Introduction
From their inception in 1901, Pentecostal preachers were convinced that they were doing and experiencing something entirely new. âA new dispensation is dawning upon us,â claimed one Pentecostal journal in 1908.2 They spoke of their call to ministry as the ânew workâ that the Holy Spirit was doing. Even familiar tasks like reading the bible were changed for Pentecostal practitioners. âThe Bible becomes a new book,â wrote Azusa Street Revivalists in 1907, âto those baptized with the Holy Ghost.â3 Pentecostal preaching was no different. âMany have received the gift of singing as well as speaking in the inspiration of the Spirit,â claimed first-generation Pentecostals. âThe Lord is giving new voices.â4
Pentecostal preachers were not the first inhabitants of the New World to claim that God was doing a novel thing through their voices. Indeed, North American religionists are known for their innovation and creativity.5 This chapter argues that first- and second-generation North American Pentecostal preachers performed in a way that was simultaneously innovative and derivative. Early Pentecostal preachers borrowed holiness theology and revivalist practices and combined them in innovative â and often peculiar â ways. In spite of (or perhaps because of) their particularities, Pentecostal preachers, initially derided, went on to influence celebrity preachers of all denominational affiliations in North America.
Methodology and scope
In this essay I will analyze North American Pentecostal preachers through accounts from Pentecostal magazines, newsletters, and journals from the years 1890â1930, which includes holiness preachers who eventually became Pentecostal and the first two generations of the Pentecostal movement. While they were not great record keepers when it came to detailing liturgical practices or church polity and policy, North American Pentecostals were superb self-promoters. Almost immediately after experiencing what they called a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Pentecostals started advertising their experiences in periodicals such as the Azusa Street Revivalâs The Apostolic Faith, the Church of God in Christâs The Whole Truth, the Assemblies of Godâs The Latter Rain Evangel, the Association of Pentecostal Assembliesâ The Bridegroomâs Messenger, and many more.6
The Pentecostal knack for telling their story to the masses is perhaps one reason why Pentecostalism produced a large number of celebrity preachers and why celebrity preachers had so much influence in the movement. In addition, celebrity Pentecostal preachers were often itinerant: Maria Woodworth-Etter, William H. Durham, Carrie Judd Montgomery, Charles Price, and Aimee Semple McPherson spoke to national (and sometimes international) audiences. This itinerancy put them in direct contact with a broad swath of Pentecostals. Because of their influence and because of the fact that there are records available of their performances, analysis of celebrity preachers gives insight into the launch and design of the movement.
I will examine the performances of these celebrity preachers as ritualized acts. In her work on ritual and performance, Catherine Bell defines ritualized acts as performances that give participants the notion that what they are experiencing is significant in some way.7 Bell also argues ritualized acts are employed strategically to create, maintain, and organize power relationships.8 As the emcee of North American Pentecostal worship services, the preacher, through his or her actions, did more than any other single person to create the impression that Pentecostal worship services were significant. Although sermons are what one typically associates with the preacher, several additional acts fell under the preacherâs purview including the offertory, divine healing, altar calls, and more. These liturgical elements created an otherworldly experience for Pentecostals that defined the movement and preachers were responsible for and empowered by their ability to create a ritualized sense of âheavenly intoxicating fullness.â9
North American Pentecostal preachers engaged in an extremely complex, multi-layered task. Through their sermons, altar calls, prayers for divine healing, and prayers for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, preachers and their congregants were (and are) continually negotiating issues of theology and practice as well as gender, race, class, etc. during the preaching moment.10 Because of this fact, this chapter does not seek to offer an exhaustive account of Pentecostal preachers. Neither does this chapter seek to parse out all theological strands present within the act, of which there are many. Rather, the modest goal of this chapter is to situate early Pentecostal preachers in their practical and historical context and to examine the trajectory of their preaching.
