The Welsh Revival of 1904-1905: Keswick to Pentecostalism

The Welsh Revival of 1904-1905: Keswick to Pentecostalism

More Resources on Soteriology: The Biblical Doctrine of Salvation

 

View/Download Complete Work

 

Download Chapter

 

The Welsh Revival of 1904-1905: Keswick to Pentecostalism

Part 2 of Evan Roberts, Jessie Penn-Lewis, and the Welsh Revival of 1904-1905

Click here for part 1   Click here for part 3   View all chapters

While Roberts’ testimony of the new birth is far from certain, he affirmed that during his work in the holiness revival Satan had entered his heart, and he died with scarcely a glimmer of Christian piety, throughout the Welsh holiness revival Roberts’ “spiritual input” was “through ministering the gifts of the Spirit,” leading Welsh Christendom to a “new respect for the possibilities of supernatural happenings, such as visions, guidances, and discerning of spirits . . . prophesyings and healings,” releasing “vital forces into chapels and churches of his day,” which were spread to “revival converts” and then “all over the world through the literature and conferences of The Overcomers,” so that “charismatic and other fellowships . . . have inherited his teaching.”[304] “Amongst the ‘children of the revival’ . . . from Wales speaking in tongues became very prominent in the early days of the Pentecostal movement,”[305] so that through them Pentecostalism spread all over Wales.[306] The practices of Evan Roberts, and those influenced by him in the Welsh holiness revival, were almost identical with those of Pentecostalism. Higher Life leaders recognized that a “similar gracious work of the Spirit to that in Wales is in progress [in Los Angeles at Azuza Street],”[307] since “the Welsh revival . . . served as an inspiration and model for the Pentecostal revival.”[308] The only significant difference was that Roberts was a passionate continuationist who prepared the way for the restoration[309] of ecstatic jibber-jabber, but had not personally added that particular marvel to his roster, while the Pentecostals took over the marvels and continuationism of Roberts and added a gift of babbling to them. As Roberts’s revival was, so the Pentecostal Azuza Street revival was anti-doctrinal, anti-creedal, and ecumenical.[310] Both works were filled with marvels of healing of the Faith Cure variety,[311] visions of and encounters with what were affirmed to be the Lord Jesus, Satan, and other supernatural beings,[312] and supernatural lights.[313] Both works were characterized by disorganized meetings that went on for hours and hours and were led by supernatural powers, with total spontaneity as to what took place,[314] rather than organized meetings directed by preachers or other church officials,[315] people falling to the ground as “slain by the Spirit,”[316] a heavy emphasis upon testimonial as a validation of their work and a corresponding absence of careful exposition of Scripture,[317] predominant support from those not well-grounded in Scripture and opposition from church leadership,[318] a rejection of grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture for experience-based interpretation and a downplaying of doctrine,[319] prophetic exhortations delivered not by men only, but also women and children, to the entire congregation,[320] and little preaching[321] or no preaching at all.[322] The sole difference of note in Pentecostalism was an increased amount of babbling,[323] the spawn of the spirits that produced identical babbling in many pagan religions as a result of demon possession.[324] A description of a meeting at Azuza Street, and one where Evan Roberts ministered marvel-working power, is almost identical. The following eyewitness description of the Pentecostal Azuza Street Mission could, with a change of a few minor details and with the removal of the specific added marvel of babbling as an alleged restoration of Biblical tongues, be a description of many a meeting with Evan Roberts:

Breathing strange utterances and mouthing a creed which it would seem no sane mortal could understand, the newest religious sect has started in Los Angeles. Meetings are held in a tumble-down shack on Azuza Street . . . and devotees of the weird doctrine practice the most fanatical rites, preach the wildest theories and work themselves into a state of mad excitement in their peculiar zeal. Colored people and a sprinkling of whites compose the congregation, and night is made hideous in the neighborhood by the howlings of the worshippers who spend hours swaying forth and back in a nerve-[w]racking attitude of prayer and supplication. They claim to have “the gift of tongues,” and to be able to comprehend the babel.

Such a startling claim has never yet been made by any company of fanatics, even in Los Angeles, the home of almost numberless creeds. Sacred tenets, reverently mentioned by the orthodox believer, are dealt with in a familiar, if not irreverent, manner by these latest religionists.

An old colored exhorter [William Seymour], blind in one eye, is the major-domo of the company. With his stony optic fixed on some luckless unbeliever, the old man yells his defiance and challenges an answer. Anathemas are heaped upon him who shall dare to gainsay the utterances of the preacher.

Clasped in his big fist the colored brother holds a miniature Bible from which he reads at intervals one or two words—never more. After an hour of exhortation the breth[ren] present are invited to join in a “meeting of prayer, song, and testimony.” Then it is that pandemonium breaks loose, and the bounds of reason are passed by those who are “filled with the spirit,” whatever that may be.

“You-oo-oo gou-loo-loo come under the bloo-oo-oo bloo-oo,” shouts an old colored “mammy,” in a frenzy of religious zeal. Swinging her arms wildly about her, she continues with the strangest harangue ever uttered. Few of her words are intelligible, and for the most part her testimony contained the most outrageous jumble of syllables, which are listened to with awe by the company.

One of the wildest of the meetings was held last night, and the highest pitch of excitement was reached by the gathering, which continues to “worship” until nearly midnight. The old exhorter urged the “sisters” to let the “tongues come forth” and the women gave themselves over to a riot of religious fervor. As a result a [plump] dame was overcome with excitement and almost fainted.

Undismayed by the fearful attitude of the colored worshipper, another black wom[an] jumped to the floor and began a wild gesticulation, which ended in a gurgle of wordless prayers which were nothing less than shocking.

“She’s speakin’ in unknown tongues,” announced the leader, in [an] awed whisper, “keep on sister.” The sister continued until it was necessary to assist her to a seat because of the bodily fatigue. Among the “believers” is a man who . . . claims to have been miraculously healed and is a convert of the new sect. Another speaker had a vision in which he saw the people of Los Angeles flocking in a mighty stream to perdition. He prophesied awful destruction to this city unless its citizens are brought to a belief in the tenets of the new faith.[325]

Indeed, “the most enduring effect of the [Welsh] revival was the contribution it made to the development of Pentecostalism in Britain. . . . The revival . . . creat[ed] new, Pentecostal denominations. . . . it was the Pentecostals who would continue the revival emphases[.]”[326] It is very clear that the “origins of the British Pentecostal movement” are found “in the revival in Wales . . . which played such an important part in the origins of Pentecostalism”[327] as a whole, since the “British Pentecostal movement . . . [was of] decisive importance . . . for many European Pentecostal bodies,”[328] and so the Welsh holiness revival was truly at the root of European Pentecostalism in general. Donald Gee, a “very influential figure in the growth of the Assemblies of God,”[329] and, indeed, the “greatest teacher of the Pentecostal movement . . . was brought to the Pentecostal movement by the revival in Wales” after being “converted in 1905, during the revival in Wales.”[330] Gee went on to become the chairman of the British Assemblies of God and the president of the Bible School of the Assemblies of God in London. He took long worldwide journeys to spread the Pentecostal message everywhere.[331] Indeed, if “one looks through a year’s issues of almost any Pentecostal journal, it is virtually impossible not to come across an article by him.”[332] Keswick theology permeates the Assemblies of God and other Pentecostal denominations.[333] Gee “compares Evan Roberts with the healing evangelists of Pentecostalism.”[334] Daniel Powell Williams professed conversion through Roberts’ ministry and went on to found the Pentecostal Apostolic Church.[335] George Jeffreys, founder of the Elim Pentecostal Movement with his brother Stephen, were leading spiritual products of the holiness revival.[336] George Jeffries had “responded totally to Evan Roberts’s call to obey the Spirit in everything,” and was possessed by the “revival fire” along with his brother Stephen, so that they became the “evangelists and founders of great Pentecostal movements,”[337] as George Jeffries came to spread not only Pentecostal marvels and healings but also British Israelism.[338] After being “drawn into the revival in Wales . . . George and Stephen Jeffreys . . . brought into being . . . [t]he Elim Pentecostal churches.”[339] Stephen participated in “large . . . healing campaigns” that perpetuated within Pentecostalism the characteristics of Faith Cure healings, namely, “mechanical and auto-suggestive methods of healing . . . relatively small numbers healed, [and] the considerable difference [in number] between those who ‘professed conversion in the campaigns’ and those who later joined”[340] churches. Furthermore, the “father of the British Pentecostal movement . . . [and] a leading personality in the international Pentecostal movement . . . the Anglican priest A. A. Boddy, took part in the revival movement in Wales and worked with Evan Roberts. He was convinced that the Pentecostal movement was a direct continuation of the revival.”[341] Soon he was hosting “national and international Pentecostal conferences” in his Anglican church.[342] As an Anglican priest wanting to spread charismatic doctrine and practices, “Boddy . . . was fortunate in having a Bishop who was exceptionally lenient, and even sympathetic, [to] the notorious Pentecostal meetings” he held, namely, the great Keswick continuationist “Handley G. Moule,” who “raised . . . no ecclesiastical hindrances . . . to those remarkable scenes in connection with a Parish Church in his diocese” because of his sympathy for Boddy.[343] “Boddy . . .[also] brought the Keswick understanding of ‘baptism in the Spirit’ as an enduement of power into the British Pentecostal movement,”[344] so that “through his influence, a Keswickian understanding of ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ became normative for most Pentecostal movements.”[345] The Anglican priest distributed thousands of copies of his charismatic promotional work Pentecost for England at the Keswick Convention in 1907, leading many into the experience of Pentecostal tongues,[346] for at the 1907 Keswick “[t]hose who [had] tongues [were] present, and unable and unwilling to control them when moved by the Spirit.”[347] Boddy went on to found the “Sunderland Conventions,” which from “the point of view of the early history of the Pentecostal Movement in the British Isles . . . must occupy the supreme place in importance. . . . From those early Sunderland Conventions the Pentecostal Flame was carried into practically every corner of the British Isles.”[348] Similarly, Pentecostals were engaged in prominent proselytizing at the 1908 Keswick.[349] Indubitably, the British “prominent Pentecostal streams were . . . deeply influenced by the revival in Wales”[350] and its Keswick continuationism.

