Trinitarian camps with the withdraw of Oneness ministers in 1916, the heated controversies subsided. Today, however, we recognize the role of these periodicals in making up the ranks. The attacks on “New Issue” doctrine and believers played a significant role in controlling the impact of the Oneness movement on the Assemblies of God but surely stoked the fires of Oneness zeal and indignation as well. Undoubtedly, Flower and Bell believed that they were defending orthodoxy and protecting their fellowship from grievous wolves. The articles do evidence the sharp division ultimately caused by the propagation of the truth. In the days before email announcements and online discussion forums, even before widespread interstate telephone networks or broadcast stations, Pentecostal circulars were the neural system of the movement. Despite efforts to disinherit and discredit the Oneness movement, the power of the pen could not thwart the sovereign move of the Spirit as many leaders and congregations within the Assemblies of God accepted the Bible message of salvation and the apostolic teaching of the mighty God in Christ.

Cotton Mather: an Early American’s Call to Holiness

Cotton Mather (1663-1728) is probably best remembered for his publications of The Wonders of the Invisible World (1692), published as a defense of the Salem witch trials, which led to the execution of nineteen men and women accused of practicing witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts. But, this important Boston minister, from a renowned Puritan family, was a prolific opponent of all worldliness and carnality and a proponent of deep spiritual living and Godliness. Cotton Mather used both his pulpit and pen to admonish New England Christians to embrace a life of obedience and sacrifice and viewed the Scriptures as the ultimate authority for civil and ecclesiastical law. His published sermons, tracts, and books evidence Reverend Mather’s strong sense of personal piety and his fervent desire for the institutional Church to inform and regulate the lives of early Americans.

In 1692, Mather published “Ornaments for the daughters of Zion. Or The character and happiness of a vertuous woman: in a discourse which directs the female-sex how to express, the fear of God in every age and state of their life; and obtain both temporal and eternal blessedness.” In the work, Mather makes plain his strong stand against lewdness, wantonness and vanity. Citing the apostolic precepts of I Tm. 2.9 and I Pt. 3.2-4, Cotton Mather begins his discussion of dress and adornment with the basic holiness principle that “where the fear of God sanctifies the heart, it will doubtless regulate the habit.” The minister enumerates guidelines for Godly dress, beginning with the forbiddance of immodest exposure of the body. He allows only for the display of just the hands and face because “The face is to be naked because of what is known by it; the Hands are to be naked because of what is done by them.” He further disallows the practice of patching, or painting black or blue spots on the face to cover scars and blemishes, calling the marks “tokens of the Plague of the Soul.” He criticizes the dishonesty of women who use “artificiall painting” to produce a superficial “beauty which they are not really the owners of.” According to Mather, cosmetic alteration is the “guise of an Harlot,” and he argues that “a painted face is but a painted sign hung out for Strangers that they shall find entertainment there.” He admonishes Godly women to observe modest dress and to never spend more on “ornamental superfluities” than they are spending on “clothing and feeding the Distressed members of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Mather believes that any woman whose “rayment is too costly to leave her capable of attending the duties of Justice and Mercy commits but a piece of shining Theevery, in that cheating and cruel Finery.” He advises elderly women to dress with even greater gravity, not mimicking the fashion of the young: “For an old woman to flant [flaunt] it in a youthful dress, is altogether as prodigious a Disorder as for the Flowers of May to appear among the Snows of December.”. Mather warns against any obsession in fashionable dress as “contrary to Christian moderation” and says that “If a Woman spend more Time in Dressing than she does in Praying, or in working out her own Salvation, her Dress is but the Snare of her Soul.” Cotton Mather begs all women to avoid “garish, pompous, flaming modes” of dress and presents these regulations as “Lessons, by the Remembrance and Observance of which, you may be kept from such Transgression in your Apparel as may say, There is no Fear of God before Your eyes.”

