A Brief Evangelical Doctrine of Creation

Evangelical Christians share fundamental doctrines concerning creation, namely the belief that God is the ultimate Creator of all existence. Further, a consensus emerges within evangelicalism on key tenets, such as the divine creation of the universe, the unique formation of humanity, and the recognition that humans, in some way, deviated from God's intended purpose. Despite these broad agreements, delving into the theology of creation reveals a great many distinct perspectives, sparking rigorous discussions among faithful evangelicals. Should we then be satisfied with the most basic understanding of creation? If we are, we will certainly be able to avoid a lot of arguments. However, what we sacrifice by refusing to examine the doctrine of Creation further far outweighs the potential ecumenical benefits. Baptist theologian Millard Erickson urges us to explore in depth our doctrines of creation for several reasons. First, there is a profound significance to creation as the opening sentence in the Bible. Second, historically, the church has placed great emphasis on understanding creation, viewing it as a foundational element that illuminates other theological concepts. Further, the revelation of God's creative acts serves to distinguish Christianity from other belief systems. So, exploring creation can build faith as we see the uniqueness of our doctrine of creation against those of antiquity. Finally, Erickson posits that creation serves as a nexus for potential dialogue between Christianity and science. Creation offers a unique vantage point for shared exploration. Embracing his argument, our objective is to look deeply into the details of God's revelation regarding creation and to unravel the profound implications of both the act of creation and the subsequent fall. In doing so, we should be able to cultivate a deeper unity within evangelical Christianity by collectively grappling with the nature of God's creation.[1]

As a first principle, we must start with the understanding that God is good and further that all of God’s works are good. It is logically deducible that because God is infinitely good, all that God creates is not capable of being anything but good. Beyond the logic of this assertion is also the Scriptural record of the goodness of God’s uncorrupted creation. In Genesis, following God’s creative acts he observes the goodness in his creation, “God saw that it was good.” This is echoed in 1 Timothy 4:4 where Paul declares that “everything created by God is good.” 

After we accept the truth that “God created,” and that God’s creation is good. We should look to how God created. Fortunately, there is no shortage of Biblical passages on the subject. There is also no shortage of theological, historical, and philosophical speculation. As with all doctrine, the safest and most correct place to start any investigation begins with Scripture.

A predominant thematic thread within Scriptural depictions of creation accentuates the pivotal role of the "Word" of God in this cosmic overture. This emphasis is particularly manifest in the Book of Genesis, where a recurring motif of divine utterance is encapsulated in the phrases "God said" and "God called." Implicit in these linguistic articulations is the profound notion that God's utterances possess not only expressive potency but also a transformative agency in the act of creation. The very words of God, constitute a creative force throughout the narrative of Scripture.

This thematic resonance is elaborated most fully in the Gospel of John, a narrative that, begins with an echo of Genesis—both invoking the first moment with the phrase "In the beginning." John, amplifies and clarifies the concept of God's “Word,” asserting that the "Word was with God and the Word was God." Here, God's Word takes center stage, as a person endowed with agency. In this declaration, Jesus, identified as God the Son, emerges as the incarnate embodiment of God's Word, intimately engaged in the creative genesis of the cosmos (John 1:3). This ontological revelation begets a Trinitarian framework for understanding the creative process, where God the Son functions as the divine Word through whom all creation unfolds. Concurrently, the presence of God's Spirit, as depicted in Genesis 1:2, hovers over the primordial waters, illustrating the collaborative agency of the whole Triune God in the creation event.

The Bible goes on to detail the sequential unfolding of the creative process. Distinct days are consecrated to discrete acts of creation, culminating in the formation of humanity—an entity created “in the image and likeness” of God. While a more in depth exploration of this divine image and likeness will be seen later, it suffices for now to accept the Scriptural testimony that there is a distinctive relationship that humans, as recipients of divine creation, share with their Creator.

What has been discussed to this point is directly from Scripture as a result it will generally be met with a consensus among Evangelicals. However, when delving into the specific mechanisms of God's creative acts, the literary structure of Genesis, and the semantics of Genesis 1 and 2, divergent opinion arise. The temporal nature of the mentioned days, the potential gaps between verses, and the role of natural phenomena in creation are all points of possible dispute and discourse. Interpreting these aspects entails a careful examination of scriptural language and inevitably will foster a varied response within the Evangelical framework. There are several points of possible contention here. For instance, were the days mentioned in Genesis literal 24-hour days? Were there gaps between the verses of Genesis and between God’s creative pronouncements? What natural phenomena, if any, did God employ in His creation?

Addressing these questions is crucial for a meaningful theology of creation. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that individuals holding to Biblical inerrancy may reach different conclusions on these matters. A few disputed doctrines are the belief in a literal six-day creation, young earth creation, the gap theory, theistic evolution, and the day-age theory. While these systems have overlap and can in many cases be adopted together, it is important to recognize that they are not inherently connected. Consequently, they warrant at least some independent consideration.

