Spurling and Tomlinson: Between Azusa Street and Cleveland

AZUSA STREET AND FRANK BARTLEMAN

An Eyewitness to Azusa Street

INTRODUCTION by Vinson Synan

Few events have affected modern church history as greatly as the famous Azusa Street revival of 1900-1909, which ushered into being the worldwide twentieth-century Pentecostal renewal. From this single revival has issued a movement which by 1980 numbers over 50,000,000 classical Pentecostals in uncounted churches and missions in practically every nation of the world. In addition to these Pentecostals, there are untold numbers of charismatics in every denomination who can trace at least part of their spiritual heritage to the Azusa Street meeting.

WILLIAM J. SEYMOUR

It was in Houston that a Southern black holiness preacher by the name of William J. Seymour joined Parham’s Bible school. Despite the Jim Crow segregation laws of the South, Seymour joined in the classes taught by Parham. Originally a Baptist, Seymour had entered the ranks of the holiness movement before 1905 and freely accepted Parham’s cardinal teachings which now included five points: justification, sanctification, baptism in the Holy Spirit with the “initial evidence” of speaking in other tongues, divine healing and the premillennial second coming of Christ.

Although Seymour accepted Parham’s teaching on tongue: (glossolalia), he did not receive the experience in Houston. The mantle of leadership in the fledgling pentecostal movement was soon to be transferred from Parham to Seymour, and the “place of blessing” from Houston to Los Angeles.

In 1906 Seymour received an invitation to preach in a black Nazarene church in Los Angeles pastored by a woman preacher, Reverend Mrs. Huchinson. When he arrived in Los Angeles in the spring of 1906, Seymour found a city of some 228,000 which was growing at a rate of 15 percent a year. Many strange religions and a multiplicity of denominations occupied the religious attentions of the city. Los Angeles was a melting-pot metropolis! with large numbers of Mexicans, Chinese, Russians, Greeks Japanese, Koreans, and Anglo-American inhabitants.

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. Another important religious influence in the city was Phineas Bresee, who had founded the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene in 1895 in an attempt to preserve the teaching of holiness which he felt was dying out in the Methodist Church, a denomination in which h had served as a leading minister for some thirty years.

Starting his work at the Peniel Mission in the very poorest section of the city, Bresee was repeating Wesley’s work of a earlier century in England by ministering to the disinherited of Los Angeles society. His Nazarene followers were rapidly becoming the largest holiness church in America.

In the black community, a rich social and religious life had developed during the last years of the century with numbers of Methodist, Baptist, and holiness churches located in the black community that centered around Bonnie Brae Street.

Without question, William J. Seymour was the central figure of the Azusa street revival and will always be remembered as the vessel chosen of the Lord to spark the worldwide Pentecost revival. Yet, little that he wrote has been preserved for posterity.

This fact is not to be despised, however, when one reflects that neither Socrates nor Jesus left a body of written works for future generations to read. Socrates had his Plato to record his dialogue while Jesus had the four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, to leave a written record of His teachings. Seymour had his Frank Bartleman.

---

FRANK BARTLEMAN

It was Bartleman’s diary and reports in the holiness press that constituted the most complete and reliable record of what occurred at Azusa Street. In later years, Bartleman gathered together his diary entries and articles written to various periodicals and published them in book form.

In this book, entitled “How Pentecost Came to Los Angeles,” one feels the excitement of the events at the old Azusa mission. From the beginning, Bartleman seemed to sense the historic significance of the Los Angeles Pentecost. From the first meeting he attended in April 1906, he felt that a “world wide revival” would be the result.

In many ways, Bartleman’s entire life had been spent in preparation for reporting the Azusa Street meeting. It is probable that without his reporting, the Pentecostal movement would not have spread so quickly and so far as it did. His journalism not only informed the world about the Pentecostal movement, but in a large measure also helped to form it.

Born in Rucks County, Pennsylvania, in 1871 to a German-born Roman Catholic father and an English-born Quaker mother, Bartleman grew up on a farm where his first job was that of following a plow. While he feared his stern father, he enjoyed a tender relationship with his mother. From his earliest days, he suffered from frail health. In his own words he was a “life-long semi-invalid” who “always lived with death looking over my shoulder.”

His conversion took place in October 1893 in the Baptist Temple in Philadelphia, pastored by the famous preacher Russell Conwell, author of the gospel of wealth classic, “Acres of Diamonds. After Conwell baptized the twenty-two-year-old Bartleman, he offered to pay the young man’s way through college. Bartleman refused, explaining that “I made my choice between a popular, paying pulpit and a humble walk of poverty and suffering. . . I choose the streets and slums for my pulpit.”

At the time he licensed to preach, by the Temple Baptist Church, he decided to “trust God” for his body. A lifelong devotion to the doctrine of divine healing followed. The desire to preach was overwhelming. “The Gospel was a fire in my bones that roared all the day,” wrote the young minister.

In 1897 Bartleman left the Baptist ministry and cast his lot with the holiness movement. Joining the Salvation Army, he spent a short time in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, as a captain before disillusionment led him to leave the army. He later traveled to Chicago to attend the Moody Bible Institute.

Bartleman did not study long in Chicago, however. He had wandering feet. Soon he was on a “gospel wagon” making his first tour of the South. Here he befriended the blacks to the consternation of white Southerners. The wandering life occasionally depressed him. On a second tour of the South in 1899 he became so despondent that he once actually contemplated suicide. Later, though, he felt well enough to contemplate matrimony.

In 1900 he married a Miss Ladd, matron of a school for fallen girls in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He also experienced his first spiritual manifestation of “shouting and jumping,” although before this he had led a life of a “rather monkish tendency.”

Soon after marriage, Bartleman was ordained in Philadelphia “in pentecostal connection,” a term which he fails to further explain. This group was probably one of the small holiness groups of the day, who found it popular to use the word “pentecostal” in their name in reference to the second blessing of sanctification through the baptism in the Holy Ghost (without any reference to glossolalia).

