Revival and Revivalism Part 2: From Azusa Street to Asbury
- Rubin
- Apr 26, 2023
- 11 min read
Part 2: This part of the series is devoted to reframing Azusa Street in its historical and cultural context to better understand revivals today
In the first part of this series, I wrote about my own varied experiences in charismatic churches and the how I see the tradition more broadly. I now want to explore a specific example in revival history—Azusa Street. The history and context of Azusa will hopefully show how Pentecostals and Charismatics are both indebted to this tradition and disconnected from the history that made sense of revival. The point of this series is not to be overly critical nor is it meant to disregard the many good things that my tradition offers, but rather, to allow us to better frame and analyze revivals in our own contexts. This reorientation toward the history and context of Azusa can help us understand that these works of God never occur in a vacuum. It is also important to see the juxtaposition between this reframing and how revivals are typically understood today. For example, we often understand revivals primarily in terms of one’s individual experience, the reawakening of believers, conviction of sin, salvations, miracles, etc., but we almost never discuss the specific context of the revival, the political and cultural milieu, and how the eccesial communities are equipped to love their neighbors. I believe this monotonic analysis misses the larger picture of what God is doing. Revivals are a work of grace to believers and by extension to the world, but they are also embedded in a discourse between God and his people. If we exclusively individualize this divine correspondence, we miss what God was attempting to do within our communities and society.
Azusa street is the most significance revival in north American history in the past century. William Seymour, who is considered the “catalyst” of the revival is credited with being a major impetus for the outpouring in 1906. Gastón Espinosa in his work William J. Seymour and the Origins of Global Pentecostalism, situates his own contribution to this discussion by outlining the history of scholarship on Seymour’s life and legacy. Tragically, most of the of historians in the last century have devalued or overlooked Seymour’s role in the revival.[1] This ongoing prejudice against Seymour to the point of obscuring the historical record is a direct consequence of the legacy of racism in the US and the major societal sickness the revival was initially set to address. Underscoring this prevalent attitude is the historical circumstances of the revival. The Azusa Street outpouring occurred during the Segregation Era (1900–1939) and preceded the Great Migration (1910–1920), where African Americans moved into industrial cities to find work and to fill labor shortages generated by WWI. This era represented a time in US history where racialized laws were long instantiated into our political and legal systems. Racism was blatant, systemic, and constant. William Seymour's leadership during this historical period reveals just how subversive this work of God was intended to be. If we miss this point, we miss a significant and necessary component to our history as Charismatics.
Also emerging out of Azusa Street was a growing consensus to associate speaking in tongues with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. For those unfamiliar, this spiritual baptism is defined as a second work of grace in the life of a believer (after conversion) where they are empowered to further serve and witness for the Lord. Still standardized to some degree is the specific doctrine that associates speaking in tongues with this work, like in denominations such as AG[2] and COGIC.[3]Others charismatic denominations, like Vineyard, UMC, Four Square,[4] and Elim emerged out of different circumstances and uphold other criteria for evaluating the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but they are still very similar. Elim on the other hand, began after the Welsh revival in the UK (1904–05), and they say this regarding Spirit baptism, “Not only do we believe that the same filling or baptism is available for all believers today, but we have an expectation that signs will follow which show the Spirit’s presence in our lives. This may be speaking in tongues (Acts 2:4, 10:46) or prophesying (Acts 19:6).”[5] Elim in this case is a bit more nuanced than some of their North American counterparts, yet still similar. In another context, UMC’s statement does not use the language of baptism of the Holy Spirit, and instead focuses on fruits and gifts of the Spirit more broadly.[6] Vineyard USA, deemphasizes a specific second work of grace by insisting a continual filling of the Holy Spirit, as an ongoing reality.[7] So whether it is UMC, or a more modern charismatic iteration like Vineyard, those that are not explicitly tied to Azusa Street still contain revivalist assumptions which underpin their theology, and in some cases the influences of Azusa are still felt.
The impetus for connecting tongues to Spirit baptism derived from early Pentecostals, namely, Charles Parham, who was a major proponent of this idea. William Seymour was a student of Parham’s at his bible school, Bethel Bible College, in Kansas. But even though Parham allowed Seymour into his school, Seymour was forced to sit outside of the classroom while he listened to Parham’s teaching, signifying the racial dynamics that framed this context and their relationship. Amazingly, despite Parham’s racism, Seymour still had an affinity toward him to the point where he invited him once the outpouring was occurring to lend oversight and guidance to this burgeoning movement.