The Welsh holiness revival was central to the spread of Pentecostalism on the European continent, as it was in Britain:

[G]lossolalia gained renewed attention through the phenomena that accompanied the revivals in Wales, Los Angeles, Christiania, Hamburg, Kassel, and other places. . . . [T]he revival in Wales under Evan Roberts produced . . . psychological and physical abnormalities . . . and sparked them also in other countries (California, Norway, Denmark, Hesse, Silesia)[.] . . . [O]pinions . . . strongly diverged. [Pentecostals] viewed speaking in tongues and similar phenomena as a renewal of the gifts of Pentecost and powerful evidence of the working of the Holy Spirit, but others . . . pronounced everything to be a work of the devil and a deception of the antichrist.[351]

News of the Welsh holiness revival brought “expectation . . . almost to a boiling point . . . [i]n Germany in 1904.”[352] The groundwork for Pentecostalism had been laid by Keswick continuationist “American Holiness evangelists”[353] such as Robert Pearsall Smith and the central German Higher Life advocate, the Lutheran Theodore Jellinghaus.[354] Jellinghaus recognized that “the ‘doctrine of the Keswick Conventions’ which he . . . taught for many years [was] the source [of] . . . the rise of the Pentecostal movement.”[355] Soon after 1904 “[e]very [German] Evangelical journal published enthusiastic reports of the beginnings of the Pentecostal Movement in Wales and India,”[356] and, through such testimonials, charismatic phenomena began to arise all through Germany in hearts prepared for Pentecostalism by Keswick theology. “Objections based on the Bible and systematic theology were insolently rejected,” for Pentecostals argued: “We do not need to investigate whether it is biblical to speak of a baptism of the Spirit and a new experience of Pentecost, for we can see all around us men and women, and not only individuals, who can testify from their own blessed experience that there is such a thing.”[357] In line with the Welsh holiness revival’s repudiation of the mind, logic, and systematic theology, Pentecostals taught: “We need no more theology or theory. Let the devil have them. . . . Away with such foolish bondage! Follow your Heart!”[358] Although Pentecostal founders knew that “many ‘winds of doctrine’ blew at Azuza Street” and there were “intrusion[s] of spiritualists and mediums into their midst,” nonetheless it was clear to the charismatics that the work was a real “revival [and] the beginning of a historic awakening.”[359] The international impact of the Welsh holiness revival, as the source of European Pentecostalism, was truly profound.

Not only was the Welsh holiness revival the spark of Pentecostalism in Britain and on the European continent, but it was central to the rise of American Pentecostalism also. The Azuza Street Mission, where “the Pentecostal movement ignited,”[360] was “regarded by Pentecostal publicists as the place of origin of the world-wide Pentecostal movements,” was established by W. J. Seymour, who had been seeing visions from his youth and had adopted the Faith Cure theology of the Higher Life for the body, after which he suffered from smallpox and became permanently blind in one eye.[361] “Seymour . . . in common with Evan Roberts’ leadership in the Welsh Revival . . . preached very little, and more or less allowed things to go their own way.”[362] Seymour’s work found fertile soil in Los Angeles because of the preparatory work of “Joseph Smale and Frank Bartleman . . . preachers who had been influenced by the revival in Wales.”[363] As the Higher Life continuationist foundation for Pentecostalism was being laid in Los Angeles, the “religious life of the city was dominated by Joseph Smale, whose large First Baptist Church had been transformed into the ‘New Testament Church’ due to the effects of the Welsh revival which were being felt in Los Angeles at the time.”[364] Smale’s transformation from a Baptist into a continuationist gift-seeker is paradigmatic of the type of influence the Welsh holiness revival under Evan Roberts exerted. The methodology and practices of Evan Roberts had swept into Los Angeles in 1905, being concentrated in Smale’s First Baptist Church.[365] “The revival in Smale’s church was sparked by news of the great Welsh revival of 1904-5 led by Evan Roberts. A trip to Wales by Smale and an exchange of letters between Bartleman and Evan Roberts demonstrate a direct spiritual link between the move of God[366] in Wales and the pentecostal outpouring in Los Angeles in 1906.”[367] After Smale “returned from Wales,” having “been in touch with the revival [there] and Evan Roberts, [he] was on fire to have the same visitation and blessing come to his own church in Los Angeles. . . . They were waiting on God for an outpouring of the Spirit there.”[368] Smale began to “preac[h] . . . on the revival in Wales,”[369] instead of preaching only the Bible. Meetings in his church were carried on in a manner identical to that of those with Evan Roberts.[370] Soon “Pastor Smale [was] prophesying of wonderful things to come. He prophesie[d] the speedy return of the apostolic ‘gifts’ to the church,” as others, prepared by the testimonials to the Higher Life and marvels worked in Wales, had “been expecting just such a display of . . . power for some time,” thinking that “it might break out any hour.”[371] After fifteen weeks of daily meetings, Smale and those he had led away from Baptist convictions separated themselves from those who wanted the old paths and organized the “New Testament Church” to continue to spread the innovations and strange fire from Wales.[372] As tongues began to break out at the Azuza Street Mission,[373] “Brother Smale had to come to ‘Azuza,’” for many of his church members were there, speaking in gibberish. Smale “invited them back home, promised them liberty in the Spirit,” and tongues were “wrought mightily at the New Testament Church also.”[374] “Brother Smale was God’s Moses, to lead the people as far as to the Jordan” in preparing them to speak in tongues by introducing the practices of Evan Roberts—then “Brother Seymour led them over” into the tongues experience.[375] Tongues were present “at Azusa Street [and] at the New Testament Church, where Joseph Smale is pastor; some of his people were among the first to speak with ‘tongues.’”[376] Not long afterwards “Brother Elmer Fisher” led the “baptized saints”—those who had spoken in tongues—“from the New Testament Church” to found “the ‘Upper Room’ mission,” which “became for a time the strongest mission in town” to spread the Pentecostal experience.[377]

Frank Bartleman[378] was likewise profoundly impacted by the Welsh holiness revival on his journey to becoming an Apostle of Pentecostalism. He was born to a Quaker mother, adopted the Gospel of Wealth form of pseudo-Christianity, a form of religion dependent on Social Darwinism[379] and with similarities to the Word of Faith doctrine that all believers should be rich, through the preaching of Russell Conwell, “author of the gospel of wealth classic, Acres of Diamonds.”[380] Conwell baptized Bartleman and licensed him to preach, at which time Bartleman “decided to ‘trust God’ for his body. A lifelong devotion to the doctrine of divine healing followed,”[381] although Bartleman was “in his own words . . . a ‘life-long semi-invalid’ who ‘always lived with death looking over my shoulder’”[382] and lived in “poor health to the end.”[383] Furthermore, as an unregenerate person, Bartleman was able to reject the Trinity and the true gospel by working with and accepting the modalism and works-salvation of the Oneness Pentecostal movement, becoming an important leader in the “Jesus-only” heresy shortly after it began.[384] Nevertheless, Bartleman, “[s]tirred by the revival in Wales in 1904 . . . quickly became part of the Azusa Street meetings and the new movement.”[385] After hearing F. B. Meyer testify to the marvels going on in Wales through the work of Evan Roberts—a work which Meyer associated with the presence of the miraculous gifts of 1 Corinthians 12,[386] where tongues are included—Bartleman’s heart was passionately stirred to see the same marvels take place in Los Angeles also. He read chronicles of the Welsh holiness revival and began to distribute many thousands of copies of such works, which were used to “spread the fire in the churches wonderfully.” He “spoke . . . on the revival in Wales” in religious organizations such as the “Friends Church” and other congregations committed to the Higher Life continuationism.[387] He also received the ability to prophecy from supernatural spirits, and he “prophesied continually of a mighty outpouring” that was to come.[388] Indeed, among those brought under the influence of Evan Roberts, the “spirit of prophecy began to work . . . on a large scale,” as people prayed for the gifts of “discernment of spirits, healing, [and] prophecy.”[389] Through testimonies about what was going on in the Welsh holiness revival, the expectation of a soon-coming mighty restoration of all the sign gifts spread rapidly through the already very sympathetic Higher Life assemblies. Evan Roberts and his holiness revivalism brought a widespread expectation of the restoration of all the sign gifts, including tongues.[390] Bartleman began to correspond with Evan Roberts, exchanging letters “which linked us [in Los Angeles] up with the revival there [in Wales].” Roberts and Bartleman rejoiced together that in Wales and Los Angeles many a “soul [was] finding its way to the White Throne.”[391] Roberts called the prophesying, marvel-working Bartleman “[m]y dear brother in the faith” and his “comrade” in the “terrible fight” with the “kingdom of evil,” as both engaged in the warfare with spirits described by Roberts and Penn-Lewis in War on the Saints. Following the pattern of Evan Roberts,[392] Bartleman plunged into “a constant conflict in prayer with the powers of darkness,” experienced much “Soul Travail,” was “deal[t] with . . . much also about the ‘blood,’” and learned much about “‘the fellowship of His sufferings’ in prayer,” with the result that, again following the pattern of Evan Roberts,[393] his “nerves were getting very worn.”[394] Roberts wrote to Bartleman concerning the marvels that were taking place in Los Angeles:[395] “I was exceedingly pleased to learn the good news of how you are beginning to experience wonderful things.”[396] A vision of a being that Bartleman and another wonder-worker thought was Jesus Christ confirmed that an outpouring was going to come.[397] “Slowly but surely the conviction is coming upon the saints of Southern California that God is going to pour out His Spirit here as in Wales. . . . Wales will not long stand alone in this glorious triumph . . . ‘Pentecost’ is knocking at our doors . . . in the very near future . . . a deluge . . . will sweep all before it.”[398] Although the Lord Jesus repeatedly warned: “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign,”[399] nonetheless, while working with Smale at the New Testament Church, where both men were charter members,[400] in February 1906 Bartleman began to “ask the Lord to pour out His Spirit speedily, with ‘signs following.’”[401] It became evident what was coming: “A final call, a world-wide Revival. Then judgment upon the whole world. Some tremendous event is about to transpire.”[402] “It was into this charged atmosphere that Seymour came, early in 1906. In his first sermon . . . he preached on Acts 2:4,” declaring that the initial evidence of Spirit baptism was speaking in tongues to those who already believed that tongues were “one of the gifts that were to be poured out upon sanctified believers”[403] because of Higher Life continuationism and the Welsh holiness revival. The soil was ripe. Very shortly thereafter tongues—or at least gibberish claiming to be tongues[404]—had broken out in Los Angeles. “Sunday Morning, April 15, [at] the New Testament Church . . . [a] colored sister was there and spoke in ‘tongues.’ . . . It seemed like Pentecostal ‘signs.’ . . . [A] few nights before, April 9,” at a “little cottage on Bonnie Brae Street . . . the Spirit had fallen” and a “number had spoken in ‘tongues.’ . . . The pioneers had broken through, for the multitude to follow.”[405] The spiritual warfare taught and modeled by Roberts and Penn-Lewis had come to its fructifying point. “Demons are being cast out, the sick healed, many blessedly saved, restored, and baptized with the Holy Ghost and power.”[406] The Power behind the marvels of the Welsh holiness Revival had moved into Los Angeles. The signs that had been sought for had come. The Welsh holiness revival had given birth—the world-wide Pentecostal movement had come forth in Los Angeles.