Near the time of his marriage he joined the Wesleyan Methodist Church and was assigned a pastorate in Corry, Pennsylvania. This pastorate was an unhappy experience for Bartleman, since he found the church to be “not even spiritual” and, in his judgment, a “backslidden holiness charge.”

In this period, Bartleman was subject to several more mystic experiences in addition to his shouting and jumping of a few months earlier. In a camp meeting he felt “electric shocks” to the point that he fell unconscious. Later after his horse was healed in answer to prayer, Satan attacked him in his room at night “to destroy me.” The name of Jesus put Satan to flight. Also, after miraculous healing, he was “slain in the Spirit” for one-half hour before a congregation where he had been preaching.

When his father-in-law invited him to join the Methodist Episcopal Conference in New York Bartleman refused. While the Methodist Church was moving away from emotional and expressive holiness religion in this period, Bartleman was moving in the opposite direction. He branded the Methodist Church as being “dead and compromised.”

After leaving the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Pennsylvania, Bartleman set his sights on the West. Working at odd jobs, he led his wife and newly born daughter, Esther, on a trip to Colorado, with California as his eventual goal.

In Denver, he went to work with Alma White, head of the Pillar of Fire church, a small holiness group that specialized in the “holy dance.” It was here that Bartleman was “cured of ever worshipping a religious zeal or creed.”

While in Colorado, Bartleman continued the ministry that became his lifetime mission–work in slum areas among alcoholic and fallen girls. Most of this work was done in the holiness rescue missions that were located in the central areas of the nation’s larger cities.

He also felt compelled to print and distribute tracts as part of his ministry. In addition to tracts, Bartleman often painted Scriptures on bridges, rocks beside the highways, or other public places. Because of these activities he occasionally ran afoul of the law. In 1902 he was arrested in Boulder, Colorado, for painting Scriptures on canyon walls near the city. Beyond these activities the indefatigable evangelist felt led to preach in every saloon and house of prostitution in every city he visited. In Denver that included over a hundred saloons.

It was in 1904 that Bartleman finally reached his goal, California, where he exclaimed, “Here we reached paradise.” His first stop was in Sacramento, where he was immediately placed in charge of the Peniel Mission, a holiness rescue mission in the heart of the city. His work at Peniel failed “because of incompetent workers” and the aggressive proselyting of the rival Burning Bush and Pillar of Fire missions.

After leaving the Peniel Mission, Bartleman frantically tried to reenter the pastoral ministry. An attempt to gain an appointment in the Wesleyan Methodist Church failed, as did an application to Phineas Bresee for a Nazarene pastorate. “None available” was the word from Bresee.

The desperate Bartleman turned to whatever odd jobs he could obtain-painting, picking apples, cutting wood, etc. Things got so bad that their second baby was born in a rescue home. The leaders of the home refused to let the hapless evangelist stay with his wife and baby. Later his wife was reduced to scrounging for food in garbage cans. They could not afford proper clothing, their feet wearing through the soles of their shoes.
By December 1904, Bartleman left Sacramento for Los Angeles, where he was destined to record some of the most stirring events in the history of the church. “The Spirit had led us to Los Angeles for the ‘Latter Rain’ outpouring,” he later wrote in the end of his autobiographical book, “From Plough to Pulpit–From Maine to California.

In Los Angeles, Bartleman went immediately to the Peniel Mission on South Main Street, which was founded and operated by Mrs. Manie Ferguson, author of the hymn “Blessed Quietness.” (P.F. Bresee worked on the Peniel staff before founding the Church of the Nazarene in 1895).

For Bartleman, hardship and tragedy awaited him in Los Angeles. Poverty, sickness, and the death of his oldest child, “Queen Esther,” in January, 1905, left the hapless preacher and his wife grief-stricken but more determined than ever to fulfill their ministry in the “city of the angels.”

Throughout 1905 Bartleman worked with the various holiness churches and missions in the Los Angeles area. But many of the holiness churches had become rigid and negative to any new winds of revival that might begin to blow. In a warning to them, Bartleman confided in his diary “some holiness churches [foremost at that time are going to be surprised to find God passing them by. He will work in channels where they will yield to Him. They must humble themselves for Him to come.”

Indeed the greatest signs of revival in Los Angeles in 1905 were in Methodist and Baptist churches, in particular the Lake Avenue Methodist Church in Pasadena and Los Angeles’s First Baptist Church, pastored by Frank Smale.

The revival in Smale’s church was sparked by news of the great Welsh revival of 1904-05 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 in Wales and the Pentecostal outpouring in Los Angeles in 1906.

At this time also, Bartleman began to write articles for the holiness press. His reports from Los Angeles were printed primarily in the “Way of Faith” in Columbia, South Carolina, and “God’s Revivalist” published in Cincinnati, Ohio. From these influential periodicals Bartleman’s stories were republished for other holiness papers around the nation. By 1906 Bartleman had built a reputation in holiness circles as a reliable reporter whose articles emphasized the need of spiritual renewal among all Christians, but among holiness partisans in particular. He was thus in a strategic position to describe the spiritual climate of Los Angeles before the Azusa Street revival and to report the historic events after the Azusa Street meeting began in 1906.

The reports of the Azusa Street revival are contained in a book Bartleman published in 1925 entitled “How Pentecost Came to Los Angeles–As It Was in the Beginning.” This book was written several years after the events of 1906-1909 and was pieced together from the author’s diary and clippings from articles he had written for the holiness press.

In this book, Bartleman injects himself into the story as one of the prime movers of the Azusa Street events. While it is true that Bartleman helped establish the spiritual climate in which the pentecostal movement could flourish in Los Angeles, the crucial role was played by William J. Seymour, pastor of the Azusa Street Mission.