In addition to his appeal to New England’s women to avoid immodesty and excess in dress and ornamentation, Cotton Mather delivered a great deal of advice to Christian families on early religious training and additional guidance to young people on the value of personal consecration and morality. The lengthy titles of early American publications serve as a general abstract of the works. In 1694, he published “Early religion. Urged in a sermon. the duties, wherein, and the reasons wherefore, young people should become religious. Whereto are added, the extracts of several papers, written by several persons, who are dying in their youth, left behind them those admonitions for the young survivers; with brief memoirs relating to the exemplary lives of some such, that have gone from hence to their everlasting rest.“ Early mortality served as a powerful and ever-present reminder to young Puritans of the brevity of life. In 1699, Mather wrote “A family well-ordered. Or An essay to render parents and children happy in one another. Handling two very important cases. I. What are the duties to be done by pious parents, for the promoting of piety in their children. II. What are the duties that must be paid by children to their parents, that they may obtain the blessings of the dutiful.” In 1703, he preached a sermon entitled “The Duty of Children, Whose Parents have Pray’d for them. Or, Early and Real Godliness Urged, Especially upon Such as are Descended from Godly Ancestors.” Clearly, he viewed the home as a sacred space for Biblical instruction and exemplified Christianity.

Cotton Mather also greatly admonished Christians to maintain a life filled with spiritual disciplines of prayer, Bible study, and introspection. In 1703, he preached “The Retired Christian. Or, The Duty of Secret Prayer;” and in 1705, he ordered the printing of “The Religion of the Closet, An Essay on the Holy Employments which are proper for a Christian in his Daily Retirements Or, A Christian Furnished with a Companion for Solitude.”

Though Cotton Mather and his Puritan contemporaries never realized many of the rich truths of the Scriptures, their homiletic contributions evidence the history of holiness and dedication to God that served as a solid foundation for Colonial America. Governors, magistrates, jurists, and clergy looked to the Bible as the full embodiment of ideals for the construction of a Godly social order. Sadly, our hallowed national origins have been reinterpreted as an era of ignorance, bigotry, and even theocratic tyranny. Cotton Mather’s sermons, however, are in indelible record of the passionate piety of our American ancestors. In these degenerate times of immorality, profanation, and widespread wickedness, Cotton Mather’s messages, now long-forgotten by most, call us to return to the daily observance of heartfelt holiness and a renewed recognition of the pre-eminent Christ as the true center of our personal, familial, and communal lives.

Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs: the Music of Early Oneness Believers

Music has always been an integral part of the Pentecostal Movement. Bro. Howard Goss, an early Pentecostal pioneer, devoted a chapter of his book, Winds of God, to the advent of Pentecostal music, which he described as “joyous” and an attractive alternative to the mournful worship of traditional churches. Songs were sung “almost at breakneck speed,” and the passionate praises penetrated the souls of saints and sinners alike:

This crescendo of joyous, happy people singing unto the Lord was infectious. The sound of victorious Christian living wrapped around you. Unperceived, it seemed to slip down gently into the deeps of your affections, to tap at your heart’s door, and unsuspected, spread warmly through your entire being. (Goss 208-209)

Bro. Goss saw Pentecostal music as an important and indispensable element of the early revival: “Without it the Pentecostal Movement could have never made the rapid inroads into the hearts of men and women as it did. Neither could we have experienced a constant, victorious revival over the ensuing fifty years, one in which thousands have been accepted, sealed, and shipped through the world in bond, waiting for the appearance of the Lord” (Goss 212).

The centrality of music in the promotion of Pentecostal worship and an abiding spiritual anointing have produced a number of prolific songwriters. When the Oneness Movement emerged after 1913, Apostolics began to pen new hymns intimating the Oneness stand for full Bible truth and melodiously conveying the doctrines of the Mighty God in Christ, the New Birth, and holy living.