Pentecostal pioneers, having been brought by the influence of the Welsh holiness revival to the point where tongues had been restored, spread Pentecostalism from Azuza Street in Los Angeles, California onward to the rest of the world with an astonishing rapidity,[407] so that the spirits that authored the confusion of the Welsh meetings authored also the babbling that was allegedly a restoration of the gift of tongues and the many other heretical doctrines and practices found at Azuza Street and budding Pentecostalism.[408] British Israelism, the partial-Rapture theory,[409] modalism, and practices such as unmarried men and women kissing each other, all accompanied with many supernatural marvels, were blazed abroad everywhere.[410] Bartleman and Smale[411] were not by any means exceptional in their transition from Welsh holiness revival and Keswick influences into Pentecostalism; vast numbers of men in Higher Life and “holiness leadership . . . promptly took places of leadership in the pentecostal revival. It was the Kings, the Tomlinsons, the Seymours, the Bartlemans, the Barrats, the Pauls, the Parhams, the Masons, the Ebys—all of the holiness movement . . . that dominated the pentecostal revival’s formative years.”[412] Throughout the American “south . . . there were significant shifts of groups of holiness churches to the new movement . . . other holiness bodies were also affected.”[413] First in Los Angeles,[414] and then in the rest of the world, huge numbers of Higher Life churches and individuals moved into Pentecostalism. For example, all the members of the Southern Florida Holiness Association except three became Pentecostals in the Church of God, and their camp meeting became a pentecostal center, while all the Nazarene churches in Florida, except one, turned Pentecostal.[415] Entire Higher Life denominations, such as the Pentecostal Holiness Church, the Fire Baptized Holiness Church, the Church of God, the United Holy Church of America, and the Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church, entered the charismatic fold wholesale after receiving the strange fire arising from Azuza Street. The majority of the Church of God in Christ turned Pentecostal after its leader became a charismatic at Azuza Street.[416] “Most important for the rapid dissemination of the Pentecostal message was its propagation at convocations of Holiness people gathered from all across the nation and around the world. . . . From these places the Pentecostal evangel was carried . . . back to the innumerable religious groups and locals from which they came. . . . Initially, the use of Holiness resources and institutions was of enormous, perhaps crucial, significance for spreading the Pentecostal movement.”[417] The supernatural spirits that led Evan Roberts throughout the Welsh holiness revival unleashed an incalculable impact on the United States and the rest of the world through the rise of worldwide Pentecostalism. As people came from all over the world to see the marvels in the work of Evan Roberts, and took from Wales the same strange fire to their own countries, so people came to Azuza Street from across American and from other continents, took the Pentecostal fire with them,[418] and returned home to bring countless others, especially those already prepared for Pentecostalism by the continuationism of Keswick and the Higher Life theology, into the Pentecostal fold.[419] “The Welsh Revival” was “the last ‘gap’ across which the latest sparks of the holiness enthusiasm leapt igniting the Pentecostal movement.”[420] Pentecostalism was the true child and heir of the Welsh holiness revival work of Evan Roberts. It is historically certain that the “world-wide . . . Pentecostal . . . revival was rocked in the cradle of little Wales . . . becoming full grown in Los Angeles.”[421]

In addition to his central role in the rise of Pentecostalism, Roberts also influenced Christendom to adopt the practice of women leading men in public congregational prayer[422]—something without example in Scripture,[423] although encouraged by Roberts’ Keswick forefather, Robert Pearsall Smith[424] in line with Quaker opposition to Biblical complementarian gender roles—and the holiness revival played a significant role in “chang[ing] attitudes towards the public role to be fulfilled by women” as women led in “speaking . . . giving testimony . . . and, occasionally, preaching” in the holiness revival meetings.[425] Furthermore, the holiness revival broke down denominational walls for an ecumenical setting aside of doctrinal differences.[426] Anglicans, with their false sacramental gospel, and many independent congregations of a tremendous variety of doctrinal persuasions, were united[427] in leading meetings in State-church facilities and free church chapels alike, teaching that there must be a united one-world church in preparation for the return of Christ.[428] All denominations celebrated united prayer meetings[429] and “sectarianism [was] almost annihilated,”[430] as Evan Roberts’s teaching led the many Biblical commands about ecclesiastical separation to be ignored. Rather, it was taught that “the Holy Ghost is no respecter of denominations.”[431] “Mr. Roberts said: ‘Don’t talk about denominations these days,’” pounding the pulpit as he spoke—“Away with all that.”[432] Evan Roberts and his revivalism taught Anglicans that they did not need “a new . . . Prayer Book, Creed, or Church,”[433] although Anglicanism taught baptismal regeneration. As the sayings of the Druids were acceptable at the Broadlands Conferences,[434] so one of Roberts’s “finer sermons” was “based upon the Archdruid’s call . . . [for] peace and unity at every level of life,”[435] for “Evan Roberts preached about the power of Pentecost to sweep away divisions of . . . denomination,”[436] as the spirit powers behind his preaching did not lead people to separate from false religion and join true churches, but to unite the false and true in one ecumenical unity. Thus, not only Pentecostalism and charismatic phenomena, but also feminism and ecumenicalism, were products of Roberts’s work.

While Pentecostals, feminists, and advocates of ecumenicalism had much to cherish from the work of Evan Roberts, his work had many critics among Baptists and other advocates of the older orthodoxy and theology of revival. Critics of Evan Roberts affirmed that his work was destroying a genuine revival movement in Wales that had already been taking place, “particularly, though not exclusively, among the Baptists . . . prior to Roberts beginning his mission.”[437] They thought that “[d]elusions and extravagances in various forms were countenanced and even fostered . . . the wave of inordinate emotionalism with its accompanying evils . . . undoubtedly was one of the causes that silenced the Spirit, and drove [Him] from among the people.”[438] They argued that “violent bodily exercises . . . contortions and prostrations . . . did not possess any specific spiritual value, and did not convey any moral lesson[,] [nor left any] salutary impression . . . behind[,] [but were] the weakness of man rather than the power of God.”[439] For example, Roberts’ opponents affirmed his work “sounded the death-knell of the Revival in the Avan Valley. The flame was there, but it was extinguished. The tide began to ebb, and ebb it did; and the last state of that Church is worse than the first.”[440] At “Zoar, Neath,” church leaders and congregants averred, “[Roberts] has spoilt our meeting,” as “people seemed to have turned their faces away from God, and were looking to the Revivalist.”[441] In “[n]umerous other instances . . . vast multitudes . . . [experienced] the Revival wave, feeling that they were face to face with the realities of life, conscious of the Divine presence in their midst, only to be told by Evan Roberts within five minutes of his appearance that the Holy Spirit was not there, because they had hindered His operations and refused to give obedience.”[442] The “Tabernacle Baptist Church on the Hayes, Cardiff” was a “case in point” of the fact that “in the majority of cases [Roberts’] appearances had a dispiriting effect. Many were converted who had neither seen nor heard Evan Roberts; and some of the most successful meetings were held in the districts and towns to which Evan Roberts had refused to go on the ground that the Holy Spirit had not given him any message for them.”[443] In those “Nonconformist places of worship where the ministers and elders were strong and wise enough to curb the . . . impulsive and excitable . . . and to keep the movement within due and proper limits[,] . . . [t]housands were converted, and the vast majority of them remain[ed] faithful[.]”[444] Roberts was influenced by “the Keswick movement and holiness teaching” and his theology of revival placed him “in the same camp as the American revivalist, Charles G. Finney;” his beliefs were, consequently, in contrast to and “beyond the tradition of the Welsh revivals” of the past, which had held a notably different theology of revival, affirming that it was “wholly dependent on the grace of God.”[445]

The evangelical Congregationalist minister Peter Price “believed a genuine revival was taking place apart from Roberts’ activities”[446] and “stated that Roberts’s emphasis on direct and unmediated divine inspiration denied the need for the objective preaching of the person and work of Christ and so created ‘a sham revival,’ which was hindering ‘the true revival’ that had long preceded Roberts’ work.”[447] For example, “for nearly two years the Revival flame was ablaze in Cardiganshire . . . before Evan Roberts was heard of . . . and it was a pure work of God in that county. That pure stream became impure under the hoof of the enemy” as Roberts’ methods took hold.[448] In Price’s important “letter to the Western Mail . . . he wrote that there were two revivals in Wales, one a true revival based on the substitutionary atonement of Christ and the other a sham revival based on emotionalism for which Evan Roberts was the major spokesman.”[449] Price wrote:

I write the following in the interest of the religion of Jesus Christ, and because I sympathize with visitors who come from long distances to see the Revival in South Wales.

Now, I think I can claim that I have had as good an opportunity as most people to understand what is really going on in South Wales; and I have come to the conclusion that there are two so-called Revivals going on amongst us. The one, undoubtedly, from above—Divine, real, intense in nature, and Cymric[450] in its form. . . . the real Divine thing. . . .

[But] people . . . may attempt to make the thing, and lo! there comes out a calf and not a God. . . . Those who will do this are the shallow ones, the noisy ones, those who think themselves filled the most with the Spirit, but who are the least. They are, in fact, the imitators, who say, “There’s something wrong here. The Spirit is not here. I have had a vision[”] . . . the stock sayings of Evan Roberts . . . [also] repeated . . . by . . . [his] imitators[.] . . . Others may be found imitating his bodily contortions, sighs, etc. This mimicry is . . . done by the would-be Evan Robertses quite as much for their own sakes as for the sake of their visitors. Breaking into song while another prays, or speaks, or preaches, is another form of the attempt to imitate Evan Roberts’s meetings.