In 1906 Seymour had been invited to preach in a black Nazarene church in Los Angeles pastored by a “Mrs. Hutchinson.” When Seymour preached his first sermon, proclaiming the “initial evidence” theory of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, he was locked out of the Nazarene church. The stranded preacher was then invited to stay in the home of Richard Asbury on Bonnie Brae Street until he could arrange his return to Houston. But Seymour was destined to spend the rest of his life in Los Angeles due to the tremendous revival that began shortly thereafter.

The theory that forced Seymour out of the Nazarene church was new to holiness circles in Los Angeles in 1906. Simply stated, it is that one cannot say that he has been “baptized in the Holy Spirit” without the “initial evidence” of speaking in tongues (as the church had done on the Day of Pentecost). This was an offensive and revolutionary teaching, since practically all Christians claimed to be baptized in the Spirit–evangelicals at the time of conversion and holiness people at the time of their “second blessing” or “entire sanctification.” The teaching of a glossolalia-attested Spirit baptism became the centerpiece of Pentecostal teaching, with Seymour as the apostle of the movement.

Although he had not yet spoken in tongues at the time he was locked out of the Nazarene church, Seymour did soon thereafter in the Asbury home. Home prayer meetings soon gave way to front-porch street meetings which drew hundreds of eager listeners to hear Seymour and his tongue-speaking followers. Soon the crowds became so large that larger quarters were needed for the fast-growing group.

A search of the downtown Los Angeles area turned up an abandoned old building on Azusa Street that had been used variously as a Methodist church, a stable, and a warehouse. In 1906 it was a shambles, but adequate for the band of Pentecostals who began holding services there in April of 1906.

Bartleman first attended services while the group was on Bonnie Brae Street and then followed Seymour to the premises on Azusa Street. The “Los Angeles Times” first reported the Azusa story in April of 1906. Calling tongues a “weird babel” and Seymour’s followers a “sect of fanatics,” the front-page Time’s article created curiosity and bigger crowds for the meeting. The “press wrote us up shamefully” declared Bartleman, “but that only drew more crowds. “The following is part of the Times report of April 18, 1906 (see Appendix A for the complete article).

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 Azusa Street, near San Pedro 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-racking [sic] attitude of prayer and supplication. They claim to have the “gift of tongues,” and to be able to comprehend the babel.

As the revival continued for three and one-half years at Azusa, services were held three times a day-morning, afternoon, and night. Tongues-speaking was the central attraction, but healing of the sick was not far behind. The walls were soon covered with the crutches and canes or those who were miraculously healed. The gift of tongues was soon followed by the gift of interpretation. As time passed Seymour and his followers claimed that all the gifts of the Spirit had been restored to the church.

It soon became apparent that Seymour was the leading personality in the Los Angeles Pentecost. He became pastor of the church and remained so until his death in 1923. Despite the fact that Seymour was black, many of his followers were white. Although at the beginning of the revival blacks predominated, at the height of the meetings whites constituted a majority. The mission later became predominantly black after the whites began organizing their own assemblies in the Los Angeles area after 1906. In regard to the racial situation, Bartleman exulted, “the color line has been washed away in the Blood.”

As the revival continued, it became apparent that Bartleman’s role would be that of reporter to the religious world about the Los Angeles Pentecost. His articles gained a wide audience across America and in other lands. Stories about Azusa Street in “Way of Faith, God’s Revivalist, and Christian Harvester” were passed from hand to hand.

In addition to Bartleman’s reports and the negative comments of the Los Angeles press, Seymour and his Azusa Street leaders began publication of their own paper, entitled “The Apostolic Faith.” It was sent free across the United States to any who desired it. The editor was a white woman who worked in the mission, Florence Crawford. The name was taken from Charles Parham’s Apostolic Faith movement.

The connection between Seymour and Parham was broken, however, in October 1906. Seymour had invited Parham, his “father in the gospel,” to preach in Azusa Street, but Parham’s negative messages and attempts to correct what he saw as abuses led to his expulsion from the church. From that time onward there was a complete rupture between Seymour and Parham that never was healed.

Nothing was able to stop the inexorable momentum of the renewal that issued forth from Azusa Street, however. “Pilgrims to Azusa” came from all parts of the United States, Canada and Europe. They in turn spread the fire in other places. From North Carolina came Gaston Sarnabus Cashwell of the Pentecostal Holiness Church. After a “crucifixion” over his racial attitudes, he asked the Azusa Street blacks to pray for him. According to his testimony, Cashwell received his baptism and “was soon speaking in the German tongue.” A few months afterward in a meeting in Dunn, North Carolina, and a preaching tour of the South, Cashwell led several southern holiness denominations into the Pentecostal fold (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).

C.H. Mason, head of The Church of God in Christ of Memphis, Tennessee, came to Azusa in November 1906 and received the Pentecostal experience. After returning to his church, the majority of the Church of God in Christ was Pentecostalized. In Birmingham, Alabama, M.M. Pinson and H.G. Rodgers, future pillars in the Assemblies of God (organized in 1914), were baptized in the Holy Spirit under Cashwell’s ministry. When Florence Crawford moved to Portland, Oregon, she took the Azusa paper, “Apostolic Faith,” and made that the name for her new Pentecostal denomination.

From Azusa Street, the Pentecostal flame spread to Canada under R.E. McAlistier and A.H. Argue. The “Apostle of Pentecost” to Europe, T.B. Barratt, cancelled a planned trip to Azusa Street after receiving his Pentecost in New York City. Returning to Oslo, Norway, in 1906 he opened the first Pentecostal work in Europe. From his ministry the torch was passed to Sweden, Denmark, England, Germany, and France. Less directly the fire spread to Chile under the ministry of the American Methodist missionary Dr. W.C. Hooevr; to Brazil under the ministries of Daniel Berg and Gunnar Vingren; and to Russia and other Slavic nations under lvan Voronaeff, a Russian Baptist from New York City.

