 I’m odd and I know it. A Pentecostal who appreciates the church calendar? Who among the Pentecostals recognizes the seasons of the church calendar? Who among the Pentecostals uses the lectionary? And sacraments? About 5 years ago, I discovered the liturgical year and the lectionary. Probably through my engagement with scholars like Scot McKnight and N. T. Wright, I discovered a different approach to church life shaped by the story of Christ: Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, Pentecost, and the Season After Pentecost. Some of those terms you’ve probably heard, others may be new or foreign if you come from a Pentecostal background. Pentecostals and liturgy are not often thought of together, yet Andrew Wilson wrote a book a few years ago that suggests that charismatic experience and the liturgy are not enemies. In fact, he argues for what he calls “Eucharismatic Worship,”[1] based on his study of 1 Corinthians, particularly chs. 11-14, that when the church comes together, there’s the presence of the Charismatic and the Eucharistic. Chapter 11 gives instruction on the practice of the sacrament of communion while 12-14 deal with the manifestation of the spiritual gifts. Thus, Paul believed that the Lord’s Supper and Prophecy, Communion and Speaking in Tongues, belonged together in the worship of the church. Thus, the eucharist and the charismatic are both elements of a Biblical worship service. Further, Paul recognized the timing of Pentecost as he set his travel schedule with the Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:8-9). This recognition of the feast of Pentecostal suggests that the worship calendar informed his travel schedule. Did Paul use a liturgical calendar? Are such practices Pentecostal, though? A Rejection of Formalism Early Pentecostals, especially in the Assemblies of God, struggled with the perceived deadness and ritualism they perceived in the liturgical churches. Their stance against religious formalism led them to distance themselves, even in their language, from the ideas of liturgy and sacraments, choosing rather to refer to them as ordinances and ceremonies.[2] In his article on Pentecostal liturgy, J. C. Holsinger highlights that despite this rejection, ceremonies and ordinances are still important elements of a culture. He points specifically to the marriage ceremony where couples repeat very similar words as they affirm their vows to one another. He states, “one of the most valuable purposes of ceremony—to educate and reaffirm important truths held in common, not just to provide a private or personal experience.”[3] Too often, however, as Holsinger notes, we have become such an individualistic culture that our church landscape has been so focused on individual spiritual experience that we’ve missed the larger, culture-shaping ordinances and ceremonies that remind us who we are as the community of God. Even in affirming these things, Holsinger still looks down on the idea of “liturgy” and “liturgical” worship.  Other Pentecostals have often recognized that sometimes the liturgical practices can, in a sense, be used to cover otherwise pagan lifestyles. Blanche King writes of those who practice the season of Lent first engaging in all sorts of gluttony and immortality before entering into a time of consecration and reflection in Lent.[4] He also suggests that the times of consecration and repentance in such liturgical seasons of Lent are present in Pentecostal revivals and thus unnecessary in the Pentecostal church. Perhaps he’s right. But what if we do need structured times of remembrance to shape our imaginations and lead us into the various seasons of a healthy Christian life? What if there are seasons, ordinances, and practices that, if present on a regular basis, remind us of who we are? An Embrace of the Reminder While I would say that the majority of Pentecostals probably follow the perspectives above in a rejection of liturgy and ritual, that cannot be said of all. As I was combing the pages of past Pentecostal periodicals on the subject, there are small articles and suggestions that the church calendar and her seasons can actually become part of a Pentecostal community. In April 1956, the Pentecostal Holiness Advocate included an editorial on the Church calendar, explaining the various times and seasons. Within that article, there’s an interesting, balanced perspective on these issues: “Our church does not go in for the paraphernalia of high church ritualism. And it's well we don't. But by the same token it is entirely possible to swing so far from this that we reach the other extreme of missing many significant and spiritual events.”[5] After the highlights of Easter, Eastertide continues to celebrate the 40 days Jesus walked with the disciples, leading up to Pentecost. In another editorial, the Advocate suggests that Pentecostals embrace this season to engage in active discipleship in Pentecostal doctrine: encourage reading, preach a series of sermons, plan prayer meetings, and conduct revivals.