First, I will discuss day-age and gap theories, which are integral components of the broader framework known as "progressive creationism."[2] These theories strive to harmonize Biblical accounts of creation with contemporary perspectives on evolution and the age of the universe. The "day-age" theory interprets Genesis passages, aligning them with Psalms 90 and 2 Peter 3, asserting that in the divine context, "a day is as a thousand years." Meanwhile, the gap theory posits an indeterminate span between the events described in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This theory contends that a prior creation event in Genesis 1:1 may have suffered damage, leading the extant world to become "formless and void." Advocates of this perspective often argue that the initial creation's demise resulted from the fall of Satan.[3]

Day-age theory, akin to its gap counterpart, seeks to reconcile the Genesis narrative with contemporary beliefs about the earth's age.[4] This alignment is achieved by conceptualizing God as actively engaged in the creation of existence over extended periods, potentially employing naturalistic mechanisms in the process. In both instances, proponents can ostensibly uphold Biblical inerrancy while embracing views perceived as in line with modern evolutionary and geological paradigms. Furthermore, these theories create room for the incorporation of theistic evolution into their theological frameworks.

Both the day-age and gap theories exhibit a significant shortcoming – their foundations rest on a modern secular paradigm rather than a Biblical one. While it might be contended that both can be shoehorned into the context of Biblical inerrancy, aligning them with the theological tenet of "sola scriptura" proves to be a more formidable challenge. A crucial clarification is in order here. Properly understood, "sola scriptura" doesn't assert that the Bible is the source of all truth; rather, it positions the Bible as the sole and final arbiter of truth. Therefore, truths can exist outside the biblical realm, as illustrated by the non-Biblical truth of a sentence like "Brandon drank coffee this morning." In contrast, a sentence like "Animals evolved over a long period of time descending from a shared ancestor" makes claims that contradict the Biblical narrative. Accepting this statement as true prompts us to reconcile divergent beliefs, essentially demoting the Bible to a secondary status beneath the modern scientific paradigm.

A secondary challenge in prioritizing a scientific paradigm over a Biblical one lies in the inherent shiftiness of scientific paradigms, whereas Biblical truths remain absolute. To illustrate this point, a recent article in Cosmos Magazine proposed that the universe might be twice as old as previously believed by scientists.[5] Scientific understandings are contingent on paradigms, and the scientific method is crafted to showcase how well hypotheses operate within a specific paradigm.[6] Fundamentally, science revolves around problem-solving rather than the pursuit of absolute truth. In contrast, theology is anchored in transcendent truths. "Truths" that serve as contingencies to solve scientific problems may not be inherently suited to elucidate absolute truths concerning faith, religion, and God.

Given that I accept Biblical inerrancy and sola scriptura, I believe we are left with two acceptable positions. First that God created all that exists in six literal days, and that the earth is likely younger than modern science would have you believe. The first of these propositions is held firmly as it is spelled out explicitly in the text. The second is perhaps subject to revision as its acceptance is inferential.

Now that we've explored what the Bible tells us about "how" God creates, let's delve into the "why" behind God's creative acts. Two fundamental questions emerge. Firstly, why does God create anything at all? Considering God's transcendent and perfect nature, what compels Him to engage in external creation? Secondly, we inquire into the purpose behind creating humans in His image. This second question naturally leads us to ponder the significance of being created in the image of God and grapple with the implications of humans falling short of their intended purpose: why did God create a people knowing they would reject His fellowship?  Lastly, we seek to comprehend the insights into sin offered by God's nature, His creation, and human frailty. The bulk of this essay will be dedicated to exploring why God created mankind in the manner He did. Fortunately, the answers to both why God created at all and why He created humans in His image are rooted in God's revealed nature. The former is shaped by God's transcendent and exceptional goodness, while the latter finds its basis in God's diversity and love.

With this context in mind, let's first explore why God created anything at all. Millard Erickson tackles this question by acknowledging that God doesn't have any necessity to create.[7] Instead, God creates for His glory, an intrinsic aspect of His being, rooted in His perfect holiness and unique nature deserving of glory. This divine glory is manifested through everything God creates, as highlighted in 1 Chronicles, where David urges his people to "ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name" (1 Ch 16:29). The term "due" is crucial here, signifying what God rightfully deserves. This notion is echoed in Psalm 19:1, linking God's deserving glory directly to His creation. Even angels are created to convey the glorious nature of God. In Isaiah 6, a seraphim declares to another angel that "the whole earth is full of His Glory." In this passage, the earth itself attests to God's glory, and the angels, created by God, proclaim it to each other, to God, and to the prophet Isaiah.

We can build on the idea of God's glory by highlighting a recurring theme in the Old Testament—God's creation as a force that brings order to chaos.[8] This act of ordering, as depicted in the Bible, provides a glimpse into a functional purpose for creation, ultimately contributing to the primary goal of glorifying God. Theologian Alister McGrath asserts that the theme of God's ordering of creation is best understood through the metaphor of a potter and clay (Genesis 2:7, Jeremiah 18:1-6). Just as a potter shapes a "recognizably ordered structure" from the clay, God, too, has brought order out of disorder in His creation. Given that God is the orchestrator of this order, and His ordered creation is inherently good, we can deduce that God's general revelation through creation serves to bring Him glory.

Since everything was created to bring God glory, we can know that humankind too was created to give God glory. However, we also know according to Scripture, that humanity was made unique among creation. We are God’s image bearers. Only humans are created in God’s image and likeness. So, why are we uniquely created in God’s image? Patristic theologian Donald Fairbairn echoes the voices of the church fathers when he asserts that it was to participate in God’s love through a relationship with the Trinitarian God, and through that fellowship God could reveal his glory to us.[9] This applies to all humanity, as both male and female are created in God’s image (Gen 1:26–27), and even after sin enters the world, we still bear God’s image (Genesis 9:6, James 3:9).