In this excerpt, Parham drew direct connections to his own racialized worldview to the flood narrative in Genesis,
Were time to last and inter-marriage continue between the whites, the blacks, and the reds in America, consumption and other diseases would soon wipe the mixed bloods off the face of the earth. . . .The reason for the flood is plainly seen. God intended to destroy man whom He had created, with all the half-breeds resulting from inter-marriages. Yet having made a promise to Adam of a Savior, was compelled to preserve the Adamic race. For this reason Noah was chosen, not only because he was a just man and walked with God, but was perfect in his generation; a pedigree without mixed blood in it, a lineal descendant of Adam.[8]
Mixed-race people in the eyes of Parham represented the physical evidence of damnation, like it represented in his reading of the flood narrative in Genesis. Mixed people, like me, and many others, would be considered the direct consequence of damnable sin in Parham’s eyes, diluting the pure and superior white race. Parham reads back into Genesis the racial context as he understood it in his own day, then from the text, imposes that back into this own day to support his own vile racism.
Despite Parham’s overt and sickening racism, Seymour requested that he visit and help in the revival. Seymour’s initial request being cordial and sanguine, he writes,
Now please let us know about the date that you will be here, so we can advertise your coming and the date. I shall look for a large place, by God’s help, that will accommodate the people. Hallelujah to God! Victory through the all cleansing blood of Jesus! I expect an earthquake to happen in Los Angeles when you come with other workers filled with the Holy Ghost; that God will shake this city once more…. Please answer soon. Yours in Christ and in the faith that was once delivered unto the saints.[9]
Early in the movement, Seymour was not only cordial to Parham but agreed with his position on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. It is telling that Seymour focuses on the precipitating events at Azusa Street and Parham’s potential role as spiritual advisor and guide, showing his optimism. Seymour seems exclusively concerned about the revival, and he sees Parham as playing a necessary role.
Regarding the specific doctrine of speaking of tongues, Seymour is aligned with Parham on the circumstances in which one experiences this phenomenon. From one of the many statements that Seymour wrote on tongues, here is one that helps frame his thought,
Dear one in Christ who are seeking the baptism with the Holy Ghost: do not seek for tongues but for the promise of the Father, and pray for the baptism with the Holy Ghost, and God will throw in the tongues according to Acts 2.4…. Beloved, when we receive the baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire, we surely will speak in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. We are not seeking for tongues, but we are seeking the baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire. And when we receive it, we shall be so filled with the Holy Ghost, that He Himself will speak in the power of the Spirit.[10]
Although Seymour agrees with Parham on this point, he is still primarily concerned with the proper order of things, which is to seek God first and foremost. He assumes that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is associated with receiving tongues but should not be the consuming intention of ones’ prayers.
But as Parham visited and spent time at Azusa Street, his racism reared it sickly and disgusting head again. He labeled the movement as too fringe and ecstatic, even accusing the participants of being demonically influenced. It is important to note the racialized language present here. Many of those present at the revival were people of different backgrounds and cultures, and while these folks expressed their love and worship to God in celebratory, expressive, and unique ways, Parham’s accusation belies an unchecked racism. Racism was such a problem at Azusa Street that eventually Seymour implemented a policy that the top leadership positions could only be occupied by people of color, because he knew that his white counterparts would stir up division and fracture the movement. He did this to keep the peace, not to further divide.
After Seymour realized that he had severe disagreements about race, theology, and direction of the revival with Parham, a fracture emerged. Almost a year after his initially cordial and respectful request to Parham, Seymour changed his perspective on speaking in tongues being associated with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He wrote,
Tongues are one of the signs that go with every baptized person, but it is not the real evidence of the baptism in the everyday life. Your life must measure with the fruits of the Spirit. If you get angry, or speak evil, or backbite, I care not how many tongues you may have, you have not the baptism with the Holy Spirit. You have lost your salvation. You need the Blood in your soul.[11]
A slight digression is needed to clarify Seymour’s soteriological convictions—that is—his understanding of salvation. He believed that one could lose their salvation with a miscue or unintended error in speech or deed, resulting in an extremely narrow point of idea of salvation. But setting that aside, and more to the point here, Parham’s racism and hatred was so vile, that Seymour changed his view on a key pentecostal doctrine. In this he evolved to consider the primary role of divine love and thus, deemphasized the physical evidence the baptism.
Furthermore, the idea of speaking of tongues as the evidence for the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not historically prevalent anyways. In fact, Heidi Baker, who wrote her PhD dissertation, reconstructed an ecumenical theology of speaking in tongues. She says this,
In almost two millennia of Christian life and practice, no one from the apostolic time until the nineteenth century associated tongues with the beginning of life in the Spirit. Even those who spoke in tongues in the earlier centuries did not make the Pentecostal connection.[12]
Historically, this connection would seem odd to practitioners, and considering Seymour’s evolving thought on the practice, shows just how insufficient this doctrine is when juxtaposed to the prevelant cultural issues and the need to express divine love toward one another.