[6] What if we fully embraced the seasons of the church calendar and found Pentecostal expressions of discipleship within each season? There are many Pentecostals, hungry for a rooted, historical faith, that have truly been moving towards more liturgical practices. In fact, there are many former Pentecostals who have transitioned to the Anglican denomination and style of worship. Known as the Convergence Movement, there are whole denominations of Charismatic Anglicans uniting Charismatic experience of the Holy Spirit with Anglican, High-Church liturgy. William DeArteaga has observed this movement and writes of the growth of these new expressions of Charismatic Christianity. He notes some important issues, however, as many of these new Charismatic Anglicans have a tendency to emphasize the liturgy over the Charismatic. He writes:
Does Liturgy always lead to formalism? Is it possible to embrace structured remembrance in pursuit of revival? A Piece of Our Heritage There’s a forgotten link in Pentecostal history that might suggest that there’s a place for liturgy in the midst of revival fire. I know, I know. That sounds like a contradiction. What does the Anglican Prayer Book have to do with Pentecostal revival? Well, just ask John Wesley about that. DeArteaga notes that John Wesley remained a committed Anglican throughout his life, and oversaw the kindling of revival that birthed the Methodist movement globally. His revivals were marked by manifestations of the Holy Spirit that mirrored those of Toronto or Brownsville, where openness led of bodily experiences of the Spirit’s power such as laughing in the Spirit or falling under the power.[8] In fact, the Wesley brothers pursued an openness to the Spirit while at the same time distancing themselves from emotionalism and fanaticism. While the early Wesleyan revivals were very Pentecostal, they were also very liturgical or sacramental. The Wesleyan holy clubs were nicknamed “The Sacramentarians” because they took communion weekly.[9] Wesley used the Book of Common Prayer to guide the worship of the Methodists, but edited it to leave more room for the Spirit. Later holiness leaders followed suit. Phineas Bresee, the founder of the Church of the Nazarene, followed much of the Methodist Discipline in organizing his worship, but as his biographer put it, “While the Nazarenes respected traditional forms of worship and sometimes drew on them, they were interested primarily in the spiritual vitality that had produced those historic forms.”[10] Nazarenes originally called themselves the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene, but later dropped Pentecostal because they did not embrace the Pentecostal distinctive of evidential tongues. Bresee’s first church, founded in 1898, was nicknamed “The Glory Barn.” There was a pursuit of Spiritual fulness and fire, even if they rejected the evidential doctrine of tongues. Today, there are Nazarenes who are fully evangelical in their worship and yet embrace elements of the liturgical worship such as the use of the lectionary in preaching. In my opinion, they offer some of the best examples of evangelical, sacramental worship in the Wesleyan spirit. Pentecostals and Liturgy I want to suggest that Pentecostals be open to the Spirit in the ordinances and liturgy of worship. Perhaps an embrace of the church calendar could structure our life together and aid us in forming disciples of Christ. What would Liturgical, Classical Pentecostal worship look like? What could it be like for the fires of Pentecost to burn bright in churches that build their life together around the story of Christ? What could the power of the Spirit bring to the baptismal waters and communion tables if the real presence of Christ were recognized? I, in no way, want to argue for cold formalism or dead ritualism. I do, however, wonder if our Wesleyan heritage could inform our worship where structured fires burn strategically. What if the next Pentecostal revival was a controlled burn? Could the liturgy help form people for Pentecostal fullness? [1]Andrew Wilson, Spirit and Sacrament: An Invitation to Eucharismatic Worship (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018). [2]J. C. Holsinger, “Pentecostal Liturgy?,” Advance, 30, no. 5 (1994): 38. [3]Holsinger, 38. [4]Blanche L. King, “The ‘Lenten Season’—Is it Past?,” Pentecostal Holiness Advocate, 46, no. 50 (1963): 2. [5]Dallas M. Tarkenton, “The Church Calendar,” Pentecostal Holiness Advocate, 39, no. 48 (1956): 2. [6]Dallas M. Tarkenton, “Easter to Pentecost,” Pentecostal Holiness Advocate, 39, no. 44 (1956): 2. [7]William DeArteaga, “The Wesleyan Revival as a Model for the Convergence Movement,” Refleks, 5, no. 1 (2006): 79. [8]DeArteaga, 85. [9]DeArteaga, 85. [10]Carl Bangs, Phineas F. Bresee: His Life in Methodism, the Holiness Movement, and the Church of the Nazarene (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1995), 231.