Now, we need to figure out what it really means to be made in the image of God. Numerous ideas have been tossed around about the significance and consequences of this "image and likeness of God" language. Since this is what distinguishes humans from everything else in creation, getting a grip on what it means to be created in this unique way is crucial for understanding our distinct role in the grand scheme of creation.

The language about being made in God's image is fascinating because we see it pop up a lot in the Old Testament. Beyond Genesis, the word "image" is commonly linked to idols (Ex 20:3–5; Num 33:52; Amos 5:26; Ezek 7:20; 1 Sam 6:5, 11). This sheds light on the idea that humans are made in God's image, unlike idols that are made by humans in their own image. The language itself is intriguing because it reveals how humanity has twisted God's creation. It shows that humans crave a connection with God, but because of our messed-up nature, we try to forge that connection with something we've created—a thing we can control to fit our corrupted desires. This inherent human longing for a relationship with God can definitely teach us something about what being made in "God's image" truly means.

There are several possible answers to the question of what it means to be created in God’s image. The three most compelling of these are that God’s image bestows on humanity the ability to reason, that God’s image is found in humanity’s call to dominion, and finally that God’s image is to be found in relationship. At its core, Fairbairn’s book Life in the Trinity attempts to answer this very question. Fairbairn asserts that “God created us to share in [the relationship between the Father and the Son] and gave us a share in the communion of the Trinity at creation.”[10] Of course, in creation there were other charges to people. We are called to have dominion over creation and we are called to be fruitful and multiply. These it would seem are means rather than ends. The true goal, for both our edification and to fulfill God’s purpose, is to share in communion with God just as Adam and Eve did in the garden.

This shared communion with God is so crucial that it informs all subsequent theology. It's because of sin that we lost fellowship with God. Sin also warped all three core aspects of our image-based humanity, but, importantly, it did not destroy them. Even after sin, we still have dominion over the Earth. However, now the world resists our control in ways that were not originally intended. We can still have children, but it comes with pain (Genesis 3:16-19). However, the most significant damage happened when we broke our relationship with God. Because of this disfellowship caused by human sin, God maps out His plan to mend the broken relationship between people and God (Genesis 3:15). God's plan centers on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. One more thing to note here: our creation in the image of God sets us apart not only from the rest of creation but also from Jesus. We are made in the image of God, while Jesus is the direct image of God (Colossians 1:15). It takes Jesus, the visible image of God, to bridge the gap caused by sin.

So, the next question to be addressed is how sin entered a perfect world created by a perfect God. This is perhaps the most challenging concept that comes out of creation theology. The answer is of course, the fall. The mechanisms behind an all-powerful, all-knowing God creating the potential for sin is commonly termed the "problem of evil." There have been countless attempts to offer solutions to the problem of evil, each of which has far reaching theological consequences. Most in some way or another attempt to understand evil and its source without implicating God in the evil action. Perhaps, as one theologian proposes creating a human is not possible without creating the possibility of sin. This is like asking God to lie or be cruel, it is simply not possible.[11] This leads many in the Reformed Christian camp to embrace a compatibilistic human free-will where God renders “certain what is to happen” but creates humans with the capacity for some level of qualified free-will.[12] As this approach shows, moderating one's Calvinism is one way to help address the problem. However, it does not address the problem fully. Millard Erickson acknowledges this shortcoming as he admits that “a total solution to the problem of evil is beyond human ability.”[13]

It does seem that strict Calvinists have the most challenging time speaking to the problem of evil because of the implications of unwavering determinism. For at least one Calvinist however, this is not a problem of God’s, but of our perception of evil. Gordon H. Clark attempts to reconcile the problem of evil with ridged Calvinism by asserting that it is our understanding of goodness which is deficient.[14] God, in Clark’s view, does cause everything. This is of course a fundamentally flawed, deeply problematic, and unbiblical perspective. The Bible is full of cases where people have rebelled against God. The Bible is also clear that God is not the author of this rebellion (Daniel 9:5, Nehemiah 9:26, Psalm 107:11, Ezekiel 17:15, 1 Samuel 15:23, Isaiah 1:2). The views of Augustine regarding free-will which is perverted by the fall offers an interesting alternative explanation. It would also be of value to examine Athanasius’ view of the fall found in On the Incarnation, which seems to be close to Augustine’s view with the idea of a perverted and weakened “free-will” post fall. This understanding of “free-will,” combined with an understanding that life, even fallen life, is a moral good would go a long way to resolve some of the more troubling issues around the problem of evil. Spelled out briefly, this view entails God creating mankind with free-will, in his image. Man, with his free-will rebelled against God warping God’s perfect creation. It was through this rebellion and rejection of God that sin entered the world. However, because all human life emanates from God, life is still a moral good, even if it is not perfect. It is a moral good in that it finds its source in God alone (2 Peter 1:3). Further, it is a net good in that God, understanding human rebellion as the consequence of freedom, has a plan of redemption that rights the wrongs created by our sin of disobedience.

