-
Historical Background: Part 2
Reflect on these questions an answer in the forum:
- Although Charles Parham and William Seymour shared more or less the same doctrine of Spirit baptism, insofar as the issues of subsequence and the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, Seymour and the Azusa leadership came to radically different conclusions about the implications of Spirit baptism than Parham. Why do you believe this was so?
- Do you believe that contemporary Pentecostalism, overall, has honoured the legacy of Azusa in its theology and practice? Does your answer change depending on whether the question concerns the entire globe, or North America alone?
-
1 Reply
-
I believe a big part of the different conclusions drawn in regards to Spirit baptism are the cultural backgrounds that Parham and Seymour had. Parham would not have experienced the same racial and social marginalization that Seymour did, and so Seymour’s emphasis on inclusivity and the diversity of Spiritual gifts likely mirrors his own experience with social inclusivity and diversity. He saw the societal empowerment of Spirit baptism and not only the personal empowerment that Parham seems to favour.
I do believe that contemporary Pentecostalism does honour the legacy of Azusa. The same pillars of Pentecostalism, including divine healing and the bestowment of Spiritual gifts, continue to be central to Pentecostal ideology today. Similarly, Pentecostal churches today continue to uphold a tradition of diversity and acceptance when it comes to their congregants, which I believe to be a rather important aspect of the Azusa leadership’s practice. This can be seen around the world, not only in North America, so no, my answer does not change depending on where in the world we’re speaking.
Log in to reply.