The catalog of Apostolic songwriters is an impressive roll call of some of God’s finest preachers and early Pentecostal laborers including: Garfield THaywood, Sis. S.K. Grimes, Alexander R. Schooler, Thoro Harris, Robert C. Lawson, William Booth-Clibborn, and George Farrow. *

G.T. Haywood, first Presiding Bishop of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, is perhaps the most beloved of all Oneness composers. His songs “I See a Crimson Stream of Blood” and “Jesus, the Son of God” gained widespread popularity even outside of the Oneness movement. Many of his hymns, published in The Bridegroom Songs, a hymnal printed at Christ Temple, his Indianapolis church, are distinctly Apostolic. The chorus of “Do All in Jesus’ Name” copyrighted in 1923 says:

Preach in Jesus name, teach in Jesus name,
Heal the sick in His name and always proclaim
It was Jesus’ Name in which the power came;
Baptize in His Name, enduring the shame,
For there is vict’ry in Jesus’ name.
Similarly, the refrain of Haywood’s “The Lord of Lords” says:
He’s Lord of lords and King of kings,
The Beginning and the end,
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
The dying sinner’s Friend.
If you will hear His voice,
Be buried in His name,
Then the Comforter will come to abide.

Haywood was a tireless defender of Oneness doctrine; and when he died in April 1931, he left behind not only scores of hymns and a large body of apologetic tracts, sermons, and books.

Sis. S.K. Grimes also authored many songs. She and her husband, Samuel J. Grimes, served as Apostolic missionaries in Liberia for a number of years, and Grimes succeeded Bishop Haywood as leader of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World in 1932. One of her most poignant hymns is aptly entitled “Acts 2:38″:

O what will you do with Acts two thirty-eight?
The way that leads to life is narrow and straight.
“Repent and be baptized,” God is speaking do not wait.
He gives you full directions there in Acts two thirty-eight.

Other significant hymns celebrating the Oneness of God and the Name of Jesus include “The Great I Am” and “Jesus, the Joy of My Soul.”
A.R. Schooler, one of the original PAW bishops from Cleveland, Ohio, wrote a number of distinctly Apostolic songs such as “The Name”, and “God Died for Me.” His 1920 hymn “The Author and the Finisher” proclaims in part: “His word we will obey/In the water we’ll be buried in His name.” Schooler’s “The Bible Manifestation” is an interesting example of Apostolic hymnody. The lyrics are openly critical of apostate denominationalism, which have “left the path apostles trod.” The song defends Pentecostal norms such as speaking in tongues, the anointing “of the sick/By the bishopric”, foot washing, and communion, and militantly declares: “I’ll arise and stand by the Bible manifestation/I’ll stand until the Lord shall come.”
Schooler also co-wrote many hymns with Thoro Harris, pastor of the Lake Street Mission in Chicago, Illinois, and one of the most fruitful and widely published Pentecostal musicians. Harris, whose most famous tune is unquestionably “Jesus Loves the Little Children”, wrote scores of hymns like “Pentecost in My Soul” and “All That Thrills my Soul is Jesus.” He was one of the first musicians to produce exclusively Pentecostal hymnals: The Blessed Hope (1910), Jesus Is Coming Soon (1914), Songs of His Coming (1919), and Songs We Love (1921).

Robert C. Lawson, who left the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World to found the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, also contributed a large number of songs to the Pentecostal repertoire. In “Praise Our God”, Lawson summates the Oneness view of Jesus Christ:

He overshadowed the Virgin Mary,
Was born a babe in Beth’lem cradle
God vailed [sic] in flesh,
His name was Jesus
Being interpreted was God with us.

Two of his most memorable hymns are “God is Great in My Soul” and “His Name Should be Praised” which boldly states: “I will praise Him for the ev’ning light/That I have entered in/Which shows us that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are One;/Oh praise the Lord ‘’tis finished’, On Calvary ‘twas done!”

William Booth-Clibborn was the grandson of William Booth, the illustrious founder of the Salvation Army. Booth-Clibborn was a powerful Pentecostal evangelist and authored one of the most beloved Oneness compositions, “Down from His Glory.” This majestic song inspired in 1921 declares the glory of Christ, the incarnate God:

Down from His glory, ever living story,
My God and Savior came, and Jesus was His name;
Born in a manger to His own a stranger,
A man of sorrows, tears and agony!

What condescension, bringing us redemption,
That in the dead of night, not one faint hope in sight,
God gracious, tender laid aside His splendor,
Stooping to woo, to win, to save my soul!

Without reluctance, flesh and blood His substance,
He took the form of man, revealed the hidden plan;
O glorious myst’ry sacrifice of Calv’ry!
And now I know He is the great “I AM”!
Chorus: Oh how I love Him! How I adore Him!
My breath, my sunshine, my all in all!
The great Creator became my Savior,
And all God’s fullness dwelleth in Him!