But these things are merely the accidents of the true Revival, and form no part of its kernel. For there is a kernel, which is overwhelming in its Divine power, and many thousands have experienced it, and there are ample signs that many thousands more will be touched by it.

There is, then, a Revival which is of God—of God alone—yes, a most mighty—an Almighty Revival . . . due to the earnest prayers of godly men and women for many years, and also to the extremely earnest preaching of the Gospel, emphasizing especially the Atonement, meaning by the Atonement the substitutionary death of our Lord Jesus Christ for the sins of the world.

Some preachers, again, laid great emphasis upon the Person and ministry of the Holy Ghost. Others, again, gave attention to the ethical aspect of our religion, but with less effect, in my opinion, as far as the present Revival is concerned. I have witnessed bursts of this real Revival as far back as two years ago. I understand that there are several would-be originators of the Revival; but I maintain that the human originator of the true Revival cannot be named. And this, to me, is one of the proofs that it is of Divine origin. I have witnessed indescribable scenes of this real Revival, effects that can never be put on paper. Hence, I have a right to say that the real Revival has not been and cannot be reported.

But there is another Revival in South Wales—a sham Revival, a mockery, a blasphemous travesty of the real thing. The chief figure in this mock Revival is Evan Roberts, whose language is inconsistent with the character of anyone except that of a person endowed with the attributes of a Divine Being. If not, what is he? Are there four persons in the Godhead, and is Evan Roberts the fourth? If so, I would call him the Commander of the Third Person, or the Master of the Spirit, for the . . . words which I myself heard from him on Monday night last at Bethania Chapel, Dowlais. The Spirit being somewhat reluctant to obey him, he said, “He must come”; but the Spirit (of whom he talked most glibly, just as a child speaks of its toy, but somewhat more off-handedly) would not obey the orders. . . . [H]e spoke as if the Spirit was entirely in his grip . . . judging by his behaviour and talk, the Holy Spirit is led by Evan Roberts!

My honest conviction is this; that the best thing that could happen to the cause of the true religious Revival amongst us would be for Evan Roberts and his girl-companions to withdraw into their respective homes, and there to examine themselves, and learn a little more of the meaning of Christianity, if they have the capacity for this, instead of going about the country pretending to show the Way of Life to people many of whom know a thousand times more about it than they do. Why, we have scores of young colliers in Dowlais with whom Evan Roberts is not to be compared either in intellectual capacity or spiritual power.

But it is this mock Revival—this exhibition—this froth—this vain trumpery—which visitors see and which newspapers report. And it is harmful to the true Revival—very harmful. And I am horrified lest people who trust to what they see at Evan Roberts’s meetings and to newspaper reports should identify the two Revivals—the true and the false—the Heavenly fire and the ignis fatuus.

Before Evan Roberts visited Dowlais, we had the holy fire burning brightly—at white heat; and at my own church alone we could count our converts during the last five or six months by the hundreds. But what happened when Evan Roberts visited the place? People came from all parts anxious to see the man, to understand something of the movement, and to get some of the fire to take home with them. I suppose that most of them did see the man; but I doubt whether they understood the movement—even the mock movement. They had no chance to understand the true movement, nor had they a chance of catching any of the true fire, for it wasn’t there. I will say that with much effort Evan Roberts, together with his co-operators (and, evidently, they understand one another thoroughly, and each knew his or her part well and where to come in), managed, by means of threats, complaints and incantations, which reminded me of the prophets of Baal, to create some of the false fire. But never in my life did I experience such agony—the whole procedure being utterly sacrilegious. I should say that Evan Roberts must have seen and felt that he was a failure at Dowlais; but to cover the circumstance of failure, there appeared in the paper, after he had proved himself so, a prophecy concerning certain misgivings of his as to whether he ought to have undertaken a mission to Dowlais.

I should like to ask Evan Roberts a few questions; I have many more which I might ask; but I will be satisfied now with a few: . . . He said that there was someone in the lobby who was accepting Christ; but no one did. What Spirit told him this lie? . . . Why does he wait until the meetings attain the climax of enthusiasm before he enters? If help is valuable at any stage, is it not mostly so at the commencement, in order to kindle the fire? . . . Why does he visit places where the fire has been burning at maximum strength for weeks and months? Would it not be more reasonable for him to go to places which the fire has not reached? . . . What spirit makes him bad-tempered when things don’t come about exactly as he wishes? . . . What spirit makes him say, “Ask God to damn the people if you don’t ask anything else?”

“Yes, but he has a lovely face and a beautiful smile,” so some women say. This is the last resort.

May I repeat that I have written the above in the interest of the religion of Jesus Christ, and out of sympathy with visitors who come to see the Revival. I may have to suffer persecution for writing the above—even by Spirit-filled (!) men; but I don’t seek the renown of the martyr; still, if martyrdom for the truth be necessary, I am ready. To the true Revival—the gloriously real Revival—I will say and pray with all my soul,

“Cerdd ymlaen, nefol dân”

But to the bogus Revival I will say with all my soul,

“Cerdd yn ol, gnawdol dân.”

Peter Price, January 31, 1905[451]

Thus, in the view of Price and other advocates of the older theology of revival, a real “Revival, of which [Roberts] was not the originator, not the medium, and not the feeder,” had already been going on. “There had been for months and years—there were even then—influences at work that were independent of [Roberts’] initiative or control,”[452] but his revivalism was quenching this genuine work of God. “Evan Roberts had no controlling or constructive influence over the real Revival[,] . . . [but] was out of touch with [it]. . . . This [real Revival] . . . was the result of spiritual forces that had been quietly at work for years. . . . Evan Roberts was . . . the embodiment of the . . . rubbish . . . the waves of hysteria . . . [and] psychic manifestations . . . [that] were looked upon as necessary adjuncts to a successful meting, and became at last, in the estimation of the press and the public, the characteristic marks of the Revival.”[453] As fanaticism and revivalism displaced true revival produced by the Holy Ghost, “Evan Roberts” became “the central figure in the Revival of 1904-5; but he was not its originator, much less its conceiver.”[454] Price “by no means st[ood] alone in his attitude. . . . Many other ministers share[d] his opinions . . . [about] ‘the sham Revival’ . . . of which . . . Mr. Evan Roberts [was] the chief exponent,” hindering the “real Revival” that had been going on.[455] “[T]housands of sane, righteous people fully endorsed the opinions of Price . . . many eminent, spiritually-minded pastors and laymen agreed[.]”[456] The pastor of the Baptist church at Builth Wells wrote to Mr. Price:

Permit me to thank you for your frank and straightforward speaking . . . on the “Double Revival.” . . . For some time I have longed to see someone who resided in the zone of fire, to rise and repudiate the gross excrescences which are passing for the real thing in the Revival in Wales. It is something monstrously base to tolerate without protest the barbarous falsehoods that are being accepted in the name of Christianity. My Dear Sir, we are in for one of the greatest religious siftings that Wales ever experienced. . . . From all sane and thinking men, who love true Religion and who try to augment its forces with intelligent thought, you will only receive the gratitude you merit.

God bless you for your stand and bravery. I shall . . . accumulate facts . . . and join you in your fight for true Christianity.[457]

Indeed, as time passed, not only those who had been critical of Roberts’ practices from the beginning, but “even sympathetic ministers felt the Word was being dethroned and the singing too exalted . . . [in] Evan Roberts’ work.”[458] “[G]ood men, and . . . godly . . . were seen looking very frowningly upon the . . . Revival, critically and reprovingly too[.]”[459] The “Baptist minister . . . Dr. Davies” thought much of Roberts’ ministry was “mass hysteria.”[460] Other ministers “object[ed] to the visions seen” and to “women” leading in “public prayer, exhortation, [and] testifying.”[461] “[O]fficial disapproval was not confined to the Baptists, and one c[ould] find strong words from . . . leaders in other denominations.”[462] Many objected when people would “burst into song, or prayer, or testimony in the middle of the sermon, or sometimes from the start of the service so that the preacher could only listen.”[463] “Many of the ministers did not preach for months,”[464] and many recognized that such a downgrade of the preached Word did not fit Scripture at all. Even “[g]rumblings about the inferior quality of the new revival hymns grew louder and louder.”[465] People warned that the “flippancy manifested, especially by the young and others who had just [adopted revivalistic ideas] . . . helped to kill the [real] Revival.”[466] Many noticed that “the conversions in the chapels attended by Evan Roberts were fewer than in the chapels where he was not present.”[467] The true “Revival . . . transfigured many individual souls . . . [who] never saw Evan Roberts . . . never had . . . tumultuous gatherings . . . [but] owe[d] all that [they were] to the agency of [their] own pastor.”[468] Criticism poured in, affirming: “In the present revival, the Bible is ignored, and it is claimed that visions and new revelations are received . . . the elders are condemned as heretics if they do not yield, and conform to the methods of the young [cf. 1 Peter 5:5]. The officers of the churches are at present ignored, although they have been set apart in office by the churches; thus, the Apostles of the Lamb are ignored; the hand of God is ignored; the Holy Spirit is ignored; and that by some other spirit that has possessed our young people.”[469] “Evan Roberts’s claims to direct Spirit guidance” were considered “profane, and his visions blasphemous, because he was not, as were the Apostles, endowed with Spirit gifts, [proven in] healing the sick, raising the dead, giving sight to the blind,”[470] and other Apostolic miracles (2 Corinthians 12:12). “Baptist leaders in Gwent” considered various practices of Roberts “unseemly and disorderly,” while “senior ministers and laymen in Pembrokeshire . . . were responsible for the early opposition of the Welsh Baptists there.”[471] One “fervent Baptist minister . . . split a revival meeting” by stating the obvious truth, clearly taught by the Holy Ghost in Scripture and patterned in the real revival in the book of Acts, that “baptism by the Spirit did not dispense with the need for water baptism. . . . [He] carried on his attack on the revivalists for preaching obedience to the Spirit yet not practicing that virtue by being baptized themselves.”[472] The newspaper “Y Celt Newydd . . . sounded a warning note about voices and visions and the danger they posed to true revival.”[473] Many “church leaders . . . disavow[ed]” the work of Roberts and “oppose[d] . . . signs and wonders . . . [v]isions, voices, spiritual promptings, [and] inspired prayers.”[474] They believed that it was a serious error to stress “signs rather than faith . . . psychic and bodily experiences rather than the Word of God . . . ecstasies in special meetings rather than . . . simple, quiet and consistent obedience to the Spirit of the One who is in us.”[475] In rural Wales, the “response of the Baptists . . . to the revival [work of Evan Roberts] was initially very cautious. The editor of the local Baptist journal, Y Piwritan Newydd (‘The New Puritan’) . . . stated that he could not go along with the mode of activity in some meetings[,]”[476] as various aspects of the revivalism were “sure to be working against Baptist principles.”[477] Indeed, Baptist church membership “had been increasing for many years prior to the revival [led by Evan Roberts],” with “Baptist membership increas[ing] by 24,000 in 1905,” the largest rate of increase; in 1905 “Independents increased by 12,000 . . . and the Calvinistic Methodists increased by just under 16,000.” Baptist critics of Roberts affirmed that genuine revival was overcome by the revivalism of Roberts and his followers. “[T]here c[ould] be no doubt . . . [t]hat Evan Roberts did repel, that he quenched rather than inflamed the Revival flame in many districts[.] Evidence of this fact abounds, and is indisputable.”[478] While the revivals in the book of Acts led to the continued multiplication of churches for many years, after the revivalism of Roberts had finished its course Independent and Calvinistic Methodist “membership began to decline in 1906,” followed by the beginning of membership decline in “1907 for the Baptists.”[479] With the ascendency of Keswick and continuationist doctrine and the revivalism of Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis, “decline set in so quickly after the revival’s end”—a fact which “did not augur well for the future of Nonconformity in Wales,”[480] as, indeed, a decades-long decline set in almost immediately after Roberts finished his revivalistic course.