0 Comments
 As Pentecostal people, we love the power of the Spirit of God. Pentecostals are a people defined by a desire to see people step into the New Testament experience of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Pentecostalism began with hungry people desiring more of the Holy Spirit, and specifically to find out the biblical sign they had been brought into Fullness of the Spirit. Students at Charles Parham’s Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas read the book of Acts, and came to believe that speaking in other tongues was the initial physical sign one had been baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Power for Service Many of these early Pentecostals were baptized in the Holy Spirit, packed their bags in a coffin, and headed overseas to give their lives as missionaries for Christ. The missional, service impulse that flooded their souls with the filling of the Spirit was exceptional. Early leaders emphasized that Spirit-baptism brought power for witness and service, and rightly so, for Acts 1:8 clearly states “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (ESV). Power to be a witness is a primary purpose of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Power for Life If you look a bit further back to the roots of this movement, you’ll find the holiness movement. Just before the outbreak of the modern classical Pentecostal movement, many Holiness people were preaching the baptism in the Holy Spirit as power for life, power for sanctification. The Holiness Movement emphasized that through the power of the Holy Spirit, Christians could be made holy and transformed inwardly. Through the Spirit, Christians had the power to love God and love neighbor as God desired. This, they believed, was the fruit of the fullness of the Spirit—a life of love. Paul taught this fruit of transformation in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23). Both/And Pentecostals – Life and Service If you look at the confession of faith of the Assemblies of God, the Statement of Fundamental Truths, our belief in the baptism in the Holy Spirit embraces both. Speaking of the Baptism of the Spirit, we believe that “With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry.”[1] Life and service. I believe much harm has come in modern Pentecostalism because we’ve forgotten our roots. We miss that dynamic combination of both life and witness, holiness and service, in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Fullness of the Spirit will bring much more than just speaking in tongues. It will also help you live a holy life. The Baptism in the Spirit brings spiritual power both to make you holy in your life and anoint your lips of witness. Church, let’s embrace a both/and faith from our heritage. Let us never be content with power for service without a transformed life. May we see the enduement of power as power for both life and witness, and may our lives and lips both be anointed to testify to the transforming grace of God. This article was originally written for publication in The Epistle, the publication of Abundant Life Assembly of God. [1]“Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths,” Assemblies of God USA, available from: https://ag.org/Beliefs/Statement-of-Fundamental-Truths; accessed 27 March 2025.  Goddess of nature, childbirth, wildlife, healing, the hunt, sudden death, animals, virginity, young women, and archery. If there’s one topic that often divides the body of Christ, it is often the role of women in ministry. There are usually two sides in this debate: those that believe God reserves leadership roles in the church to men and those that embrace women filling all levels of spiritual leadership. In theological terms, these two camps can be called complementarianism and egalitarianism. Usually, most people fall within a spectrum. It isn’t always a black and white issue within human hearts.