Perhaps the most well-known anthem of Oneness Pentecostalism is George Farrow’s “It’s All in Him”, which so clearly delineates the inter-testamental Oneness revelation of Jesus Christ as the manifest Jehovah God:

The Mighty God is Jesus, the Prince of Peace is He
The Everlasting Father, the King eternally,
The wonderful in wisdom by whom all things were made.
The fullness of the Godhead in Jesus is display’d.

Emmanuel, God with us, Jehovah Lord of hosts,
The omnipresent Spirit who fills the universe,
The Advocate, the High Priest, the Lamb for sinners slain,
The Author of redemption, O glory to His name!

The Alpha and Omega, Beginning and the End,
The Living Word incarnate, the helpless sinner’s Friend.
Our wisdom and perfection, our righteousness and pow’r
Yea, all we need is Jesus, we find this very hour

‘Our God for whom we’ve waited,’ will be the glad refrain
Of Israel recreated when Jesus comes again.
Lo! He will come and save us, our King and Priest to be,
For in Him dwells all fullness, and Lord of all is He!

Chorus: It’s all in Him, it’s all in Him,
The fullness of the Godhead is all in Him.
It’s all in Him, it’s all in Him,
The Mighty God is Jesus, and it’s all in Him!

The hymns of early Apostolic believers were inspired by deep spirituality and the freshness of Bible revelations. They were simultaneously anointed and apologetic, glorifying Christ and intimating the deep truths of the Scriptures. The popularity of many of these hymns lasted throughout the early decades of the Oneness movement. Sadly, today their lyrics and tunes are virtually unknown to Apostolic young people, and many of the Oneness songs are indeed endangered. But the musical contributions of our Pentecostal predecessors make up an important part of our Apostolic heritage, and it is the responsibility of the contemporary Church to rediscover and revive the powerful songs of Zion that remain relevant to our strong stand for Acts 2:38 salvation and New Testament doctrine of the Mighty God in Christ, passing from generation to generation the “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” that so clearly articulate the message of “the faith once delivered unto the saints”, born in the Spirit-fueled conflagration of early Pentecostalism and the rich experiences of our Apostolic ancestors.

Sources:

Goss, Ethel. The Winds of God: the Story of the Early Pentecostal Days (1901-1914) in the Life of Howard A. Goss. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1977.

Hymns taken from The Bridegroom Songs Indianapolis: Christ Temple, 1924 and Pentecostal Praises. St. Louis: Pentecostal Publishing House, 1947.

Earthquake Evangelism: the San Francisco Quake & the Azusa Revival

At 5:12 AM on the morning of April 18, 1906, San Francisco, California was struck by a deadly and powerful earthquake. Most seismologists believe the quake exceeded 8.0 on the Richter Scale. Though it only lasted between 45 and 60 seconds, the earthquake and subsequent conflagration left over 3,000 people dead, destroyed over 28,000 buildings, and rendered over a quarter of a million people homeless (“San Francisco Earthquake”). The devastating disaster caused panic throughout southern California, and the saints of the newly-formed Azusa Street Mission, who viewed the convulsions as a sure sign of God’s judgment and might, used the opportunity to escalate evangelism and call men to repentance.

Frank Bartleman, who chronicled the early Pentecostal revival in Los Angeles, was spiritually spurred by the event and went to great lengths to spread the Gospel in the weeks following the earthquake. Before the quake, Bartleman had written a tract entitled “The Last Call.” He and other Christian workers in the city distributed over 10,000 of the pamphlets on April 22. According to Bro. Bartleman, many preachers in California were “working overtime to prove that God had nothing to do with earthquakes and thus allay the fears of the people.” Bartleman, along with other Pentecostals, aptly attributed the destruction to God’s hand and felt compelled to warn others of their need to speedily repent before incurring the further wrath of the Almighty.