As the work of Evan Roberts filled congregations with false doctrine, filled church membership rolls with unregenerate people, and hardened Wales to a true work of the Holy Spirit, serious spiritual declension manifested itself as soon as the strange fire died down. Already by 1909 a very serious “decline of evangelical Christianity [was] most manifest” throughout Wales.[481] “All over the Principality there [was] not only a serious and general falling off in the number of adherents, but there is hardly any interest taken in fundamental theology.”[482] “Wesleyan Methodism [was] confronted with a serious decrease of membership” and the “spiritual state of the Wesleyan Church” was the matter of the “greatest apprehension.”[483] Losses also accrued to the other “Nonconforming bodies,” for these had “unquestionably lost their old grip upon the people.”[484] A “grave note of religious pessimism” came to “pervad[e] Welsh Nonconformity” as there was a “lamentable falling-off in Welsh Sunday schools, in the attendance, in the interest taken and in the registered results.”[485] Roberts’ revivalism failed to produce lasting results: “[T]he Welsh Revival of 1904-5 . . . has not been followed by any marked progress of either a political or religious character. . . . There has not sprung up in its track anything of a general and permanent character. . . . Vital religion has not been made more effective[.]”[486] This fact resulted in “a great change . . . in public opinion . . . and events justify the change. Ministers in general are distressed at the number of [alleged] converts who have cut themselves off from the way of His life. Their judgment is not a hasty one. People seem harder than ever—due to the effects of the Revival.”[487] In sharp contrast to the revivals in the Bible, and real revivals in church history, only four years after the ministry of Evan Roberts burned out nothing positive was evident “in the sense of curbing the passions of the great masses of the people, in the purifying of their common speech and in eradicating their criminal tendencies. If a plebiscite of the magistrates, solicitors, colliery owners, and prison officials, were taken [in 1909], their unanswerable reply would be in the negative. A disenchanted nation remains neither stimulated in thought nor enriched in character.”[488] Indeed, by 1909 historians could record:

[I]n looking back at the Welsh Revival of 1904-5 we find that its success is by no means commensurate with its proportion, with its excitement at the time, with its professed statistics of individual or collective results, or even with the money expended upon it. . . . [There was a] complete failure of the Revival to permanently regenerate churches and districts to any considerable degree. . . . [T]he Revival . . . . did not produce subsequent discipline of morals, but it was subversive of, and antagonistic to, the spirit that produces results in practical life. The religious disappointment of thousands of individuals in Wales today is such as to have made their ‘last state worse than the first.’ . . . The moral condition of the Welsh people . . . [i]n many ways . . . was better . . . before the Revival than it is today. . . . The whole attitude of the people has undergone a deplorable change, and the change is both rapid and widespread. No one conversant with the inner life of Wales can fail to observe the alarming spread of the personal and domestic disuse of the Bible. . . . There is an alarming ignorance of the contents of the Bible among the rising generation . . . [t]he Bible is becoming less and less the Book of the rank and file. The . . . preacher [engages in] less close study of the Bible. Preaching is more topical than expository. . . . [The] methods [of] . . . Evan Roberts . . . did undoubtedly repel not a few, and hardened rather than softened the hearts of some who longed for a higher life. . . . It is a fact within the knowledge of any and every man that football, the music-hall, and the public house, are the dominant interests of . . . the very thousands that thronged the various chapels during the Revival season. Sunday shows of various sorts, that were compelled to close their doors at that time, are now in the zenith of their popularity, and there is not power enough in the churches or among the ministers and clergy to check their progress. Since the Revival various socialistic organizations have invaded the valleys, and . . . thousands . . . hear the “socialistic gospel” . . . the social application of the “New Theology” [theological modernism]. If materialistic socialism, without a tinge of reverence for sacred things and sacred institutions, is either the direct or indirect result of the Revival of 1904-5, then it cannot but be a source of sorrow to God-fearing people that the Revival ever came. The reaction is on a large scale . . . and the reaction is still in progress. . . . Many—very many—of [the] . . . Free Churches . . . have been obliged to revise their roll of membership [downward], and are now lamenting over the deadly indifference that has overtaken the flock. The apathy, the levity, the decay of religious faith, the lapse in the habit of prayer, the disinclination to take part in religious work, the non-attendance of adherents, and the decline of the Sunday School, together with the prevalence of vice in its various aspects . . . have followed the Revival. The general condition of the churches is worse than it was in the days preceding the outbreak in 1904. There is a loss of appeal in the Gospel message, and an alarming disregard of sacred institutions. . . . The fall of the spiritual thermometer is very marked. . . . [I]n very many instances contributions towards foreign missions and the maintenance of the ministry have decreased . . . [so that they are] much less than they were two and four years previous to the Revival. . . . [T]he general condition of things among the churches in the Principality is worse since the Revival than before. . . . [T]here is a retrogression and a reversion to a more unsatisfactory type of religious life. . . . [The] mission . . . [of] Evan Roberts . . . did not produce a reversion to a higher type of reverence or moral life. The converse is true.[489]

The evils in the work of Evan Roberts, feared by many Baptists and other old-line evangelicals, who believed in the older and more Scriptural theology of revival, came to pass.

[305]        Pg. 184, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.

[306]        Already by 1908 Pentecostalism had filled South Wales; pgs. 34-37, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee.

[307]        Pg. 86, Way of Faith (Columbia, S. C.), September 6, 1906, quoted in How Pentecost Came to Los Angeles: As it Was in the Beginning, 2nd ed., Frank Bartleman. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n. d. orig. pub. 1925.

[308]        Pgs. 141-142, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson.

[309]        The onset of the Pentecostal movement was, indeed, new—ecstatic babbling did not exist among true churches or orthodox Christianity, although it was found in association with demon possession among spiritualists and others:

[T]he Church came to regard speaking in tongues as an infallible sign of demon possession. Yet, with few exceptions, the Pentecostals have maintained that speaking in tongues has had a continuous history from the Apostolic age to the present. Although, they say, the practice fell into eclipse at an early point, a succession of small groups kept it alive until its full restoration to the Church in the 20th-century Pentecostal revival. . . . Pentecostals have constructed a history of the “true,” or at least “spiritual,” Church from the days of Pentecost to the present. They have compiled long lists of “authorities” to show that tongue-speaking was practiced by the sub-Apostolic church, the Waldenses, the Albigenses . . . Anabaptists. . . . and many others; and that Luther, Finney, and Moody spoke in tongues while Wesley endorsed it. These claims are, with the exception of the [grossly heretical] Camisards, Shakers, and Mormons, without factual foundation, as [even] some Pentecostal writers . . . have recognized. Some [advocates of the invented Pentecostal history of orthodox Christian tongues-speech] depend upon forced interpretations of primary sources, others are based upon secondary works presumed to be authoritative. . . . [T]he only groups . . . for whom speaking in tongues is well attested were the . . . Camisards in the late 17th century, Ann Lee’s Shaking Quakers, . . . and the Irvingite, Mormon, and Spiritualist movements, which grew out of the . . . revivalism of the 1830’s and 1840’s. . . . [S]peaking in tongues has apparently been non-existent in the . . . historic Christian churches since the Apostolic era . . . while modern Pentecostalism is phenomenologically related to . . . the Shakers, Mormons, Irvingites, and Spiritualists—who had previously practiced tongues-speaking. (pgs. 25-27, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson)

[310]        Pgs. xiv, xxiv-xxv, 16, 24, 34, 68, 75, 83, 167-173, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[311]        Pgs. xii-xiii, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[312]        Pgs. xii, 17, 25-26, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[313]        Pg. 60, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. The supernatural lights, comparable to those of the Welsh holiness revival, were also affirmed to be present, among many other instances, when Parham first spoke in tongues (pg. 54, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson) and when the father of European Pentecostalism, T. B. Barratt, did so, whose influence “in connection with the Pentecostal Revival . . . would be difficult to overestimate” (pg. 189, cf. 14-15, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee; cf. pgs. 49, 84, 124, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness, Frederick Dale Bruner. Cf. pg. 121 for Barratt’s connection to A. B. Simpson and to Azuza Street). Indeed, “Balls, streaks, and pillars of fire were seen so often that they were known as ‘the “like as of fire,”’ referring to and misusing Acts 2:3 (pg. 263, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson).

[314]        Pgs. 57-59, 131, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[315]        Pgs. 16, 84, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[316]        Pgs. 59-60, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[317]        Pgs. xxi, 87-88, 175, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[318]        Pg. 27, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[319]        Compare pgs. 154-155, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson.

[320]        Pgs. 59, 103, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. One of the twelve “elders” of the Azuza Street Mission was a ten-year-old girl; her mother was another “elder” (    pg. 70, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson.). Either both the mother and her ten-year-old daughter were “the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly” (Titus 1:6), or the spirits at work at Azuza led the leaders there to reject what Paul recorded through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

[321]        Pg. 84, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan; pg. 68, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson.