Thus within a short time the Azusa Street Pentecost became a worldwide move of the Holy Spirit. The five major teachings of Azusa Street served as a standard for this first wave of Pentecostals. They were: (1) justification by faith; (2) sanctification as a definite work of grace; (3) the baptism in the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in other tongues; (4) divine healing “as in the atonement”; and (5) the personal premillennial rapture of the saints at the second coming of Christ. Though many “winds of doctrine” blew at Azusa Street, Seymour and his followers continued to stress the above teachings throughout the years of the mission’s ministry.

In time, opinion in the religious world became bitterly divided over the Azusa Street revival. Although a significant proportion of the holiness movement accepted the Azusa revival as signaling the long-prayed-for Pentecost, the majority rejected Pentecostalism. The Fundamentalists rejected Pentecostalism and by 1928 had disfellowshiped all Pentecostals from their ranks. The vast majority of mainline Christians either knew little or nothing of the movement, or dismissed it as another heresy among the “holy rollers.”

After seventy-five years it is now possible to gain a better historical perspective concerning the Azusa Street revival. In the years from 1906 to 1909, during the height of the excitement, it was impossible for anyone to be objective about the events and the teachings at the mission. For those who were baptized in the Spirit and spoke in tongues, the meeting was a foretaste of a worldwide revival. For others who rejected Seymour’s teaching, the “winds of perdition” were blowing at the Azusa Street “slum” mission.

The storm of charges and countercharges that swirled around the controversial revival mission made little impression on Seymour and Bartleman. Though they recognized excesses and the occasional intrusion of spiritualists and mediums into the midst, they continued to see the revival as the beginning of a historic awakening. A prime feature of the services was the reading of reports from other cities, states, and nations where the revival was spreading. It was Bartleman’s opinion that the revival unleashed at Azusa Street would be “a world-wide one without doubt.”

While Bartleman extolled the historic dimensions of the new movement, there were others in Los Angeles who were not so sure. By December 1906, Dr. Phineas Bresee, founder of the Church of the Nazarene (known at that time as the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene) felt compelled to write an editorial in the Nazarene Messenger about the Azusa services. While Bresee lived in Los Angeles near the mission, there is no evidence that he ever attended services on Azusa Street.

In the article, entitled “The Gift of Tongues” (see Appendix C), he referred obliquely to the articles that Bartleman had already sent to the editors of eastern holiness periodicals:

But some parties who had the confidence of editors in the East sufficiently to secure the publication of what they have written, have given such marvelous statements of things as occurring in connection with this thing, that. . . we deem it wise to say a simple word.

Playing down the importance of the Azusa Street phenomenon in Los Angeles, Bresee stated:

Locally it is of small account, being insignificant both in numbers and influence. Instead of being the greatest movement of the times, as represented–in Los Angeles, at least–it is of small moment. It has had, and has now upon the religious life of the city, about as much influence as a pebble thrown into the sea. . .

In the end, Bresee felt that the Azusa Street Pentecostal bordered on fanaticism and heresy by teaching that

Christians are sanctified before they receive the baptism with the Holy Ghost, this baptism being a gift of power upon the sanctified life, and that the essential and necessary evidence of the baptism is the gift of speaking with new tongues, [which he called] a jargon, a senseless mumble. . . a poor mess.

As to the Azusa Street worshipers, the Nazarene leader stated:

There are more or less people whose experience is unsatisfactory, who have never been sanctified wholly, or have lost the precious work out of their hearts, who will run after the hope of exceptional or marvelous things, to their own further undoing.

It is obvious that the “marvelous statements” to which Bresee referred were those that Bartleman was circulating in the holiness press. His view that the movement had as much influence in Los Angeles as “a pebble thrown into the sea” was contradicted by the burgeoning growth of Pentecostal assemblies in the Los Angeles area and the explosive growth of Pentecostalism across the United States. In the end, Bartleman turned out to be a better prophet than Bresee.

Perhaps Bartleman’s prescience came as a result of his life and career prior to 1906. An acute observer, he wrote vividly about everything he saw, and was not averse at judging everything and everyone he saw. His life spanned many important events and turning points of American religious history.

When he joined the “new order of priests” as a Pentecostal, he had no theological problem in accepting the tongues-attested baptism in the Holy Spirit. When the “finished work” view of sanctification was preached by William Durham of Chicago, Bartleman stood at his side and gladly accepted his teachings. A few years later when the “oneness” movement appeared, Bartleman joined with Glenn Cook and Frank Ewart and was rebaptized “in Jesus’ name.”

After joining what the Trinitarian Pentecostals dubbed the “Jesus only” Pentecostal movement, Bartleman lost many friends and former contacts. No longer able to write for holiness or Pentecost periodicals, he lost influence in the movement and became largely isolated except for his “oneness” colleagues.

After the Azusa Street years, Bartleman continued his travels and wrote other books, notably “Two Years Mission Work in Europe. . .1912-1914. This book described his experiences during a round-the-world trip that was interrupted by World War I. His descriptions of Europe at the outbreak of the war and attempts to get home “through the war zone” make exciting reading indeed. But nothing he did during the rest of his life could rival the importance of his report on “how it was in the beginning” at Azusa Street.

In poor health to the end, the erstwhile evangelist spent his years in Los Angeles engaged in his first love-mission work. At the last, Bartleman refused to join any of the established Pentecostal denominations. He died as he had lived–an independent. Death came in September 1935 in his beloved Los Angeles.

In the years after 1906-1909, Seymour remained as pastor at Azusa Street. After his death, Seymour’s wife carried on services for a few more years until the mission was torn down in 1929. The hallowed old building was offered to the Assemblies of God in case they wished to maintain it as a Pentecostal shrine. The leaders of the church refused because they “were not interested in relics.”

As the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Azusa Street revival is commemorated in 1981, it is possible to reflect on the importance of this watershed event in Christian history. By this year, there are estimates of the number of Pentecostals and Charismatics in the world that approach the 75,000,000 mark. That would mean that roughly 1,000,000 persons per year have accepted the premises of the Los Angeles Pentecost in the years since 1906.