Bartleman clearly saw the disassociation of God with the quake as an infernal campaign: “The devil put on a big propaganda on this line . . . He [God] showed me all hell was being moved to drown out His voice in the earthquake, if possible” (Bartleman 50). In 1907, John Casper Branner, a renowned geologist published a chapter in an anthology about the earthquake, which denies the divine origin of tectonic activity:

But whatever theory one adopts regarding the remote causes of earthquakes, the conclusion is inevitable that they are produced by natural causes, one of which is the relief of strains within the earth’s crust along the lines of fracture. The knowledge that they are due to natural causes ought to contribute to a philosophical view of them and rid them to some extent of the terror they inspire in the minds of those who attribute them to the wrath of God and other supernatural causes. (76-77)

In Bartleman’s view, scholars, scientists, clerics, and schoolteachers were all involved in the diabolical conspiracy to undermine God’s voice in the earthquake.

On 28 April 1906, God began to give Bro. Bartleman a firm message about the earthquake, and he penned a tract on the subject. He finished writing at 12:30 AM and interceded in prayer for California until 4 AM, rising at 7 to take the tract to the printer. The pamphlet was primarily a conglomeration of Old and New Testament Bible verses, systematically strung together to demonstrate the sure judgments of the Lord against evildoers with repeated references to the shaking, turning, quaking, trembling, and melting of the earth. He concludes the tract with a quote from John Wesley, the primogeniture of the Holiness Movement, from which the Pentecostals in Los Angeles had emerged: “Of all the judgments which the righteous God inflicts on sinners here, the most dreadful and destructive is an earthquake” (Bartleman 52-53).
Bro. Bartleman and a network of Pentecostal and Holiness workers throughout southern California distributed 75,000 of the tracts throughout Los Angeles and the surrounding cities. Frank Bartleman personally carried the publication to “missions, churches, saloons, business houses, and in fact everywhere, both in Los Angeles and Pasadena.” He documents resistance to the message by both people on the streets and “nearly all the preachers.” He was even followed by a policeman, but he claimed: “The Spirit warned me and I saw him coming. I was enabled to dodge him” (Bartleman 51).

The atmosphere in Los Angeles was frenetic. Bro. Bartleman reported that business in the city was at a standstill and that “the people were paralyzed with fear” (Bartleman 52). “Men were at the breaking point,” writes Bartleman, “They would fly to pieces even on the street, almost without provocation” (53). Despite the palpable terror, Bartleman says: “I found the earthquake had opened many hearts” (50).

In October 1906, William Seymour, pastor of the Azusa Street Mission, published an article entitled “Earthquakes” in The Apostolic Faith, the official organ of the mission. Bro. Seymour claimed prophetic warning of the San Francisco quake in 1905 and believed it to be a harbinger of future destruction.

The Lord says that earthquakes will come as they never have before and more often, because of the wickedness of the people. He wants His people to get ready. The only way He can get you ready is to bring disaster. If you do not repent, a great many of you will be lost. (2)
Bro. Bartleman certainly saw the cataclysm as a catalyst for the Azusa revival: “The San Francisco earthquake was surely the voice of God to the people on the Pacific Coast. It was used mightily in conviction, for the gracious after revival” (Bartleman 53).

There is no way to quantify the impact of the great San Francisco earthquake upon the Apostolic Faith revival that swept Los Angeles and the surrounding cities in 1906. However, considering Frank Bartleman’s passionate account of his own personal burden after the earthquake and the swift response of Christian workers throughout southern California, we can well imagine the evangelistic emergency sensed by the Azusa saints. Undoubtedly, the reverberating effects of the seismic rupture created a social and spiritual juncture that facilitated the spread of the Gospel message and attracted seeking souls to the humble mission at 312 Azusa Street, the true epicenter of Pentecostal revival in California.

Sources:

Branner, John Casper. “Geology & the Earthquake.” The California Earthquake of 1906. David Starr, Jordan, Ed. San Francisco: A.M. Robertson, 1907. Pgs. 64-7.

Seymour, William Joseph. “Earthquakes.” The Apostolic Faith 1 (2), October 1906, pg. 2.

“San Francisco Earthquake.” The Great American History Fact-Finder. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004. Credo Reference. 09 November 2008 <http://www.credoreference.com/entry/6601476/.>.