[322]        Pgs. 87-88, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[323]        The question is not one of the absence in Wales or presence in Pentecostalism of unintelligible speech. The holiness revival under Roberts featured the practice, rooted in pre-Christian Welsh paganism, of the Welsh hywl. The Welsh hywl was an “ancient and sacred” Welsh practice (pg. 45, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson) found in the Welsh holiness revival as “speaking in a strange, weird, curious mesmeric manner: it is a unique kind of incantation” (E. Cynolwyn Pugh, “The Welsh Revival of 1904-1905,” Theology Today XII (July 1955) 226-235, elec. acc. http://www.revival-library.org/catalogues/1904ff/pugh.html). While the hwyl was not identical with modern Pentecostal gibberish-speech, nonetheless “[s]ome observers of the Welsh revival, hearing unfamiliar speech in prayer and preaching . . . . the . . . Welsh ‘hwyl,’ . . . reported that worshippers were speaking in tongues” (pg. 45, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson). See also pg. 147, The Great Revival in Wales: Also an Account of the Great Revival in Ireland in 1859, S. B. Shaw. Chicago, IL: S. B. Shaw, 1905.

[324]        “Speaking in tongues as a sign of Spirit possession has a history whose origins very likely lie deep in mankind’s past. Reports of the practice extend from ancient to modern times in virtually every region of the world. What astonishes the novice student of tongue-speaking is how extraordinarily common this seemingly exotic [to those in Christendom] practice has been and still is. The phenomenon has certainly been far more extensive and frequent among non-Christians[.] . . . [S]peaking in tongues [was] evident in the inspired prophecies of the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi . . . the Thracian cult of Dionysius, the Egyptian cult of Osiris and Isis, the Syrian cult of Adonis, the Phrygian cult of Attis and Cybele, and the Persian cult of Mithras. . . . [The] Spirit . . . through possession, gave men all sorts of miraculous powers. The pneumatic state was one of ecstasy in which pneuma banishes the human ‘nous’ [or] ‘mind’ and acts or speaks through man. The deity [demon] spoke out of the pneumatic’s mouth in words that neither he nor anyone else could understand unless they were translated by the Pneuma itself. To prove that he was indeed a pneumatic, a person had to demonstrate the presence of the Pneuma within him by engaging in ecstatic behavior, especially ecstatic speech” (pgs. 20-21, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson).

[325]        Los Angeles Times, April 18, 1906, pg. 1, reprinted on pgs. 175-177, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[326]        Pg. 530, “Demythologising the Evan Roberts Revival, 1904-1905,” Robert Pope. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57:3 (July 2006) 515-534; cf. pgs. 213, 222, etc., Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[327]        Pgs. 176, 183, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.

[328]        Pg. 208, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.

[329]        Pg. 107, A Light in the Land: Christianity in Wales, 200-2000, Gwyn Davies.

[330]        Pg. 208, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger. Gee made a salvation decision through the preaching of Seth Joshua (pg. 34, The Pentecostal Movement, Gee).

[331]        Pg. 208, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.

[332]        Pg. 209, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.

[333]        “For years a standard Assemblies of God theology was Myer Pearlman’s work, Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible. What Pearlman taught about sanctification is right in line with Keswick ideas. [See pgs. 249-267, Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible (Pentecostal Classics),Myer Pearlman. Springfield, Gospel Publishing House, rev. ed., 1981; note, e. g., his reference to the “Victorious Life” movement on pg. 264.] This is also true of the teaching of Ernest S. Williams, for twenty years the general superintendent of the Assemblies of God. [See pgs. 31-61, Systematic Theology, Ernest S. Williams, vol. 3. Springfield, Gospel Publishing House, 1953, where Keswick writers such as Evan Hopkins, J. Elder Cumming, and Andrew Murray are cited and a Keswick view of sanctification is espoused; Wesleyan influence appears also in vol. 2, pgs. 256-264.] More recently, the preeminent theologian in the American Assemblies of God has been Stanley Horton. His teaching fits well with that of his earlier colleagues. [See pgs. 167-196, What the Bible Says About the Holy Spirit, Stanley M. Horton. Springfield, Gospel Publishing House, 1976.] The Assemblies of God is not unique in the Pentecostal movement in its tight correlation with Keswick views. Representative of the Foursquare Church is the standard theology written by Duffield and Van Cleave. In this one can see the same patterns as are found in Keswick, too. [See pgs. 291-324, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles: L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983.] There is no question that the Keswick movement had an important role in the shaping of the theology of much of the Pentecostal world” (“Keswick and the Higher Life,” http://www.seeking4truth.com/keswick.htm).

[334]        Pgs. 176-177, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.

[335]        Pg. 530, “Demythologising the Evan Roberts Revival, 1904-1905,” Pope.

[336]        Pg. 530, “Demythologising the Evan Roberts Revival, 1904-1905,” Pope.

[337]        Pg. 185, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[338]        George Jeffries prominently preached British Israelism as he, after 1940, founded the “Bible-Pattern Church Fellowship,” another Pentecostal denomination he originated some years after he co-founded the Elim Pentecostal movement (cf. pgs. 186-187, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee).

[339]        Pg. 197, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger. “[M]ost of the . . . Elim congregations . . . had been founded by George Jeffreys” (pg. 207, ibid).

[340]        Pg. 207, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger. Cf. pgs. 148-151, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee.

[341]        Pgs. 184-185, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger. “Boddy was . . . the acknowledged leader of early Pentecostalism in Britain” (pg. 60, “Boddy, Alexander,” Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. Larsen). Boddy’s personal testimony to his association with Evan Roberts and the parallels between the Welsh holiness revival and the Pentecostal revival appears on pg. 1, The Apostolic Faith I:6 (Los Angeles, February-March 1907), reprinted on pg. 21, Like As of Fire: Newspapers from the Azusa Street World Wide Revival: A Reprint of “The Apostolic Faith” (1906-1908), coll. Fred T. Corum & Rachel A. Sizelove. Note also pg. 1, The Apostolic Faith I:8 (May 1907) & pg. 1, The Apostolic Faith I:9 (Los Angeles, June-September 1907), reprinted on pgs. 33, 37, Like As of Fire: Newspapers from the Azusa Street World Wide Revival: A Reprint of “The Apostolic Faith” (1906-1908), coll. Fred T. Corum & Rachel A. Sizelove.

reprinted on pg. 37, Like As of Fire: Newspapers from the Azusa Street World Wide Revival: A Reprint of “The Apostolic Faith” (1906-1908), coll. Fred T. Corum & Rachel A. Sizelove)

[342]        Pg. 71, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.

[343]        Pgs. 23-24, 88, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee.

[344]        “Keswick and the Higher Life,” http://www.seeking4truth.com/keswick.htm.

[345]        Pg. 253, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.

[346]        Pgs. 20-21, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee.

[347]        Pg. 1, The Apostolic Faith I:6 (Los Angeles, February-March 1907), reprinted on pg. 21, Like As of Fire: Newspapers from the Azusa Street World Wide Revival: A Reprint of “The Apostolic Faith” (1906-1908), coll. Fred T. Corum & Rachel A. Sizelove. The article is predicting what would take place: “‘Tongues’ at Keswick.” Pentecostals were present at, promoted, and enjoyed Keswick from the time of the rise of Pentecostalism; see, e. g., the account of Pentecostal attendance at Keswick on pgs. 12-13 of the Pentecostal Latter Rain Evangel of September, 1922; a message from the 1922 Convention, where the Keswick speaker testifies that he was healed by the Higher Life of the body from arm pain, is reproduced on pgs. 19-24.

[348]        Pgs. 37-39, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee.

[349]        For example, the Pentecostal journal Confidence records:

At Keswick [in 1908] . . . We had heard a message on the power of the Christ Life. The mid-day meal over, we were on the lake, a happy Pentecostal party. . . . Our hearts were full of praise, as we sang: . . . “Jesus . . . Blessed Saviour, Sanctifier, Glorious Lord and coming King. . . . Keswick Convention this year was again the meeting-place for very many of the Lord’s Children, and we were glad to see there faces we had looked into at the [Pentecostal] Sunderland Conference. There were also hungry ones there longing to know experimentally the secret of victory and of power.

A brother from Jersey was telling those to whom the Lord led him, how he had left Keswick for three days to visit Sunderland, and had there received a mighty deliverance, a Vision of Jesus and of his own nothingness, and the overwhelming Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the Sign of Tongues. . . .

We saw other friends with copies of [the Pentecostal periodical] ‘Confidence’ under their arms ready for enquirers. . . . Many of us thank God for Keswick in the past. . . . [T]he Lord . . . is calling His people to an experimental Pentecost, their Birthright because of the Shed blood of Calvary. (pgs. 13-14, Confidence: A Pentecostal Paper for Great Britain, 5 (August 15, 1908).

[350]        Pg. 107, A Light in the Land: Christianity in Wales, 200-2000, Gwyn Davies.

[351]        Pg. 503, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, Bavinck & pg. 159, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, Bavinck.

[352]        Pg. 221, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.

[353]        Pg. 221, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.

[354]        See chapters 6-7 of Perfectionism, vol. 1, B. B. Warfield, for an analysis of the rise and progress of the German Higher Life movement and a study of the embrace and promulgation of Higher Life theology by Jellinghaus through the influence of Robert P. Smith at the Oxford Convention (cf. pg. 225, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874), along with the later Jellinghaus’ and German evangelical repudiation of the Higher Life and the Pentecostal doctrine that logically develops from it.

[355]        Pg. 225, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger. The affirmation of Jellinghaus was true for not Germany only, but Pentecostalism in general (cf. pg. 45, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee).

[356]        Pg. 222, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger. The Welsh holiness revival was key to the spread of Pentecostalism to India. “Wales was . . . the cradle . . . India . . . the Nazareth . . . Los Angeles . . . [the] world-wide restoration of the power of God” in the Pentecostal movement, for “[m]en who had been both in the Wales and India revivals declared this [charismatic one] to be the deepest work of all” (pgs. 90, 107, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan).

[357]        Pg. 222, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.

[358]        Pg. 92, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. The teaching at Azuza Street, that “[w]hat the people need is a living Christ, not dogmatic, doctrinal contention” (pg. 101, ibid) is fine, ecumenical, non-dogmatic Keswick theology.

[359]        Pgs. xx-xxi, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[360]        Pg. 43, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness, Frederick Dale Bruner. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970.