Moving deeper into a discussion of evil, it is valuable to examine the beginnings of sin, namely the fall. The narrative found in Genesis 3 has reverberations throughout the entire scriptures and throughout all of creation. The core seems to be that Adam and Eve were not satisfied with their status as being created in the image of God and being in fellowship with the uncreated God. They were lured into believing that they could become like the uncreated God himself. This is of course impossible, but it is the lie that was sold to them by the serpent, and it was the lie that they were eager to believe without any reason to believe it. This is one of the most important points that Fairbairn makes in his Life in the Trinity. Adam and Eve had every reason to believe God, and no reason to believe the serpent, and yet, they believed the serpent and disobeyed God. Thus, the fundamental sin was pride of “grasping” at the impossible desire to be an uncreated god. This led to the consequences that were discussed earlier, namely death, broken fellowship, toil, and pain. Here we see humanity creating disorder out of God’s ordered creation. As discussed earlier, we find a great deal of Old Testament passages detailing the “establishment of order” in creation.[15] This established order can be viewed as a reflection of God’s good order. This also connects the origination of sin as a human disordering of creation and a distortion of the image of God present in humanity.

Fortunately, precisely because God is good he does not leave us in this fallen and broken state. He sent his son to right our wrongs. “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Co 5:21). This is the gospel that we find in creation. God in his goodness created us to share in his love. We broke the fullness of that relationship. Then God, without any work on our part, repaired the relationship.

Citations

[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 340-341.
[2] Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, s.v. "Entry Title" (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 218.
[3] Erickson, 350.
[4] Treier and Elwell, 218.
[5] https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/astrophysics/universe-27-billion-years-old/
[6] See Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 4th ed. (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2012).
[7]  Erickson, 344.
[8] Alister McGrath, Christian Theology (Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 217.
[9] See Donald Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity: An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009)
[10] Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity, 232.
[11] Erickson, 394.
[12] Ibid, 395.
[13] Ibid, 394.
[14] Clark, Gordon H. God and Evil: The Problem Solved. Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1996.
[15] McGrath, 217. 

How to Be an Effective Project Manager

 I have a confession: I do not have a bunch of project management experience. I have a lot of experience leading teams of developers and I have a lot of experience architecting applications and leading development. But I have mostly left project management to those people who are better at interfacing with product owners and who seem to have an easy time talking in large groups. That has historically not been me. However, more recently, I have moved into PM work and I have learned a lot in the process. I have also developed a strong respect for folks who do it particularly well. I hope one day to be among those. To that end, there are some things that I have learned over the last year about being an effective project manager. As a PM, I have had varying degrees of success over the last year, but these are goal posts. There probably is not anything groundbreaking here, but more a consolidation of my learnings. Ultimately, to be a successful PM, I think you need to know how to set clear goals for the project, how to understand the project, how to communicate with the team, and how to build trust.

Communication

Managing effective communication is a major component of any project. When you are not able to communicate effectively with your team, your project will suffer. The result is missed deliverables, inefficient decisions, and internal conflicts.

The Project Management Institute has estimated that 40 percent of all project failures are a result of ineffective communication. To prevent this from happening, you must know what to communicate and who to communicate it to.

For effective communication, you should always consider your audience. Depending on the audience, you may need to use different communication templates. Using a communication template is a good way to keep the information you disseminate consistent and accurate.

Effective communication also ensures that all key players remain aligned with your project’s goals. Whether you are communicating internally or externally, you need to ensure that everyone understands the project’s purpose. You should also be mindful about language barriers. At DBA we believe in working with the best developers we can regardless of their location on the globe. This gives us access to an amazing developer pool, but can introduce challenges in terms of communication. I believe the key here is to be open and honest, forgiving, and flexible. If you can do that, geographic distribution and cultural differences should not inhibit success.

Trust

Managing projects is a team sport, and building trust is a must. Without it, knowledge sharing becomes difficult and collaboration becomes nearly impossible. Building trust takes time, and requires consistent actions over time.

Developing trust in a team allows people to focus on the task at hand and rely on others for help. In addition, trust facilitates better communication and decision making.

Developing trust also creates a sense of safety and a collaborative environment. People who trust each other are more likely to take actions on face value, debate new ideas, and delegate more responsibility. By contrast, when people lack trust, they feel defensive and spend time protecting themselves. They also tend to have less innovative ideas and be less productive.

There has been substantial research on trust in project management that seeks to understand what drives trust and how to establish it. For me, I think it comes down to two things: facetime and respect. We need to spend time talking with each other to develop trust. Often, the topics of these conversations need to be non-work related things. We are whole people, and trust requires more than just a portion of us. We have to trust that the other folks on our team are aligned in our goals, and committed to successful outcomes.

Research has shown that there are two main situations where trust is needed. One trust type is based on whether someone can do the job or if someone can take care of their interests in a predictable manner. Another trust type is based on whether someone is trustworthy and does their job honestly. To be successful you need to be competent and the members of your team to know you are competent and even a competent engineer cannot be effective in a team if he is a jerk.

This leads into a similar point. In order to succeed, the project manager needs to strike a balance between leveraging his or her own strengths and leveraging the talents of the rest of the team. For example, a project manager should delegate work to team members with more experience while still providing less experienced team members with growth opportunities. A project manager must remain vigilant in their efforts to keep everyone on the team both productive and content.