In complete honesty, this has been an issue I have wrestled off and on for years as I’ve studied the Bible. I’ve always believed that women can preach and teach the Word of God, yet I’ve wrestled with certain positions of leadership being held by women. Texts like 1 Timothy 2:12 seem on the surface to restrict the role of women in church leadership. In Bible college I actually wrote a paper on this text in which I concluded that women should not serve as lead or senior pastors. Yet as I have walked through some studies over the past few years, I have come to see that we often completely misunderstand this text. I want to pose that this text, rather than restricting women from the pulpit, actually brings correction and direction for women to pursue spiritual leadership in a godly and dignified way. 1 Timothy was written to the church at Ephesus, a church under the severe threat of false teaching. Paul is trying to protect the bride of Christ from falsehood throughout the entire letter, and it seems that many of these false teachers were targeting women and leading them astray. Rather than completely ban women from preaching, let me suggest that Paul is taking the unbridled passion of women under these false teachers to domineer and usurp men with false teaching, and instead bringing them correction and direction to be true ministers of Christ and His Word. Let me first tell you why I believe it is impossible for this text to believe that a woman cannot teach a man in church or pastor a church, and then address what I believe this text is teaching about women and spiritual leadership. What It Cannot Mean A cursory reading of Acts brings one into the story of Priscilla, Aquilla, and the Ephesian church. In Acts 18, Paul joins with a husband and wife in Corinth where he ministers bivocationally and teaches the Word of God. They become a part of the missionary band, and travel with Paul for a while, and then stop in Ephesus where they minister to a particular man named Apollos. Notice what the Bible says: “So, he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” (Act 18:26 NKJV) Timothy served as the overseer of the Ephesian church, the very church in which Priscilla and Aquilla had ministered. We see in Acts 18, Priscila is teaching Apollos in Ephesus, helping him find the ways of God more fully. This means that the Ephesian Church had experienced a woman teacher of the Word of God, actually correcting another teacher. How could Paul be restricting something that in 1 Timothy that the church had already experienced? Further, Priscilla and Aquilla hosted house churches in Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. The Bible records the names of Priscilla and Aquilla in a way that demonstrates an interchangeable equality in the roles and responsibilities they had within their house churches. Priscilla was a pastor-teacher in the Ephesian church, so 1 Timothy cannot restrict women from the office of pastor. Outside of this context, the Bible shows women as filling almost all of the 4 (or 5) functions of Ephesians 4:11. Junia is a woman named as an apostle (Romans 16:7), Anna is named as a prophetess (Luke 2:36), the Samaritan woman evangelizes Samaria after meeting Jesus (John 4) and women first proclaimed the resurrection (Matt. 28). Priscilla serves as a pastor/teacher. Further, Phoebe is named as occupying the office of deacon (Romans 16:1). Not one office of spiritual leadership is closed to women biblically. So, what then do we do with 1 Timothy 2, where Paul says “I do not permit a woman to teach?” Let me work through this passage, beginning at verse 11, and continuing on into chapter 3 to show that Paul is bringing correction, not prohibition, to the ministry of women in Ephesus. He is going to correct their doctrine and demeanor before pointing them in the direction of spiritual leadership. Demeanor The first issue that Paul addresses when it comes to women ministering in the church is that of their demeanor. It seems that a big part of the problem with women in Ephesus was the way in which they were pursuing spiritual authority within the church. Two words in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 bring out the demeanor that Paul was confronting. The desired behavior was a demeanor of silence or quietness that should accompany their learning. It is not a requirement of absolute silence, as in never speaking, but a call to a humble, quiet demeanor in learning the Word of God. Thayer defines this word as “description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others.”[1] It’s a descriptor of a lifestyle that doesn’t stir up others or lord it over them, but learns in humility. It’s related to the term earlier in 1 Timothy 2, where Paul writes “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (1 Timothy 2:2b). The word translated peaceable comes from the same root as the word silence. Paul is speaking to a tranquil and peaceable demeanor, not requiring the absolute silence of women in the church. Further, the word that Paul uses in verse 12 to describe the prohibited activity of women regarding authority speaks against a demeanor of abuse and usury that seemed to be infecting some of the people of the Ephesian church. Authentein is a Greek word translated various ways in English: “have authority” (NKJV), “exercise authority” (ESV), “rule a husband” (YLT). The actual use of the word is much more defined and harsher than the mere exercise of authority. In classical Greek, the word was first used to describe a murderer, and later came to describe someone who served as a mastermind or author of an act of violence.