[361]        Pg. 595, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. Larsen.

[362]        Pg. 12, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee. In a manner also reminiscent of Evan Roberts’ actions in the pulpit, in Seymour’s meetings “[h]e usually kept his head inside the top . . . [of] two empty shoe boxes . . . during the meeting, in prayer” (pg. 58, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan). Indeed, “[w]hile Brother Seymour kept his head inside the old empty box in ‘Azuza’ all was well” (pg. 89, ibid).

[363]        Pg. 22, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger. Hollenweger affirms that Smale and Bartleman were Baptists, but they were only so in the sense that Jezebel (Revelation 2:20) or Diotrephes (3 John 9) or Judas (Acts 1:25) were Baptists before they publicly apostatized. The meeting and coworking of Seymour and Bartleman is described on           pgs. 41ff., Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[364]        Pg. xi, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. See pgs. 13-42 for a detailed description of how the separation from Baptist doctrine and the adoption of Pentecostalism took place. While the statement above is a reasonable summary of events, a more detailed description would note that Smale actually left—with much of his congregation—the First Baptist Church to establish the New Testament Church; there was a church split, with some wishing to continue to practice Baptist doctrine instead of adopting wholesale the practices of Evan Roberts.

[365]        Pg. xv, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[366]        That is, one who accepts Pentecostalism would consider both the work of Evan Roberts and the work of Pentecostalism a move of God in revival blessing. One who rejects Pentecostalism would also need to reject the work of Evan Roberts in Wales.

[367]        Pg. xvi, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[368]        Pg. 13, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. Scripture never teaches believers in the church age to seek another outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit was poured out in the book of Acts, and He is now present. The Lord will not pour Him out again until the Tribulation period after the Rapture of the saints.

[369]        Pg. 27, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[370]        See a description on pgs. 20-21 of Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. A simple change of names from “Smale” to “Roberts” would be the only thing necessary to change the description from a meeting in Los Angeles to one in Wales.

[371]        Pg. 16, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[372]        Pgs. 26-27, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[373]        The tongues-speech present at the precursors to Azuza at 214 North Bonnie Brae Street, etc. are described by Anderson on pgs. 64ff. of Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism.

[374]        Pg. 54, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[375]        Pg. 62, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[376]        Pg. 86, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[377]        Pgs. 84-85, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan; pg. 70, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson. Smale’s New Testament Church experienced a split over Pentecostalism, even as Smale’s First Baptist Church did over Evan Roberts’ Welsh revivalism.

[378]        Bartleman’s book is the “only extant narrative by a participant in the April 1906 events” associated with the founding of the worldwide Pentecostal movement in Los Angeles (pg. 49, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness, Frederick Dale Bruner. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970).

[379]       Pg. 31, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Mapes Anderson.

[380]        Pg. xii, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. While Paul defined preaching the gospel as proclaiming the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and salvation for sinners through faith in Him (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), the Gospel of Wealth preached a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9). “Exhorting his audiences—who paid for admission—Conwell, in his ‘Acres of Diamonds’ address, said: ‘I say that you ought to get rich, and it is your duty to get rich . . . to make money honestly is to preach the gospel’” (pg. 174, Who’s Who in Christian History, ed. Douglas & Comfort). Conwell may have held to the true gospel, but his writings and sermons are either entirely devoid of it or almost entirely so, and he failed to preach it, if he believed in it at all, with anything close to the clarity with which he preached the need to get rich.

[381]        Pg. xii, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[382]        Pg. xii, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. Bartleman’s father was also a continuationist, as a Roman Catholic. Bartleman, despite his belief in the Faith Cure, wrote in 1925: “My health had been poor, from a child” (pg. 1, ibid. Bartleman’s grammar leaves not a little to be desired throughout his book.) Nor was Bartleman able to heal his own child, who tragically died in 1905 (pg. xv, ibid). Bartleman also, despite Romans 13, “occasionally ran afoul of the law” for regularly creating what was essentially Christian graffiti (pg. xiv, ibid)—if one can call law-breaking and producing graffiti Christian, which is very highly dubious.

[383]        Pg. xxiii-xxiv, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. “Frank Bartleman, like Parham, was afflicted with ailments from infancy: gastric fever, double vision, varicose veins, frequent toothaches, and almost daily sick headaches and dyspepsia” (pg. 102, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson; quote marks in the original source, Bartleman’s From Plow to Pulpit: From Maine to California, pgs. 6-12, have been removed).

[384]        Pg. xxii, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[385]        Pg. 74, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Vinson Synan.

[386]        Pg. 172, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.

[387]        Pg. 29, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[388]        Pgs. 7-12, 19, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[389]        Pg. 19, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[390]        See pgs. 63-68, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson.

[391]        Pg. 33, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. Since only the damned, not the saved, will be judged at the White Throne judgment recorded in Revelation 20, many souls appearing before the White Throne would also be something that would cause Satan and his demons to rejoice—if anything can cause them to rejoice.

[392]        E. g., pg. 22, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[393]        “I can sympathize with Evan Roberts’ nervous breakdown, after the revival in Wales,” Bartleman wrote, after being forced to a period of extended rest himself from doing the same sort of work as Roberts (pg. 93, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan).

[394]        Pgs. 39-40, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. Bartleman misinterprets the passages he speaks of in the same manner that Roberts and Penn-Lewis misinterpreted them.

[395]        It is noteworthy that Jessie Penn-Lewis’s Overcomer magazine was also being read in Los Angeles, and that “Los Angeles” was recognized as “the centre of this country [the USA] for Occultism of all kinds” (cf. pg. 2, The Overcomer, January 1910).

[396]        Pgs. 15, 22, 25, 31, 33, 64-65, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[397]        Pg. 17, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[398]        Pg. 37, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[399]        Matthew 12:39; 16:4.

[400]        Pg. 27, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[401]        Pg. 40, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[402]        Pg. 42, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[403]        Pg. 65, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson.

[404]        Robert Anderson notes:

In the earliest years of the Pentecostal movement, the German scholar Mosiman carefully investigated many cases of Pentecostal tongues-speech . . . [n]ot once did he hear any foreign language, nor was he able to authenticate a single claim that any tongue-speaker had spoken in a language previously unknown to him. . . . [N]early every non-Pentecostal observer of tongue-speakers has recognized its non-linguistic, ‘gibberish’ character. . . . [S]tudies now completed or in progress have concluded that speaking in tongues is incoherent, repetitive syllabification having neither the form nor the structure of human speech. . . . [L]inguistic analysis of speaking in tongues . . . . [indicates that Pentecostal] tongue-speech . . . lacked all of the elements essential to any language, even a hypothetical or newly created one: vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and a systematically related phonological-semantic structure . . . speaking in tongues bears no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead[.] . . . Where it is asserted that non-Pentecostals confirmed the real linguisticality of tongue-speech, these witnesses are either unnamed, cannot be found, or are incompetent to judge. The only reliable evidence is the growing volume of recorded tongue-speech which in every single instance flatly and unambiguously contradicts Pentecostal claims to xenoglossy . . . speaking in a language unknown to the speaker.(pgs. 16-18, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson)

Anderson discusses and provides further sources for numbers of scientific studies, not a one of which gives a shred of evidence that Pentecostal “tongues” are anything other than meaningless babbling.

It is also noteworthy, in light of the claim by modern gibberish-speakers that they are speaking a “heavenly language,” that one who was caught up to heaven and heard a real heavenly language declared under inspiration that “it is not lawful for a man to utter” on earth the heavenly speech he heard (2 Corinthians 12:4).

[405]        Pgs. 42-43, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. The cottage at Bonnie Brae Street was the place the fanatical meetings were held before the Azuza Street location was acquired.

[406]        Pg. 64, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[407]        Compare the description on pgs. 71ff., Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson.

[408]        E. g., a well-documented summary of some of the extremely numerous, bizarre, and stomach-turning heresies of Parham, Seymour’s mentor, covers pgs. 83-89 of Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson.

[409]        Many early Pentecostals taught that “the Pentecostal movement was ‘the Bridal call’ and that only those who accepted it would be taken up in the Rapture and receive high rewards in the coming Kingdom, while those who rejected it would suffer the terrors of the Tribulation and hold positions subordinate to the Pentecostals in the Millennium” (pg. 148, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson).

[410]        Pg. 23, cf. 199, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger; pg. 69, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson.

[411]        See pgs. 23, 27, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.

[412]        Pg. 75, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Vinson Synan.

[413]        Pg. 75, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Vinson Synan.

[414]        Pg. 71, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson, describes the torrent of members of Higher Life churches and workers in Holiness associations turning to Pentecostalism in Los Angeles, while whole Holiness churches closed their doors and moved to Azuza Street with their congregations or adopted Pentecostalism where they were.

[415]        Pg. 75, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Vinson Synan.

[416]        Pgs. xix-xx, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan

[417]        Pgs. 73-75, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson.

[418]        Pgs. 149, 159, 178-179, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan. Nonetheless, Pentecostal missionaries had to learn the languages of the foreign peoples they sought to reach (pg. 178, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.), as the gibber-jabber of tongues were not real languages, as were the tongues on Pentecost (Acts 2).

[419]        Pgs. xix-xxi, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[420]        Pg. 46, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness, Frederick Dale Bruner. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970.

[421]        Pg. 19, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.

[422]        “Throughout the nineteenth century women were banned from any public role in church life, but now they were set free to pray and praise openly,” because of Evan Roberts’ misinterpretation of Joel 2:29 (Pgs. 37-38, An Instrument of Revival, Jones; cf. pg. 43). At times he would have church services run by the women who helped him (pg. 80, ibid.). His practice of having little children likewise direct in prayer, song, and testimony (cf. pg. 79, ibid) has not been as widely adopted. Compare pgs. 82-83, Psychological Aspects of the Welsh Revival, A. T. Fryer.   Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, vol. 19 (December 1905); pgs. 163-165, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan. The New Measures propagated by Charles Finney had likewise included women leading mixed congregations in prayer.