Setting clear goals for your project

There are some areas where I have found that project management and people management are similar. For instance, just as in people management, creating SMART goals for your project is one of the most important tasks in project management. It helps to define the scope of your project, as well as the progress you are making, in a measurable and relevant way. This is an area that I failed to appreciate early on, but will absolutely pay close attention to moving forward. This allows you to both understand what is happening in the project and to make strategic decisions.

There are many different types of goals you can choose to set for your project. These range from specific, time-bound objectives, to broader, more abstract goals. The goals for any given project will vary and need to be defined in consultation with stakeholders. The goals you set should be relevant to your team, your product, and your company. The first two are obvious, but the third might need a little more explanation. DBA is an opinionated firm. While there are some consultancies out there that will take any project, DBA focuses on technological fit, principles, and probability for success before taking on new projects. With this in mind, defining success here is more than just getting the job done on budget. Although, project scope, time frame, and budget are significant factors in setting goals.

The best way to set goals is by using a step-by-step process. I have always found daunting tasks (like setting goals for an entire project) are much more approachable if you just define the first goal. That will often open the door to subsequent goals and in the end reveals the larger picture. This approach will ensure that each step of the way the goals are relevant and attainable.

Setting clear goals for your project is also important because it helps your team stay focused and aligned. It also helps you deliver a quality product, and ensures that the project meets its deadlines. It’s also important to establish an “open door” policy for your team. This includes keeping them informed about project progress and allowing them to contribute their ideas and insights. This allows for a more collaborative, productive, and successful project.

Managing expectations

Managing expectations is crucial to the success of any project. It is one of the project manager’s most important jobs to make sure that expectations are aligned with reality, which results in a happy customer at the end of the project. This is particularly important in a project where stakeholders have different expectations.

When managing expectations, it is important to follow a set of guidelines. This should include preparing a list of goals, defining roles and responsibilities, determining costs and identifying resources.

One place where I have seen failures in the past is in committing to unachievable goals. The project manager should never commit to delivering something that is not deliverable in the time window available. This will lead to a project failure and angry or disappointed product owners. As a PM, you have to listen to stakeholders, develop realistic expectations, and be prepared to counter unreasonable demands. The project manager should also record all stakeholder requests. This helps with the evaluations and gives an idea of how each stakeholder’s requests are influencing the project.

A good way to manage expectations is to make sure that each team member understands their own roles and responsibilities and also understands the larger picture. Often, a team member comes to the table with a vision of what the project will look like. That visions does not necessarily match the vision of the client and the PM is responsible for aligning those visions.

Agile methods

Whether you’re new to project management or looking to improve your current skills, you really need to learn about Agile methods for effective project management. These methods provide a framework to help organizations improve their delivery process and achieve better results. The methods also help teams develop better communication and collaboration skills.

Agile is a method that puts focus on the human factor and emphasizes flexibility. It encourages managers to create projects in short cycles, so they can be adapted to changes. It also favors customer-driven goals. But regardless of the methodology you choose, you can only make good choices if you are informed on what your choices are. Ultimately, your team will determine your process. A more experienced team is likely to need less formal process than a more junior team and personalities on your team will also dictate who kind of process you use for your projects. As a PM, you just need to make sure that the processes are organized smoothly and there is buy-in.

The Agile method is generally flexible enough to fit most situations as it puts user’s needs first, with shorter sprint cycles to ensure that users can get a return on investment as early as possible. It also emphasizes customer collaboration and regular updates to get feedback.

Conclusion

I know there might not be a lot of earth shattering information here, but this is just a take away of a few things that I believe are important when managing a new project. Perhaps it will be helpful for someone just getting into project management, or if nothing else it was a useful exercise for me to record what I have learned.

The Law of Love, Radical Holiness and the Latter Rain: The Birth of a Pentecostal-Holiness Denomination in the Appalachians

 “I believe in union because I know there will be no creeds in heaven, and why not union on earth? I agree with Brother Spurling.”1

“O, brother, if you now refrain, You are sure to miss the 'latter rain;'
Be Sure you've counted all the cost and got your blessed Pentecost!”2

 On Thursday, August 19, 1886 a small group of Christians dedicated to holiness gathered together for the first time. Their stated purpose was to “preach primitive church Holiness and provide for reform and revival of the Churches.”3 Led by Missionary Baptist ministers Richard and his son R. G. Spurling,4 this group met at the Barney Creek meeting house in Monroe County, TN. After a few points of order and a call for membership, they chose as the name for their group, the Christian Union. The name they chose represented their wish to be a body, under which all Christian's could be united in Christ. Spurling wrote that, “All denominations know and fellowship each other by their creed or confession of faith, instead of the way Jesus said for men to know his disciples. By […] love one to another.”5 There was no desire for the creation of a denomination, only a union of believers. Regardless of Spurling's misgivings regarding denominational strictures, from these humble beginnings would spring forth numerous6 pentecostal-holiness denominations, the largest of which is the Church of God, Cleveland, TN. This transition, from a radical holiness, anti-denominational body to a pentecostal denomination, is the subject of this paper.7