[2] It is used of perpetrators in contexts of murder, suicide, and violence.[3] Over time, it came to mean “master,” and is translated in one first century letter as “I had my way with him.”[4] As you can see, there are violent and manipulative tones to the word that would necessitate a prohibition from Paul. “I do not permit a woman to teach in a way that violently manipulates and controls a man,” might be one way of looking at what Paul was prohibiting. Paul wanted peaceable, gentle leadership, not domineering and violent control. Doctrine Beyond demeanor, Paul next outlines a correction to the doctrine being spread by many of these women. That word authentein can also be understood as describing the author or creator of something, and is used in the early church fathers to speak of God’s creative acts.[5] There was also a false teaching spreading in the regions of Anatolia that all things began with the Great Mother (Artemis, Diana, and later Eve), and that she had not sinned or been deceived because she had a special knowledge (gnosis) that guided and protected her.[6] These same teachers had a negative view of childbirth, and often discouraged women from having children, something God designed as a part of the mutual cultural mandate of Genesis 1. Notice that this makes perfect sense of Paul’s description of Creation in 1 Timothy 2: For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. (1Ti 2:13-15 NKJV) Paul gives a line by line correction to this false teaching. Adam was formed first, not Eve or the Great Mother. Further, Eve was deceived by Satan and fell into sin. Also, she will be saved by faith and faithfulness to what God designed for the marriage relationship, namely the reproduction of faithful image-bearers. He directly confronts this doctrinal heresy being spread in this region by some Gnostic Christian sects. Direction After correcting their doctrine and their demeanor, Paul gives direction to women and men desiring to serve God’s church in spiritual leadership. “It is true that anyone who desires to be a church official wants to be something worthwhile” (1Ti 3:1 CEV). Many translations of 1 Timothy 3 translate the text using an assumed masculine gender, which used to be the case when addressing a mixed audience. “Hey guys” isn’t a statement that a group made up of entirely males, but an inclusive term often used to address a mixed group. What’s telling for me, though, is the gender of the term “church official” or “office of a bishop.” This word is a feminine singular term in the Greek, interesting to be sure, in that it appears directly after a discussion of the role of women in the church. Could it be that Paul, rather than restricting women’s roles in the church is actually encouraging them to pursue service as an elder or deacon? Therefore, if any [woman] desires the office of a bishop, [she] desires a noble task. (1 Tim. 3:1) Paul is giving direction to women who desired to serve God’s church. They were to do so sound in doctrine and humble in demeanor, and in line with the character qualities necessary for spiritual leadership, which Paul goes on to outline in chapter 3, first for elders (3:1-7), and then for deacons (3:8-13). What about that requirement that elders and deacons be “the husband of one wife?” Surely that restricts service to men, right? Well, not exactly. See, when it came to marital faithfulness, men had particular issues that women didn’t normally face. Women were expected to live faithful to their husbands, and faced harsh penalties for infidelity. Not so with men, however. Listen to a quote from one ancient source, describing the relationships of a typical man: “We have hetairai for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily health of our bodies, and wives to give us legitimate offspring and be the faithful guardians of our homes.”[7] The hetairai were a sect of professional escorts, reputable prostitutes if you will, that would accompany men to social banquets and functions. Rather than take their wives, they would take an escort to their company party, and have pleasure with them as part of the night. Further, regular relations with their slaves was a part of satisfying their sexual appetites. Their legitimate wives served to produce legitimate heirs and to manage their household.