Indeed, in 1981 Pentecost has come to Rome itself as millions of Catholic Pentecostals rejoiced in the baptism in the Holy Spirit. In 1975 over 10,000 Catholics gathered in St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome to celebrate the Pentecost season. In a memorable service, these charismatics rejoiced as Pope Paul VI gave his endorsement to the movement. At the climax of that service thousands spoke and sang in other tongues.

In 1978 a similar Pentecostal service was conducted in Canterbury Cathedral in England. About 2,000 Spirit-filled Anglicans and Episcopalians rejoiced in the Spirit as tongues and prophecies came forth in the venerable seat of the World Anglican Communion. Archbishop Coggin addressed the Conference and spoke in glowing terms of the renewal in England.

It is a long way from Azusa Street to St. Peters and Canterbury, but in 1981 it is apparent that Pentecost has come not only to Los Angeles, but to all the cities and nations of the world.

The last chapter of this book, entitled “A Plea For Unity,” sounds strangely relevant to those who are active in the present Pentecostal/Charismatic renewal movements. After experiencing a lifetime of sectarian strife and division, the more mature Bartleman concluded his book on Azusa Street with an ecumenical call for the unity of believers today,

for the “one body” that the prayer of Jesus may be answered, “that they all may be one, that the world may believe” . . . we belong to the whole body of Christ, both in heaven and in earth.

“We belong to the whole body of Christ” is a phrase that might well be applied to the band of worshipers who gathered together in the Azusa Street Mission in April of 1906. They never belonged to an organized denominational group. None of the larger Pentecostal denominations of today, such as the Assemblies of God or The Church of God in Christ, can lay an exclusive claim to the mission. It belongs to the whole body of Christ. Seymour cannot be claimed only by the blacks, or the Pentecostals; he belongs to the whole body of Christ–of all nations, races, and peoples. And the baptism in the Holy Spirit, with the accompanying gifts and graces does not belong only to the Pentecostals, but to the whole body of Christ–indeed unto “as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39).

THE END
This introduction is reprinted from the book AZUSA STREET by Frank Bartleman, first published in 1925 (reprinted 1980). This book is still in print ISBN 0882704397.

Dr. Dony K. Donev: Pentecostal theologian, missiologist, and cultural researcher

Dr. Dony K. Donev is a Pentecostal theologian, missiologist, and cultural researcher recognized for several original contributions to theological frameworks and terminology:

• Coined Term: “15/50 Window”

  • Donev introduced the term “15/50 Window” to describe individuals aged 15–50, who make up more than half of the world’s population. This term highlights a strategic demographic focus for evangelism and missions, paralleling but distinct from the widely known “10/40 Window”.​

• Theological Emphasis on Liberation of Human Will

  • Donev presents a theological framework where the human will is liberated by the love of God, moving beyond rigid determinism. He challenges the cause-and-effect sovereignty model (e.g., Augustine and the Reformers), focusing instead on the believer experiencing divine love, which frees human will to accept salvation. He uses the phrase “testament of freedom” to describe this liberated state.​

• Dynamic Tension in Theology

  • Donev frames the Christian life and theological reflection as a “constant tension and a dynamic process”—not a blind adherence to rigid principles. He stresses that experiencing God means being in ongoing movement between divine sovereignty and human response.​

• New Testament Praxis Restoration

  • Through his leadership at Cup & Cross Ministries, Donev has promoted the restoration of New Testament theology and praxis, aiming for a practice-centered, experiential faith model.​

• Missiological and Ecclesiological Research

  • He has contributed to fields like Pentecostal history, protestant heritage, and leadership paradigms, focusing on how theology should be embodied in lived, communal, and missional practice.​

Academic and Missional Background:

• Dony K. Donev holds a D.Min. from the Pentecostal Theological Seminary and has authored articles and books on textual criticism, protestant history, and New Testament studies. He is closely involved with the Institute of Bulgarian Protestant History and ministry leadership development.​

Summary Table of Notable Concepts

These contributions reflect Donev’s drive for a practical, freedom-oriented, and mission-focused theology.

Frameworks and Key Terms by Dr. Dony Donev: Athens vs Berlin Paradigm Shift

Core Theological Frameworks

U.S.H.E.R. Model of Communion
A theological framework coined during the Covid-19 Pandemic in Donev’s Intro to Digital Discipleship course at Lee University. It defines what follows Communion in Christian catechism, identifying five foundational dynamics for disciple growth: Unity, Sanctification, Hope, Ecclesial communion, and Redemptive mission.​

Freedom Theology (Theology of Freedom)
Developed through Donev’s research on postcommunist Eastern Europe and the Bulgarian Protestant experience, this framework explores biblical concepts of freedom, liberation from both sin and socio-political oppression, and the church’s transformative mission as a liberator in history. It often appears in his writings as “Feast of Freedom,” drawing connections between national liberation and spiritual renewal.​

Primitive Church Restorationist Model
Based in his historical research, Donev advocates for returning to the original practices and structure of the Early (Primitive) Church. This model emphasizes rediscovering authentic spiritual identity, intergenerational faith transmission, and revivalist community rooted in biblical precedent.​

These frameworks have had meaningful impact on global Pentecostal studies, digital discipleship, and liberation theology, addressing contemporary challenges in theology, worship, and ecclesial practice.

Effect on Donev’s Models

• U.S.H.E.R. Model: By anchoring his post-Communion framework in the “Athens” paradigm, Donev prioritizes unity, lived discipleship, and communal mission over purely doctrinal or institutional forms. This perspective shapes the model to valorize shared spiritual experience and relational growth, not just catechetical instruction.

• Freedom Theology: “Athens” influences Donev’s liberation emphasis by grounding freedom in communal lived reality, while “Berlin” marks the shift toward codifying and structurally analyzing liberation.