In describing this period, it is common to categorize the holiness movement along two mutually exclusive lines: the “stay-inners” and the “come-outers.” These two phrases are used to quickly identify the separatist leanings, and often the degree of the radicalization, of various holiness groups in the late nineteenth century. For the early Appalachian holiness community led by the Spurlings, these standard identifiers fail to adequately describe their unique situation. Richard Spurling and his son, both saw as their goal not the establishment of a denomination, but unity and “reformation.”8 However, after the fanaticism of their revivalistic methods and their intense criticism of landmarkism became an annoyance to the local congregation, they were no longer welcome in their Baptist church. Regarding these events Spurling wrote, “I failed to accept all of their creed [...]. They demanded my license which I readily gave up […]. Now I must forever quit preaching or leave my church, so I left them [...] I was turned out of what I once thought was Christ's only true church.”9 They didn't leave willingly, they were forced out, and their goal wasn't to start something new. Thus, the first members of the Christian Union, were both puritan and pilgrim. Perhaps, their Baptist expulsion combined with their collective aversion to denominationalism merits a third holiness category: “stay-outers.”

The path that these men and their group took toward becoming a pentecostal denomination is unique. The Church of God's official history claims that the first tongues speaking experience related to the Church of God occurred in 1896 at a revival led by three Baptist evangelists and a Spurling follower, William F. Bryant, in Cherokee County, NC.10 After the revival began, Spurling and his congregation from the Christian Union merged with this group in Cherokee County. This event occurred ten years prior to William Seymour's Azusa Street revivals that propelled pentecost into a global movement. There isn't any evidence, however, of this tongues event being universal among the Christian Union members. There is also no evidence that the events or experiences of Cherokee County, NC were seen in terms of the modern pentecostal belief in glossolalia as the “initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.” This unique Pentecostal tenet has as its origin the revival led by Charles Fox Parham in Topeka, KS that occurred at the beginning of the year 1901.11 The influence of these early Camp Creek revivals was primarily limited to the people present at the local meetings. Homer Tomlinson, son of early Church of God patriarch A. J. Tomlinson, claimed that many people traveled to witness the events at Camp Creek, including Charles Parham. He added that it was this trip that initially peaked Parham's interest in the tongues movement.12 However, this seems unlikely for two reasons. First, there is no other record of such influence, and second, Homer Tomlinson isn't a particularly reliable source.13 14

A reason that these events of glossolalia appear to have been limited in influence is because the leaders, namely Spurling and Bryant, failed to mention them in any extant correspondence created contemporaneous to the events. There are extensive references to “Holy Ghost Baptism” throughout The Way, the monthly newsletter of their Holiness Church,15 but no references to speaking in tongues. The newsletter focussed almost exclusively on sanctification and holiness. The oldest extant references to the events of Cherokee County come from A. J. Tomlinson, who wasn't present, and they were all written after 1908. This isn't to argue that the tongues speaking events didn't take place, only to point out that they weren't of the same character and certainly lacked the influence of the events that took place later in Kansas or California.

Documentation of events that included speaking in tongues didn't appear until the Church of God was an established denomination with clear doctrinal commitments. It's possible that speaking in tongues is alluded to in publications of the Christian Union. For example, an article in The Way, published in September 1905, on “Receiving the Holy Ghost” contains a quote from Acts chapter 2 “And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire.” The article goes on to talk of the Holy Ghost “falling” on believers. One can also find an account of someone who “failed to get the blessing.”16 However, it is likely that these passages referred to a sanctification experience like those spoken of by Charles Finney. This analysis is corroborated by another article that states that “receiving of the Holy Ghost […] makes us Holy or sanctifies us.”17 This is certainly not the same theology that was taught by Parham or Seymour. It appears that reading the statements from The Way as referring to modern pentecostal theology or experience is anachronistic.

Failure to mention speaking in tongues specifically stands out as the most convincing reason to believe that A. J. Tomlinson and M. S. Lemons, co-editors of The Way, were not referring to the modern pentecostal conception of “Holy Ghost baptism,” but the late nineteenth century, radical holiness doctrine of a sanctification experience. It is much more likely that the doctrine of the Holy Ghost espoused by the Christian Union was in line with that of W. B. Godbey who wrote of the “fires of the Holy Ghost” falling on him, “filling and flooding [his] soul and transforming [him] into a cyclone.”18 Godbey was no friend to the pentecostal movement, and his experiences are decidedly holiness in nature, not pentecostal. Godbey's descriptions sound very similar to the terminology used in The Way.

One explanation for why Lemons and Tomlinson failed to explicitly mention speaking in tongues in their publication could be that the publication was going out to a wider audience than those who were participating in the local congregations and revivals. They might have decided that there was no benefit in alienating potential subscribers. A topic as controversial as tongues was best avoided for the time being. However, this seems less likely when The Way is compared to later Church of God publications like Faithful Standard, also published by A. J. Tomlinson, which makes no effort to hide the decidedly pentecostal nature of the organization.

One of the more convincing items that indicates that the Holiness Church did not view the tongues experience of 1896 in the same way that it came to be viewed after Azusa Street and did not even regularly practice speaking in tongues, is a half page promotional notice printed in The Way. The notice is promoting a revival to be held at Cumberland Presbyterian Church in Cleveland, TN. The relevant portion reads, “We expect the Holy Spirit to be honored and to have full controll [sic], but special care will be taken to avoid all fanaticism.”19 The implication is clear. It seems unlikely that the newsletter of a group that actively participated in the sort of “fanaticism” being denounced would have printed a promotional notice that amounts to a repudiation of their own techniques.