[8] Into this morass of immorality, Paul writes that a man was to be a “one-woman man.” That makes total sense when put against the historical culture into which it was written. Marital faithfulness was to be a characteristic of any man who sought spiritual leadership. He wouldn’t have escorts and concubines. He would be faithful to his wife. The phrase seems to become synonymous with monogamy, as Paul later takes the same idea and applies it to widows: “Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man” (1Ti 5:9 NKJV). The point is faithful monogamy within marriage. Thus, anyone with a God-given call and desire could fill the office of elder or deacon in the church, providing sound, spiritual leadership. They were to do so with a quiet demeanor, with sound doctrine, and with the biblical direction of character qualities laid out to spiritual leaders. Conclusion No, Paul doesn’t restrict the ministry of women, instead he gives correction and direction for their faithful service as both elders and deacons in Christ’s church. So, my friends, let her preach! Open your pulpits and your churches to the God-called daughters, Spirit-empowered prophetesses, and women gifted to lead. *This is an edited, rerelease of a blog I wrote 5 years ago in 2020. A few changes have been made, and a footnote edited to aid in the study of the topic. [1]Thayer,” Hesuchia,” E-Sword. [2]Marg Mowzcko, “ The Meaning OF Authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12, with a Brief History of Authent-Words,” Marg Mowzcko; available from: https://margmowczko.com/authentein-1-timothy2_12/; accessed 6 August 2020. [3]Ibid. [4]Ibid. [5]Deborah Gill and Barbara Cavaness, God’s Women: Then and Now (Colorado Springs: Authentic, 2004), 153. [6]Ibid. [7]Julia Neuffer, “First-Century Cultural Backgrounds in the Greco-Roman Empire,” Adventist Archives, available from: https://www.adventistarchives.org/first-century-cultural-backgrounds-in-the-greco-roman-empire.pdf; accessed 27 March 2025. [8]Ibid.  Bethel Bible School in Topeka, KS (From Marion Doss from Scranton, Kansas, USA) If there’s one thing that Pentecostals are not exactly known for, it’s education. Most Pentecostals are not known for their pursuit of education and advanced training. Interestingly, there’s a rich history of education within the early days of the Pentecostal revival, some of it that is not well known. Many Pentecostals know the origin story of Classical Pentecostalism, a movement that began in the study of scripture at Charles Parham’s Bethel Bible Institute in Topeka, Kansas. It was there that students felt, through their study of the book of Acts, that the initial sign of being baptized in the Holy Spirit was speaking in tongues. As students began to seek more of God, Agnes Ozman was the first to receive her Pentecostal experience in 1901. This was one of the major centers out of which the Classical Pentecostal movement arose—a Bible institute. Many Bible institutes began in those days to train Pentecostals. Pentecostals were not limited to Bible schools, however. Sometime last year, I began to notice an interesting piece of Pentecostal history. As I read through historical periodicals from the early days of the Pentecostal revival, I stumbled upon something that I think I missed in my study of Pentecostal history. Alongside early Bible institutes, there were a number of literary schools developed for the training of Pentecostal people. The Pentecostal Bible Institute As the fires of the Pentecostal revival began to burn, so did a desire to learn and grow in a knowledge of God’s Word. Within 10 years of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Topeka and 5 years of the move of the Spirit at Azusa Street, a number of Pentecostal Bible schools began operating throughout the United States. Coupled with camp meetings, people were urged to bring supplies to stay for an extended time of training.[1] One of these schools met for three months before the first General Council of the Assemblies of God in Hot Springs, Arkansas in 1914. A man by the name of Howard Goss rented the opera house for his church and D. C. O. Opperman conducted a school in that three months; students lived in a large building a mile away from the opera house and then would attend Bible studies in the opera house where the goal was to learn “how to pray, how to study the word, and how to know God and walk with him.”[2] A Bible school in Fort Worth, Texas provided training ground for a number of early Pentecostal leaders.[3] A S. Copley and J. R. Flower conducted a Bible school in Kansas City in the summer of 1909.[4] A later Bible school was started by D. W. Kerr in 1919 in San Francisco. Pacific Pentecostal Bible School opened on October 1, 1919, after a 12-year recognition of the need for a West Coast training center.[5] Partnered with the Glad Tidings Mission, it was believed that this school would become a strategic center for training works and sending them all around the world for Christian work. One of the hallmarks of these early Pentecostal Bible schools was a strong emphasis on practice. It was said of the Pacific School that in addition to courses in music and preaching, lectures and messages on missions, “There will be given abundant practice in leadership of meetings and daily practical work in street meetings, hospitals, and homes that the servants of the Lord in training may be thoroughly furnished unto every good work.”