Pentecostal preachers and North American Protestantism
Pentecostal preachers presided over what might be considered the movementâs first contribution to the Christian tradition: Pentecostal worship services. In its first two generations (1890â1930),11 Pentecostalism did not produce a large number of thinkers known and respected in mainstream theological circles.12 In fact, early generations of Pentecostals were largely left out of the fundamentalistâmodernist controversy, which was for all intents and purposes the popular Protestant theological issue of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.13 Nor did Pentecostals revolutionize church polity or articulate a distinct version of ecclesial ethics; for the most part, their churches were organized and governed in ways similar to their holiness or Wesleyan counterparts. Rather, Pentecostal preachers, through their noteworthy performances, created distinctive revival experiences for practitioners.
Pentecostals were not the only Protestants interested in preaching in the early twentieth century. Most North American Protestants were very concerned with proper preaching techniques. The large number of preaching manuals produced in the era attests to the preoccupation with preaching well.14 As could be expected, there were many different opinions as to what made for good preaching and a good preacher, but for many Protestants of the era, opinions about what made for a good preacher were split according to liberalâfundamentalist tastes.15
The liberalâfundamentalist divide in North American Protestantism dominated the theological landscape of early twentieth-century Protestantism.16 It began when the academic science of biblical study, known as âhigher criticism,â trickled down from German-influenced seminaries into American ministerial circles.17 Those who embraced higher critical approaches to the scriptures were given the moniker âmodernistâ or âliberal.â Modernist theologians and biblical scholars applied scientific principles to the bible and then began reevaluating its historicity and authority for modern readers. For example, liberal preachers such as Harry Emerson Fosdick argued that because the creation account in Genesis clashed with the theory of evolution, the creation account was meant to be read metaphorically rather than literally.18
The modernist notion that the bible included errors enraged conservative scholars. John Gresham Machen, professor of New Testament at Princeton Seminary, led a conservative backlash against higher critical forms of biblical and theological study and called for a return to the âabsolutely fundamentalâ Christian doctrines.19 Soon, many other conservative voices joined Machen and set out to articulate the fundamentals of the faith and with that, fundamentalism was born. A chief tenant of the movement was that the bible was inspired by God and as a product of God, the bible did not include any human mistakes.20 Another key belief was that the bible was meant to be interpreted âliterallyâ;21 fundamentalists believed modernist metaphorical readings were theologically bankrupt.
The rift between these two competing intellectual movements eventually split nearly every mainline denomination in American Protestantism. It also created several other splinter denominations and colleges and universities. For the most part, fundamentalists left to create their own schools and denominations and liberals retained what was left of the existing institutions.
With so much acrimony between the two groups, it is not surprising that liberals and fundamentalists disagreed when it came to what made for quality preaching and quality preachers. For most mainline Protestants, preachers were made through seminary education and official ordination. Good preaching depended upon the preacherâs ability to present a rational, respectable, modern version of Christianity that appealed to the intellect as well as the heart. âWhen he stands on a platform, his body tense, dynamic, his wavy hair brushed back, his heavy-lidded eyes gleaming,â wrote Time Magazine of liberal Protestant preaching celebrity Harry Fosdick, âthen his audience, whether it be Baptist, Presbyterian or lay, knows well that here is a leader that knows his business â his mind.â22 Preaching stars like Fosdick were known as public intellectuals who could translate modernist theology in a compelling, even âelectric,â manner.23 Fosdickâs primary aim was to appeal to the âyounger generationâ of American Protestantism.24 âAs I plead thus for an intellectually hospitable, tolerant, liberty-loving church,â preached Fosdick, âI am, of course, thinking primarily about this new generation.â25
For fundamentalists, a solid understanding of the scriptures and a preacherâs ability to war against the supposedly unorthodox modernist teachings (like those of Fosdick) was key. Conservatives like Billy Sunday and fundamentalists like J. Frank Norris were known for their biblical knowledge and their ability to preach with aggression and power against the liberals. âNowadays we think we are too smart to believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus, and too well educated to believe in the resurrection,â preached Sunday against the modernists. âAll we know about heaven and salvation is in the Bible.â26 Sunday was known for his knack for preaching with âword bullets with his Gatling gun which grew almost white with heat at times.â27
Pentecostals shared more of an affinity with fundamentalists than modern-ists, but they did not necessarily have the same criteria for determining what made a good preacher.28 This was due in part to the fact that, in the early years of the movement, Pentecostals were not highly inv...