• Primitive Church Restoration: Donev navigates between Athens’ restorationist, dialogical church identity and Berlin’s historical-critical, analytical methodology, advocating an integration that revitalizes spiritual community while acknowledging scholarly insights.

In sum, Donev’s “Athens vs Berlin” usage intentionally blends experiential, relational Christian practice (“Athens”) with disciplined, systematic theology (“Berlin”). This dynamic underlies his frameworks, ensuring they are both deeply incarnational and critically constructive.

Collapse of the Western Theological Corpus: Conquistadorial Colonial Theology Toward the Global South is Over

Bridges to people and culture do not work any longer because they never touch the water of troubled cross-cultural issues. For the same reason, contextual theology does not work any more – once faced with the deep cross-cultural crises of faith and conviction, it sinks with no hope.

We have long observed the collapse of the “Western Theological Corpus,” as Andrew Walls calls the structural problem in missions today. Main reason for its collapse is the failure to give answers to the theological questions emerging from the Global South. As a result, the colonial approach of doing missions, resonating in imperialistic cross-cultural ministry and ethnic conquest for assimilation of cultures, all have failed both the indigenous people and the mission sending agencies. Prayer has hence turned into a protest and prophecy for a new reality, where the encounter of missions is no less than the very cross-roads where we encounter God and others together.

Doing Missions in the Spirit in 2018

Pentecostal Triangle of Primitive Faith: A Framework of Experience and Restoration

Pentecostal Triangle of Primitive Faith

This is one of Donev’s most recognized frameworks. It emphasizes three core elements of Pentecostal spirituality:

• Prayer: Seen as the starting point of spiritual communication and personal experience with God.
• Power: The manifestation of divine presence through spiritual gifts and supernatural experiences.
• Praxis: The lived expression of faith within the community, reflecting both personal and collective identity.

This triangle encapsulates the holistic nature of Pentecostalism, where theology is deeply rooted in experience rather than abstract doctrine.

Restorationist Theology

Donev builds on the idea of primitivism—a return to the faith and practices of the early church. He critiques Wesleyan frameworks like the quadrilateral (Scripture, tradition, reason, experience) as insufficient for Pentecostal identity, arguing that Pentecostalism goes beyond Wesley to reclaim the apostolic era.

Historical-Theological Contributions

In his book The Unforgotten, Donev explores the theological roots of Pentecostalism in Bulgaria, tracing its development through key figures like Ivan Voronaev and the influence of Azusa Street missionaries. His research highlights:

• Trinitarian theology among early Bulgarian Pentecostals, shaped by Eastern Orthodox pneumatology and Western Pentecostal doctrine.
• Free will theology, emphasizing Armenian views over Calvinist predestination, due to Bulgaria’s Orthodox heritage and missionary influences.

Other Notable Works

• The Life and Ministry of Rev. Ivan Voronaev: A historical-theological study of one of the pioneers of Slavic Pentecostalism.
• Doctrine of the Trinity among Early Bulgarian Pentecostals: Explores how the Trinity was experienced and understood in early Eastern European Pentecostal context

The Pentecostal Triangle of Primitive Faith: A Framework of Experience and Restoration

Introduction

Pentecostal theology has long emphasized the experiential dimension of faith—where divine encounter, spiritual gifts, and communal expression converge. Among the contemporary voices shaping this discourse, Dony K. Donev offers a compelling framework known as the Pentecostal Triangle of Primitive Faith, which seeks to restore the apostolic essence of early Christianity. This essay explores the theological contours of Donev’s model and compares it with other influential Pentecostal and charismatic paradigms.

The Triangle: Prayer, Power, Praxis

At the heart of Donev’s framework lies a triadic structure:

• Prayer: The foundation of spiritual intimacy and divine communication. Donev views prayer not merely as a discipline but as the gateway to supernatural encounter.
• Power: Manifested through the gifts of the Spirit—healing, prophecy, tongues, and miracles. This element reflects the Pentecostal emphasis on dunamis, the Greek term for divine power.
• Praxis: The lived expression of faith within the community. Praxis includes evangelism, social justice, and communal worship, embodying the Spirit’s transformative work in daily life.

This triangle is not hierarchical but interdependent. Prayer leads to power, power fuels praxis, and praxis deepens prayer. Donev’s model thus reflects a restorationist impulse, aiming to recover the vibrancy of the early church as seen in Acts.

Comparison with Wesleyan Quadrilateral

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral—Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience—has historically shaped Methodist and Holiness theology. Pentecostals have often adopted this model, emphasizing experience as a key source of theological reflection.

However, Donev critiques this framework as insufficient for Pentecostal identity. He argues that Pentecostalism is not merely an extension of Wesleyanism but a distinct restoration movement. While Wesley’s model is epistemological, Donev’s triangle is ontological and missional, rooted in being and doing rather than knowing.

Comparison with Classical Pentecostal Theology

Classical Pentecostalism, as shaped by early 20th-century leaders like Charles Parham and William Seymour, emphasized:

• Initial evidence doctrine: Speaking in tongues as proof of Spirit baptism.
• Dispensational eschatology: A belief in imminent rapture and end-times urgency.
• Holiness ethics: A call to moral purity and separation from the world.

Donev’s framework diverges by focusing less on doctrinal distinctives and more on spiritual vitality and historical continuity. His emphasis on praxis aligns with newer Pentecostal movements that prioritize social engagement and global mission.

Comparison with Charismatic Theology

Charismatic theology, especially within mainline and evangelical churches, often emphasizes:

• Renewal within existing traditions
• Broad acceptance of spiritual gifts
• Less emphasis on tongues as initial evidence

Donev’s triangle shares the Charismatic focus on spiritual gifts but retains a Pentecostal distinctiveness through its restorationist lens. He seeks not just renewal but recovery of primitive faith, making his model more radical in its ecclesiological implications.