[6] The practical focus of these schools stemmed from their heart for the life of the Spirit. Gohr said Opperman sought to balance education and training because he did not want intellectual development to stifle or “overpower the deeper life of the soul.”[7] He also desired trained workers who did not land on the mission field with no knowledge of what to do. He felt that they should “learn to do by doing” and learn through Bible studies paired with prayer, fasting, and other practical ministry experiences. Such an ideal serves to express what scholars have identified as the interplay of experience, pragmatism, and action within Pentecostalism.[8]  Pentecostal Literary Schools In addition to these Bible schools, there was also a push for what are identified as literary schools. From what I can tell in my reading, literary schools were elementary and high schools operated by Pentecostals for the education of their children. As early as 1914, the General Council of the Assemblies of God officially recommended the literary school of R. B. Chisholm in Union, Mississippi for their people, and further suggested that their people avail themselves of any other Full Gospel or Pentecostal schools near them.[9] Interestingly, and importantly, there was a distinction between the literary training of children in the literary schools and that offered by Bible schools, such as T. K. Leonard’s Gospel School in Findlay, Ohio, a school devoted to Bible training.[10] The Pentecostal Holiness Church also offered multiple Bible and Literary schools: Falcon Holiness School, Holmes Bible and Missionary Institute, and Franklin Springs Institute.[11] There was distinction, however, in that the Holmes Bible and Missionary Institute was more focused on ministerial training, while Falcon and Franklin Springs focused more on the literary training of children.[12] Literary schools provided comprehensive education for children, with the Franklin Springs school advertising courses from 1st grade through 11th grade, and covering the standard curriculum of liberal arts training.[13] There was a Bible piece to the education, but the main focus was on the literary training. Daniel C. O. Opperman, after many years of running short-term Bible schools, opened a combined Bible and literary school in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, dedicating a large hotel on August 15, 1915.[14]
Could we have forgotten a major piece of our discipleship, especially that of our children? What would it look like for Pentecostal churches and people to catch, once again, a vision for the Pentecostal literary school? Now, I must admit, I’m biased. I teach third grade at an incredible Christian school in Southern Illinois, Ambleside School of Marion. I work in an environment where children are receiving a liberal arts education through an environment and a pedagogy that is incredibly dependent on the Holy Spirit. What would it look like for Pentecostals to reawaken this piece of our history and pick up the mantle once again? I’d like to make two suggestions that I think could spearhead the conversation for us today. An Incredible Heritage to Rediscover Gabriel Pethel notes that the rise of the modern Christian school movement coincided with the rise of the modern fundamentalist movement.[15] It began to counter the enlightenment, modernist worldview that was seeping its way into the educational systems of the day. In light of the cultural upheaval of the sexual revolution and, sadly, the desegregation of public schools, Christians flocked to Christan schools where their students would be sustained in a fundamentalist worldview, protected and shielded from the forces of secularism and cultural instability. Fundamentalism, however, has a number of flaws in its worldview, and tends not to be friendly to Pentecostalism. Most fundamentalists are not open to foundational Pentecostal beliefs in the least, and many are actively opposed to Pentecostal theology and practice. Two of the leading curriculum distributors of Christian educational materials are operated by Christian universities that are actively opposed to Charismatic practices. One web-site articulates, “Sign gifts as mentioned in the New Testament and observed in the early Church have fulfilled their purpose and are not a normative pattern for today.”[16] Another, “We are opposed to the charismatic movement and its sign manifestations, such as speaking in tongues.”[17] I am not saying that these resources are bad, in fact I used books from both publishers in my Christian education in high school. I only bring it to attention to discuss the possibility that it’s time for Pentecostals to reawaken Pentecostal education for a new generation. I’d like to suggest that the Pentecostal literary schools give a foundation and heritage for Pentecostals that pre-dates the modern Christian school movement. Pentecostals joined Catholics, Lutherans, and Mennonites who had begun to pick up the torch of education for the children of their movements as modernism began seeping its way in. Pentecostals have a history of teaching and educating children that traces back to the earliest days of the movement as schools were opened and recommended by the leading Classical