The path taken toward a modern tongues speaking movement is one that first involves a parallel movement toward denominational structure. In the early history of the Church of God, there are two very distinct often conflicting movements. The first discernible movement is that of the cofounder Spurling and Bryant. As discussed earlier, Spurling was decidedly anti-denominational. He was just as ardently anti-creedal. He was, at least nominally, Calvinistic in theology. He was a restorationist who sought to reform and restore the church to what it had been in the New Testament. For membership in the Christian Union, he required nothing but an affirmation that every original member took. Namely that they “be free from all men made creeds and traditions, and are willing to take the New Testament, or the law of Christ, for [their] only rule of faith and practice.”20 Further, both Spurling and Bryant, openly advocated Christian participation in war.21 Most importantly, Spurling had no ambition toward starting or administering a movement of any type. When the opportunity presented itself, he and Bryant were eager to leave the leadership of the Church in the care of others, so that they could devote all of their time to evangelism. Everyone of these items are points of departure for the man that would replace Spurling as the Pastor of the Camp Creek congregation, A. J. Tomlinson.

Tomlinson's signing on as the new pastor of the Holiness Church at Camp Creek marks a distinct shift in the trajectory of the group of churches that would become the Church of God. Without the influence of Tomlinson, there is no indication that what became the Church of God would have been anything more than a local body of radical holiness Christians with no denominational structure and a loose congregational polity.

Tomlinson's personality was the antithesis of Spurling's in almost every way. He was self-confident to the point of arrogant, controlling, and meticulous. As soon as Tomlinson became involved in the Christian Union, his influence was felt. With Tomlinson in charge, the name of the group was changed to the Holiness Church (Tomlinson's church was called the Holiness Church at Camp Creek) and the beginnings of a denominational structure began to show. Where Spurling was a restorationist and an idealist, Tomlinson was a pragmatist. Where Spurling and Bryant would actively encourage Christian participation in war, Tomlinson was a pacifist.22 Where Spurling showed no indication that he desired to lead an organization, Tomlinson demonstrated an aggressive ambition to lead. Tomlinson joined the church at Camp Creek, was ordained, and installed as pastor all in one day.23 Another feature that was a point of departure from Spurling's leadership are Tomlinson's membership requirements. For membership in the Christian Union, one only need affirm his or her adherence to the New Testament as their only rule of law. By 1906, membership was formalized, and those who didn't meet certain standards, such as anyone who was divorced, were being denied membership in the Church.24 Despite their differences, they had one important thing in common, unquestionable holiness credentials.

One of Tomlinson's “holiness credentials” was his monthly newsletter, Samson's Foxes. Samson's Foxes included everything one might expect from a holiness newsletter such as vehement denunciations of tobacco use, warnings against selfishness, and even on occasion, recommendations against seeing physicians in favor of divine healing.25 The Holiness Church would establish their own newsletter, mentioned earlier, called The Way, which was influenced by Samson's Foxes.

By 1906, the denominational structure that had been emerging from Tomlinson's first appearance, would be formalized. A small group representing local bodies from northeastern parts of Tennessee, northwestern Georgia, and southwestern North Carolina, came together in formal union under the leadership of A. J. Tomlinson and became the Church of God. 26

Perhaps it is ironic that a movement that started with the expressed purpose of Christian unity, has had so many divisions, and off-shoots. Much of this can be attributed to the controlling personality of A. J. Tomlinson. However, it was with these same character traits that Tomlinson was able to co-opt and redirect the burgeoning holiness movement in the Appalachians. A movement that was previously dedicated to Christian unity, Tomlinson turned into a massive, top-down organization with him in control.

The conflict between the first order of the Christian Union and the second order of the Church of God came to a head during a general assembly meeting in 1907. Here the lines between Spurling and Tomlinson were clearly drawn and we find the only indication of Spurling ever putting up a public fight to maintain the integrity of the organization he helped found twenty one years prior. The debate was over pastoral appointments and the sides were drawn just as one might expect. Spurling advocated a congregational approach, and Tomlinson argued for episcopal appointments that he would pass down.27 Ultimately, Tomlinson won the day, and the Union completed its transition into a denomination. In spite of this loss, Spurling never wavered in his support of either Tomlinson or the Church of God.

In February of 1906, at the other end of the country, Frank Bartleman began praying for a “real pentecost” with “signs following.” In March of the same year, Bartleman met William Seymour who had just returned from a trip to Texas where he had fallen under the influence of Charles Parham. On April 9th, during a Bonnie Brae meeting in Los Angeles,28 the spirit “fell” and there was speaking in tongues. This was the beginning of the Azusa Street revivals.29 From these meetings, a southern minister, Gaston B. Cashwell, would carry the message of pentecost back to his home region. In June of 1907 Tomlinson and Lemons traveled to Birmingham, AL to hear the pentecostal message of a Cashwell follower, M. M. Pinson. Lemons recalled that, although neither he nor Tomlinson received the gift of Tongues, they both left satisfied that it was indeed Biblical and proper.30 After returning to Cleveland, TN they took the matter to the man who was still considered the Biblical expert of the group, Spurling. Spurling approved, declaring the practice “solid as a rock.”31