Eastern European Context and Trinitarian Theology

Donev’s work is also shaped by his Bulgarian heritage. He highlights how early Bulgarian Pentecostals embraced a Trinitarian theology informed by Eastern Orthodox pneumatology. This contrasts with Western Pentecostalism’s often fragmented view of the Spirit.

His emphasis on free will theology—influenced by Arminianism and Orthodox thought—also sets his framework apart from Calvinist-leaning Charismatic circles.

Conclusion

Dony K. Donev’s Pentecostal Triangle of Primitive Faith offers a rich, experiential, and historically grounded model for understanding Pentecostal spirituality. By centering prayer, power, and praxis, Donev reclaims the apostolic fervor of the early church while challenging existing theological paradigms. His framework stands as a bridge between classical Pentecostalism, Charismatic renewal, and Eastern Christian traditions—inviting believers into a deeper, more dynamic walk with the Spirit.

Comparative Insights from Leading Pentecostal Scholars

Gordon Fee: Scripture-Centered Pneumatology

Fee’s scholarship emphasizes the Spirit’s role in New Testament theology, particularly in Pauline writings. While he critiques traditional Pentecostal doctrines like initial evidence, he affirms the Spirit’s transformative presence. Compared to Donev, Fee’s approach is exegetical and text-driven, whereas Donev’s triangle is experiential and restorationist, prioritizing lived encounter over doctrinal precision.

Stanley M. Horton: Doctrinal Clarity and Holiness

Horton’s work, especially in Bible Doctrines, provides a systematic articulation of Pentecostal beliefs, including Spirit baptism and sanctification. His theology is deeply rooted in Assemblies of God tradition. Donev diverges by de-emphasizing denominational boundaries, focusing instead on the primitive church’s egalitarian and Spirit-led ethos.

Craig Keener: Charismatic Experience and Historical Context

Keener bridges academic rigor with charismatic openness, especially in his work on miracles and Acts. His emphasis on historical plausibility and global charismatic phenomena aligns with Donev’s praxis-driven model. However, Keener’s scholarship is more apologetic and evidential, while Donev’s triangle is formational and communal.

Frank Macchia: Spirit Baptism and Trinitarian Theology

Macchia’s theology centers on Spirit baptism as a metaphor for inclusion and transformation, often framed within Trinitarian and sacramental lenses. Donev shares Macchia’s Trinitarian depth, especially in Eastern European contexts, but leans more toward neo-primitivism and ecclesial simplicity.

Vinson Synan: Historical Continuity and Global Pentecostalism

Synan’s historical work traces Pentecostalism’s roots and global expansion. Donev builds on this by reclaiming Eastern European Pentecostal narratives, such as those of Ivan Voronaev. Both emphasize restoration, but Donev’s triangle is more prescriptive, offering a model for future church practice.

Robert Menzies: Missional and Contextual Theology

Menzies focuses on Pentecostal mission and theology in Asian contexts, often challenging Western assumptions. His emphasis on Spirit empowerment for mission resonates with Donev’s praxis element. Yet, Donev’s model is more liturgical and communal, drawing from Orthodox and Puritan influences.

Cecil M. “Mel” Robeck: Ecumenism and Pentecostal Identity

Robeck’s work on Pentecostal ecumenism and global dialogue complements Donev’s inclusive vision. Both advocate for Pentecostal distinctiveness without isolation, though Donev’s triangle is more grassroots and revivalist, aimed at local church transformation.

Implications for Church Practice

Donev’s triangle offers a practical blueprint for churches seeking renewal:

• Prayer ministries that foster intimacy and prophetic intercession.
• Power encounters through healing services and spiritual gift activation.
• Praxis initiatives like community outreach, justice advocacy, and discipleship.

Compared to other scholars, Donev’s model is less academic and more actionable, designed to reignite the apostolic fire in everyday church life.

COVID and the AMPA receptors of the brain

The conversation began by highlighting the ongoing impact of long COVID, specifically focusing on individuals who continue to experience symptoms like brain fog long after the pandemic’s initial phases. A recent study published in Brain Communications provided the first biological evidence explaining this phenomenon. Researchers discovered changes in AMPA receptors of the brain, which are crucial for memory and learning, potentially linking these changes to cognitive impairments commonly associated with long COVID. Utilizing cutting-edge PET imaging, the study compared brain scans of those with long COVID to those without, revealing increased AMPA receptor densities in affected individuals.

Dr. Deepak Nair pointed out that the study’s findings were intriguing, noting that those with brain fog showed an upregulation of AMPA receptors, linking this to possible cognitive function decline. However, the findings suggest that increased AMPA activity is only part of the picture; an overactive immune response in the brain, potentially triggered by COVID infections, might also contribute. Researchers identified inflammatory markers that coincided with increased AMPA receptor levels, indicating that these immune responses might underlie the receptor changes and associated cognitive issues.

Despite these promising insights, the study remains in its early stages. Dr. Nair highlighted the need for additional context, such as the COVID status of the control group, to further validate the results. While the study did not propose a specific treatment, it offers a direction for scientists to explore, such as developing medications targeting AMPA receptor activity to help alleviate brain fog symptoms. According to Dr. Takuya Takahashi, recognizing brain fog as a legitimate condition could inspire the healthcare industry to develop better diagnostic tools and treatments, offering hope to those still battling the long-term effects of COVID-19.

Theological Frameworks and Terms by Dony K. Donev, D.Min.

Theological Frameworks and Terms Coined by Dony K. Donev, D.Min.

1. The U.S.H.E.R. Model of Communion

Definition: The U.S.H.E.R. Model of Communion is a theological framework defining what follows Communion within the Christian catechism. It was formulated by Dony K. Donev, D.Min., during the Covid-19 Pandemic as part of his Intro to Digital Discipleship course at Lee University.