Pentecostal denominations and fellowships in their infancy. It was desired that Pentecostal people find and support schools that would provide a Pentecostal education for their children. What if we recaptured that heritage today, and started a movement of Pentecostal schools, distinct from the modern fundamentalist roots of the modern Christian school movement? What might that look like? What if there were methods that aligned more foundationally with a Pentecostal worldview? I will write on this in the future, but through my training and experience, I have seen the philosophy of Charlotte Mason embrace a Spirit-driven educational model that shares some foundational practices that align with a Pentecostal worldview. A Sustainable Educational Partnership Not only do we have a heritage to rediscover, but I believe there could be a strategic partnership for Pentecostal colleges and universities. It’s no secret that Bible colleges are hurting today. The health of many, many Bible colleges is in question and many are struggling to stay afloat financially. Dwindling enrollments have made the sustainability of such schools extremely difficult. Many of these Bible and Literary Schools of early Pentecostals operated the school for children but also offered a three-year Bible curriculum for focused ministerial training as well. Could this be a missing piece in our educational strength and stability? What if we opened Christian schools, devoted to a Pentecostal education for our children, and also shared space and resources for ministry training schools? What if the faculty of the Christian school were trained and equipped to teach in the Bible school as well? What if the sharing of resources created a sustainable path of Christian education for all students, and created a realistic pathway to train the next generation, not only for vocational ministry by also for service in all God’s vocations throughout the world? Conclusion I certainly do not have all the answers for Pentecostal education, but I’ve begun to ask some questions. I think more Pentecostals need to begin to ask questions. A few Sundays ago, my pastor preached an incredible sermon about re-digging the wells of our heritage. He spoke on re-digging wells of Spirit-baptism, sanctification, healing, and other Pentecostal distinctives. Maybe it’s time to re-dig the wells of the Pentecostal literary school. Maybe it’s time for Pentecostals to re-embrace a vision of a liberal arts education for their children. What if we had Christian schools that did not simply follow the trends of Fundamentalist Christian education but put forth a distinctive Spirit-filled education? What if our practices were different from the local elementary school down the street and embraced a Pentecostal worldview? I’d like to invite you to join me in a dream—a dream for Pentecostal education. References: [1]Glenn Gohr, “D.C.O. Opperman and Early Ministry Training Short-term Bible Schools,” Assemblies of God Heritage 11, no. 1 (Spring 1991): 5. [2]Ibid. [3]Ibid. [4]A. S. Copley and J. R. Flower, “Summer Bible Schol in Kansas City, MO,” The Pentecost 1, no. 6 (April-May 1909): 1-2. [5]D. W. Kerr, “Pacific Pentecostal Bible School,” The Latter Rain Evangel 304 & 305 (September 6, 1919): 8. [6]Ibid. [7]Gohr, 6. [8]Ulrik Josefsson and Matthew T. Nowachek, “Practitioners and Pentecostalism: An Epistemological Investigation into Learning as Doing, Experience, and Reflection,” Pentecostal Education Journal 7, no. 1 (Spring 2022): 102-103. [9]General Council of the Assemblies of God, Combined Minutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America, Canada, and Foreign Lands (St. Louis, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1914), 7. [10]Ibid. [11]G. F. Taylor, “Camp Meetings and Schools,” The Pentecostal Holiness Advocate 3, nos. 12-13 (July 1919): 1. [12]A. C. Holland, “Franklin Springs Institute,” The Pentecostal Holiness Advocate 4, no. 13 (July 29, 1920): 9. [13]“Franklin Springs Institute Literary and Bible School of the Pentecostal Holiness Church, ” The Pentecostal Holiness Advocate 5, no. 17 (August 25, 1921): 8. [14]Daniel C. O. Opperman, “Magnetic Hotel, Home for the Ozark Bible and Literary School, Dedicated to the Lord,” The Word & Witness 12, no. 9 (September 1915): 2. [15]Gabriel J. Pethel, Christian Education in the 21st Century: Renewing a Transformational Vision (Master’s thesis, Cedarville University, 2011), 32-33. [16]“Position Statements,” Bob Jones University, available from: https://www.bju.edu/about/positions.php; accessed 14 February 2025. [17]“Biblical Foundations,” Pensacola Christian College, available from: https://www.pcci.edu/about/biblical-foundations.aspx; accessed 14 February 2025. |
Dr. jake TrueDr. Jake True is a teacher, pastor, and scholar in Southern Illinois. He is a Pentecostal pastor at Abundant Life Assembly of God, and a teacher in a Charlotte Mason School, Ambleside School of Marion. He loves exploring learning and discipleship, with an emphasis on the role of the Spirit in education. Archives
April 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed
|
The Pentecostal Teacher
|
Contact ME |