[423]        Of course, the Bible does record prayer meetings where both men and women were present, but it is noteworthy that in such passages the grammar of the texts do not affirm that women led the congregation in prayer; e. g., Acts 1:13-14 states that “these” (v. 14)—the male leaders of v. 13—“continued . . . in prayer and supplication,” while “the women” were simply “with” them, so that the natural interpretation of the passage is that the men, and in this case, the male spiritual leadership, led in prayer, while the rest of the church, including the women, prayed silently in agreement with the words addressed to God by the ministers. That is, the ou∞toi pa¿nteß h™san proskarterouvnteß of v. 14 are Pe÷troß kai« ∆Ia¿kwboß kai« ∆Iwa¿nnhß kai« ∆Andre÷aß, Fi÷lippoß kai« Qwma◊ß, Barqolomai√oß kai« Matqai√oß, ∆Ia¿kwboß ∆Alfai÷ou kai« Si÷mwn oJ Zhlwth/ß, kai« ∆Iou/daß ∆Iakw¿bou of v. 13, while these male spiritual leaders were simply su\n gunaixi« kai« Mari÷aˆ thØv mhtri« touv ∆Ihsouv, kai« su\n toi√ß aÓdelfoi√ß aujtouv.

[424]        In Robert P. Smith’s “meetings everyone who felt inwardly moved to it, led in prayer. Even women were permitted to do so,” because of the “baptism of the Spirit,” as Smith “longed for the return of the Apostolic age” with its signs and wonders. It is noteworthy that while Smith was preaching, “by his side in the pulpit there stood or sat men who interrupted the discourse with prayers and songs,” a matter also comparable to the disorder found in Evan Roberts’s meetings, although not to the same extent(“Die Heiligungsbewegung,” Chapter 6, Perfectionism, B. B. Warfield, vol. 1). Compare the record of Smith praying a single sentence, followed by people praying single sentences throughout the gathered assembly, sometimes in various languages, on pg. 291, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.

[425]        Pg. 533, “Demythologizing the Evan Roberts Revival,” Pope.

[426]        Cf. pg. 63, The Awakening in Wales, Jessie Penn-Lewis. Pentecostals such as Donald Gee, George Jeffries, Alexander Boddy, and Frank Bartleman, who were products of the Welsh holiness revival, continued this emphasis upon ecumenicalism (cf. pgs. 198, 206-213, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger & pgs. 167-173, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan). It is not surprising that, following its Higher Life antecedents, “the first beginnings of classical pentecostalism were decidedly ecumenical,” and the “neo-pentecostal movement, since its beginnings . . . has been de facto ecumenical” (pgs. 33-34, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Synan). Parham’s belief about how ecumenism is to be achieved is described on pg. 84, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson.

[427]        One Anglican minister testified:

No one dependent for information on the newspapers can have any idea of the extent to which the [Anglican] Church has participated in the movement. . . . [In a] typical . . . instance . . . [the] Vicar . . . atten[d] revival services under Evan Roberts[.] . . . [He then] began to hold . . . meetings . . . himself. . . . Dissenters proposed to continue the meetings and to invite [Anglican] Churchmen to attend their buildings . . . The meetings . . . dr[ew] us all together in a wonderful way, and we have come to know each other and trust each other more thoroughly than would otherwise have been possible in many years. . . . The better spirit between [State] Church and Dissent is not confined to one or two localities. . . . Baptist preacher[s] sent . . . to the priest of th[eir] district . . . the names of . . . people . . . who had given their names for Confirmation at his Revival services. . . . In a well-known town a Baptist preacher holding services in the streets . . . urged any [State] Church listeners who had not been confirmed to give in their names to the clergy. . . . [A] man . . . applied at once to his Vicar in consequence of this appeal. . . . [T]he [Anglican] Church’s mission services have been attended by hundreds, and probably thousands, of Dissenters. . . . Compare Evan Roberts’ teaching and questioning with that of some of the [Anglican] Church missioners and the difference is barely discoverable, so far as the general line is concerned. Where Roberts stops short, on the sacramental life, the [Anglican] missioners were, of course, strong, [since] in the sacramental life lies the way of preservation[.] (pgs. 183-185, “The Revival in Wales,” A. T. Fryer. The East and the West: A Quarterly Review for the Study of Missions. (1905) 174-188)

Shame on the Baptist preachers who rejected Christ’s command for separation from all false religion, including sacramentalism (2 Corinthians 6:14-18), and joined with Evan Roberts in promoting a false and unbiblical unity between truth and error.

[428]        Pgs. 61, 67, 127, 142-143, 197-198, 207, An Instrument of Revival, Jones. There will, indeed, be a united one-world “church” before the revelation of Christ at the end of the Tribulation period, but God calls it “the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (Revelation 17:5), so it is not a little unwise to prepare the way for it.

[429]        Pg. 126, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[430]        Pg. 119, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[431]        Pg. 62, The Awakening in Wales, Jessie Penn-Lewis.

[432]        Pg. 75, The Great Revival in Wales: Also an Account of the Great Revival in Ireland in 1859, S. B. Shaw. Chicago, IL: S. B. Shaw, 1905.

[433]        Pg. 161, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[434]        E. g., pgs. 88-89, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.

[435]        Pg. 61, An Instrument of Revival, Jones.

[436]        Pg. 80, An Instrument of Revival, Jones.

[437]        Pg. 517, “Demythologising the Evan Roberts Revival, 1904-1905,” Robert Pope. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57:3 (July 2006) 515-534.

[438]        Pg. 141, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[439]        Pg. 238, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[440]        Pg. 51, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[441]        Pg. 53, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[442]        Pgs. 53-54, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan. Italics in original.

[443]        Pg. 77, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[444]        Pgs. 113-114, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan. Unfortunately, Morgan mentions that such Nonconformist churches were a minority; the majority that fell under the influence of Evan Roberts and his methods were central in the decline in Welsh Nonconformity after the passing of the holiness revival.

[445]        Pg. 520, “Demythologizing the Evan Roberts Revival,” Pope. Affirming that revival is wholly dependent upon the grace of God does not mean that God does not answer the prayers of His people for revival; rather, it recognizes that even such prayers, and not answers to them only, are a product of His grace.

[446]        Pg. 231, The Making of the Modern Church: Christianity in England since 1800, B. G. Worrall.

[447]        Pg. 555, “Evan Roberts,” Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. Larsen.

[448]        Pg. 112, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan; cf. pg. 116-117 for other examples of revival before Evan Roberts. Other men began to copy the practices of Evan Roberts. “These men . . . followed Evan Roberts from place to place, picked up his platitudes and broken sentences, [and] went about the country repeating them and imitating his methods and contortions. Thus it was that some of the finest elements in our Christian religion, so far from being strengthened in this Revival, were actually discouraged. So great was the passion for results that men forgot what was due to reverence and even to decency. Sensationalism was consecrated” (pg. 140, ibid).

[449]        Pg. 525, “Demythologising the Evan Roberts Revival, 1904-1905,” Robert Pope. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57:3 (July 2006) 515-534; also D. J. Roberts, Peter Price, Swansea 1968, pgs. 90-109.

[450]        Welsh in language or culture, from the Welsh Cymru “Wales,” Cymry, “the Welsh,” etc.

[451]        See The Western Mail, February 1-6, 11, 1905. The Welsh portion of his letter desires heavenly fire and wishes for the end of sensual fire.

Price’s letter is reproduced on pgs. 141-145 of The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan, who also includes responses by readers to Price, both negative (pgs. 146-154, arguing that “Mr. Roberts . . . without doubt is inspired,” is “the mouthpiece of the Living God,” and is “a prophet of the present age” while Price is a “mean, jealous, cad, whose actions are too contemptible to find words for,” who must be “a shareholder in a Brewery,” since “Jesus Christ don’t want [sic] us to judge and point out things” and Price should be “warn[ed] . . . against the awful harm you are doing even if you are right [emphasis in original].” Price is “blasphem[ing] the Holy Ghost” and he must “ask God to forgive you and to save you” since he is “not a Christian,” not “born again,” and one whose letter “will . . . land you into Hell [sic]” which will “burn your never dying soul”), and positive (pgs. 154-161, “I feel there is a sad deficiency in the leading of Mr. E. Roberts besides doubtful teaching from a scriptural point of view,” “Sir—I am in entire sympathy with you in the noble stand you have made in the interest of 1.) Pure Christianity 2.) Moral Courage and 3.) Sincerity,” “[T]here are hundreds today who believe the same [as you] but have not the courage to openly and frankly admit so[,] and honestly Evan Roberts is a great stumbling block to this Revival as we at Treorky found to our cost when we had him. He placed a damper on every Meeting,” “Your remark about E. R. as in command of the Holy Spirit . . . I have often denounced as blasphemous and also [something that] would drive the weak minded insane and the doubters to unbelief,” “You have won the admiration of hundreds of fellow Christians (if that matters any) by your dauntless courage. Oh that the virtue of having the courage to express one’s convictions were one that was not so rare,” etc.).

[452]        Pg. 57, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[453]        Pgs. 68-69, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[454]        Pg. 112, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[455]        Pg. 181, “The Revival in Wales,” A. T. Fryer. The East and the West: A Quarterly Review for the Study of Missions. (1905) 174-188.

[456]        Pg. 270-271, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[457]        Pg. 158, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[458]        Pg. 124, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[459]        Pg. 262, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[460]        Pg. 251, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[461]        Pg. 259, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[462]        Pg. 261, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[463]        Pg. 262, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[464]        Pg. 42, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[465]        Pg. 264, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[466]        Pg. 35, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[467]        Pg. 77, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[468]       Pgs. 259-262, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[469]        Pg. 262, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[470]        Pgs. 270-271, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[471]        Pg. 260, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[472]        Pg. 261, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[473]        Pg. 257, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[474]        Pg. 275, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[475]        Pg. 276, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[476]        Pg. 92, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[477]        Pg. 261, Voices From the Welsh Revival, 1904-1905, Jones.

[478]        Pg. 49, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[479]        Pg. 529, “Demythologising the Evan Roberts Revival, 1904-1905,” Pope.

[480]        Pg. 529, “Demythologising the Evan Roberts Revival, 1904-1905,” Pope.

[481]        Pg. 15, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[482]        Pg. 15, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[483]        Pg. 205, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[484]        Pg. 206, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan. Many drifted into Anglican sacramentalism (pg. 206, 208, ibid) or simply into rationalism and infidelity.

[485]        Pg. 219, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[486]        Pgs. 242, 254, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[487]        Pgs. 241-242, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan.

[488]        Pgs. 254-255, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan. Italics in original.

[489]        Pgs. 74, 78-79, 88-89, 127, 251, 254-257, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan. Italics in original.

More Resources on Soteriology: The Biblical Doctrine of Salvation

About the Author:

Thomas Ross