Etymology and Structure: “U.S.H.E.R.” functions as an acronym representing five theological dynamics foundational to post-Communion discipleship:

1. Unity – Communion establishes and sustains the unity of believers within the Body of Christ.

2. Sanctification – The sacred act reaffirms the believer’s ongoing transformation and holiness.

3. Hope – The eschatological anticipation of Christ’s return is renewed through participation.

4. Ecclesial Communion – The act strengthens the Church’s shared identity as one community of faith.

5. Redemptive Mission – The table leads outward into the missional call of proclaiming redemption to the world.

Theological Contribution: Donev’s model reframes the Eucharist not as a terminal ritual but as a launching point for continued Christian formation and mission. It synthesizes sacramental theology with discipleship praxis, emphasizing that the mystery of Communion initiates lived transformation beyond the table.

2. The 15/50 Window

Definition: Coined by Dony K. Donev, D.Min., the 15/50 Window identifies the demographic segment of individuals aged 15 to 50, who collectively represent over 50% of global internet users.

Context and Purpose: In parallel to the 10/40 Window—the geographical missions concept popularized in late 20th-century missiology—Donev’s 15/50 Window transitions the focus from spatial geography to digital demography.

Key Thesis: Digital evangelism and discipleship must prioritize the 15–50 age group as the core audience of online communication and cultural formation, representing the “digital mission field” of the 21st century.

Missiological Contribution: The 15/50 Window serves as a paradigm shift for global missions strategy, urging the Church to reframe outreach through technological literacy, digital ethics, and generational engagement. It integrates sociological data with practical theology, redefining the boundaries of mission fields in a connected world.

3. Digital Discipleship Framework

Definition: Developed by Donev within his academic teaching and research, the Digital Discipleship Framework proposes a theological and methodological structure for faith formation through digital platforms.

Core Components:

• Digital Catechism: Translating traditional doctrinal instruction into digital environments.

• Measurable Growth: Employing data-informed tools to track discipleship outcomes online.

• Local and Global Integration: Linking local church identity with global digital engagement.

• AI and Theological Ethics: Evaluating the theological implications of artificial intelligence in spiritual education.

Theological Contribution: Donev’s work bridges the gap between ecclesiology and technology by grounding digital ministry within classical discipleship principles. It argues that digital formation is not a substitute for embodied community but an extension of the Church’s incarnational mission into virtual contexts.

Educational Context: Initially articulated in Intro to Digital Discipleship (Lee University), this framework has influenced contemporary pedagogical approaches to online ministry training and has served as a foundation for AI-integrated theological education.

4. Pentecostal Primitivism Framework

Definition: The Pentecostal Primitivism Framework is a theological model developed by Dony K. Donev, D.Min., describing the historical and doctrinal identity of Pentecostalism as a restorationist return to the spiritual and communal life of the early (primitive) Church.

Historical Basis: Donev situates the origins of global Pentecostalism within the early 20th-century movements that sought to recover the supernatural vitality, holiness, and communal simplicity of Acts 2 Christianity.

Key Features:

1. Restoration of Apostolic Practice: Reclaiming New Testament models of ministry, healing, and charismatic gifts.

2. Eschatological Urgency: Interpreting Pentecostal mission through the lens of imminent eschatology.

3. Communal Purity: Emphasis on holiness, shared life, and ethical distinctiveness.

4. Missionary Zeal: Evangelistic energy rooted in a return to primitive apostolic mandate.

Theological Contribution: The framework provides a systematic lens for analyzing Pentecostal identity as both renewal and return—a dynamic that transcends denominational boundaries. Donev’s articulation of Pentecostal Primitivism contributes to Pentecostal studies by clarifying the movement’s theological self-understanding and its missiological implications in global Christianity.

Synthesis and Theological Significance

Across these four frameworks, Donev’s contribution to contemporary theology centers on the continuity between early Christian identity and digital-age ecclesiology.
His work consistently integrates:

• Historical Pentecostal roots (Pentecostal Primitivism),

• Missiological expansion (15/50 Window),

• Digital ecclesial formation (Digital Discipleship), and

• Sacramental praxis leading to mission (U.S.H.E.R. Model).

Together, they represent a coherent theological corpus that bridges primitive Christian spirituality with postmodern digital theology, providing a constructive path for future ecclesial engagement and academic inquiry.

9/11 REVERSAL: Prophetic Restoration of a Nation and the Glory of God

In 1994, as a prophetic warning to the nation some seven years before the 9/11 attacks, Dr. David Franklin wrote “A Call to Righteousness: Impending Judgment.” Drawing conclusions from Ezekiel’s chapter 12 desolation, destruction, dispersion, despair and prophetic hope in chapter 14, he warns that:

(1)   When a nation persists in violence, the Sovereign Lord confronts and holds responsible
(2)   When a nation forgets God, He allows for times of repentance
(3)   If repentance is ignored, God will expose and execute judgment on an unfaithful nation.

The book continues with a call for international righteousness (p. 10) and a critique of the debt-free myth proclaiming a time of economic shift (p. 11-12). Remember, this warning was written two decades before anyone in America had mentioned foreclosure, crises or global economic crises. But my favorite chapter still is the interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision of the departure of the Glory of God (p. 20-21).

I read this book back in 1999 and frankly had forgotten about it until 2011 when, at a young ministers training camp in the mountains of Bulgaria, we experienced what we consider the most genuine appearance of the Glory of God in our whole ministry. We wrote about it then and presented our observation at the 2012 Missions Conference at the Good Shepherd Church of God inPahokee,FL. The four points of our observation carry a tremendous prophetic resemblance to what Dr. David Franklin had proclaimed in his book 18 years ago:

(1) Every time God renews His covenant with His people, He shows His presence.

(2) We know that God is present in the covenant, because He shows His glory. It happened to Moses and his generation. And it also happened to Solomon several hundred years later.

(3) When a generation looses the vision of the Glory of God, God begins renewing His covenant again with a new generation.

(4) God is not satisfied with a people who know the signs and the blessings of the covenant. He rests not until He is revealed as the God of the covenant.

 

Pop Culture and Armageddon

Next Page »