This brings us to the major point of this piece, which is that the power of the charismatic renewal for the Church is the accompanied empowerment of believers to express God’s love to one another and to the world. In my estimation, the predominate concerns of the Church at Azusa should have been more social and relational, rather than doctrinal. The preeminent concerns at the time were the ongoing legacies of racism, not whether one could articulate a coherent form of their theological convictions. Yet, this at times is precisely the legacy we have inherited from Azusa, which is our distinctive doctrines about the Holy Spirit. More broadley, we also often focus on an individualized perspective of revival, a personal experience and encounter, and a self-conscious dialogue with God. But this is not to say these experiences or doctrine is irrelevant or unnecessary. The ongoing work of the Holy Spirit is a distinctive feature of pentecostal and charismatic theology, which I emphatically believe.
Charismatics and Pentecostals are well-known for many things, good and bad: their specific doctrines, faith to believe the impossible, fascination with signs and wonders, poor exegesis, disdain of education, and in recent history, the assimilation into the larger Evangelical political construct. But I want to rediscover the true prophetic gift of the Church that was present at Azusa that was quickly relegated to subsequent history, which was a discernment of the pressing issues of the day which led to the critique of the institutional powers exemplified by the community of believers.
A major concern of mine is that our charismatic communities pray for revival but dismiss the very real political and social realities in our churches. Azusa Street was meant to tear down the barriers of segregation, racial, and gendered oppression, and yet, the same sins that fractured the movement persist in many of our communities today, and we largely ignore them. How do we ask for revival when we are not willing to learn from the historical examples before us?
So, this brings us back to Asbury. What are the pressing needs that God is inviting his people to engage? Like Azusa, we should see Asbury within its cultural context. The generation that it has primarily impacted are those at the university. The unique circumstances of the last few years have exacerbated issues such as loneliness and depression (this was cited during testimonies at the revival). The larger context in the past decades include economic depressions, college debt, distrust in politics and institutions, disillusionment with American foreign policy and the industrial military complex, COVID, concerns with matters of justice and inclusion, LGBTQ Christian identity, systemic racism, and trans identities.
Many of these issues transcend generations, but many of them are issues that have come to define this specific generation. I think these connecting threads of context help to situate the Asbury revival. I say this so that Christians can think more deeply about how they see and understand these works of God as they happen. Inversely, if we understand revivals monolithically, then we miss many of the larger cultural factors that make sense of our moment in history, and the ways that revival equips and prepares this generation to engage these issues. We then miss out on how God is speaking to the Church more broadely through revival, which is a form of divine discourse meant to reestablish the Church within society.
Revivals never occur in a vacuum, nor do they make sense as isolated incidents disconnected from what is happening in society at the time. God intends to speak to his people and equip them to think deeply about these questions. In this way, I believe revivals reveal God’s multi-faceted wisdom that is to be displayed to the world in critical, thoughtful, and loving ways.
Endnotes
[1]Gastón Espinosa, William J. Seymour and the Origins of Global Pentecostalism: A Biography and Documentary History (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014), 8–30.
[2]https://ag.org/Beliefs/Statement-of-Fundamental-Truths#8
[3]https://www.cogic.org/about-us/what-we-believe/
[5]https://www.elim.org.uk/Articles/625636/Foundational_Truths_The.aspx
[7]https://vineyardusa.org/about/vineyard-distinctives/; https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://d1h8uvf6sd4tvp.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/20160527184946/Vineyard-Core-Values-Beliefs-RGB.pdf&hl=en
[8] Espinosa, William J. Seymour and the Origins of Global Pentecostalism, 380–81.
[9] Espinosa, William J. Seymour and the Origins of Global Pentecostalism, 162. This was written in September of 1906.
[10] Espinosa, William J. Seymour and the Origins of Global Pentecostalism, 180–82. This was written in February/March of 1907.
[11] William Seymour, "To the Baptized Saints," The Apostolic Faith 1.9 (1907): 2.
[12] Heidi Baker, “Pentecostal Experience: Towards a Reconstructive Theology of Glossolalia,” PhD diss., The Kings College London University of London, 1995, 171.
Bibliography:
Gastón Espinosa, William J. Seymour and the Origins of Global Pentecostalism: A Biography and Documentary History (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014), 8–30.
https://ag.org/Beliefs/Statement-of-Fundamental-Truths#8
https://www.cogic.org/about-us/what-we-believe/
https://www.elim.org.uk/Articles/625636/Foundational_Truths_The.aspx
https://vineyardusa.org/about/vineyard-distinctives/; https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://d1h8uvf6sd4tvp.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/20160527184946/Vineyard-Core-Values-Beliefs-RGB.pdf&hl=en
William Seymour, "To the Baptized Saints," The Apostolic Faith 1.9 (1907): 2.
Heidi Baker, “Pentecostal Experience: Towards a Reconstructive Theology of Glossolalia,” PhD diss., The Kings College London University of London, 1995, 171