Cashwell was subsequently invited to preach to Tomlinson's group. During the preaching of Cashwell, Tomlinson would receive the Holy Ghost Baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues. This event occurred in 1908.32 Church of God historian, Charles Conn argues that Tomlinson was the last of the Church of God ministers to receive the Baptism.33 This assertion seems unlikely. It would be odd that Tomlinson would invite an outsider to preach pentecost to his denomination when his associates already obtained the experience in question. It would also be peculiar that a group of ministers and lay people would have as their leader a man that did not share a deep religious experience that they all claimed to have already attained. Finally, the only noted instance of someone leaving the organization came immediately following Tomlinson's “baptism” experience. After the 1908 convention, pastor J. H. Simpson stated his objections to the tongues doctrine and left the church.34

The most likely case is that there was an event that occurred in 1896, in Camp Creek, NC, that involved many people speaking in tongues. However, this appears to have been both an isolated event, and one without doctrinal substantiation. As such, it belongs in the narrative of glossolalia activities reported throughout pre-pentecostal America. Reading the events of Camp Creek as a manifestation of the modern pentecostal movement is possibly wishful thinking by modern adherents desiring to trace their practices, and associated beliefs, further back than the facts allow. After the events of the Azusa Street mission became widely known, the individuals that were present at the Camp Creek meetings retroactively identified what they experienced with that new manifestation of Holy Ghost baptism, with speaking in tongues as the initial evidence. This retroactive identification, however, was beneficial in facilitating the ready acceptance of the new movement by the members of the Church of God. They were able to look at the experiences that had become a part of their heritage and collective folklore, and see in the new movement something that looked very similar to what they had experienced 10 years prior. The move from holiness to pentecostal denomination was easier for these Appalachian Christians than it would have been had they not shared the experiences of 1896. This was essentially confirmed by Tomlinson as he wrote in 1922, “those who received the Baptism did not realize what it was until after 1906.”35

Another reason the members of the Church of God were so eager to accept this new interpretation of the second blessing is because it represented a more tangible experience of the second work of God's grace. It is very difficult to qualify exactly what “sanctification” means. It is even harder to prove that one has been sanctified. Accepting the Parham premise that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost Baptism makes the second work a great deal more evident and far less ambiguous. This line of reasoning is not universal to all holiness churches of the period, but only the more radical “fire baptized” variants, into which the Church of God would comfortably fit. They tended to emphasize the second work of grace and the emotionalism that comes with pentecostalism. In the radical holiness groups, this emotionalism was already present to a much greater extent than it was with their more tepid brothers. It was almost natural that radical Holiness churches adopt this theology. As John Thomas Nichol points out in his work on the pentecostal movement, the Church of God was not the only southern holiness body to adopt the pentecostal message. The aptly named Pentecostal Holiness Church made a similar transition.36

The final reason that the Christian Union, in particular, would be receptive to the pentecostal theology has to do with their origins as a restorationist organization. They sought to “reform and restore,” not to create. As such, the pentecostal message, that placed such a high degree of emphasis on the story of the creation of the church as told in Acts, is a message that would resonate well with the original Christian Union believers. This, combined with the nearly universal acceptance of tongues by their leaders,37 made the transition to a pentecostal denomination natural.

Citations

1 H. P. Hall, The Way no 3 vol 2. (Cleveland, Tennessee: The Way Publishing Co. March, 1905)

2 R. G. Spurling, “Gospel Evening Light” Selected Writings of R. G. Spurling.

3 J. Gordon Melton, Melton's encyclopedia of American religion, 8th ed. (Detroit : Gale Cengage Learning, 2009), 338.

4 Although both Spurlings are actually “Richard Spurling,” when there is the possibility of confusion, I will refer to the elder as Richard Spurling and the younger as R. G. Spurling as this appears to be consistent with how they identified themselves. It is also worth noting that the Elder Richard Spurling died shortly after the initial formative meetings of the Christian Union. Thus, any reference to a Spurling after 1891 is to R. G. Spurling, Jr.

5 R. G. Spurling, “Dangers and Hindrances to the Cause of Christ,” The Way no 6 vol. 1. (Culbertson, North Carolina. June, 1904)

6 The Church of God (Cleveland, TN), the (Original) Church of God, Church of God with Signs Following, Church of God of Prophecy, Church of God House of Prayer, Church of God (Huntsville), The Church of God over which Bishop James C. Nabors is General Overseer, The Church of God for All Nations, The Church of God (Jerusalem Acres), and Church of God (Charleston) all claim as their heritage the Christian Union meetings of 1886.

7 For a broad overview of the history of the Church of God from an insider's perspective, one should consult Like a Mighty Army by Dr. Charles Conn. This work is not an objective account of events and makes no effort to present itself as such, however, Dr. Conn's use of primary sources and first hand interviews are extensive and the book provides a good introduction to the history of the denomination. For a more critical account of the early days of the church read R. G. Robins' A.J. Tomlinson: Plainfolk Moderist (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) which is an indispensable resource for anyone interested in the life of Tomlinson, the early Church of God, or the Radical Holiness/early Pentecostal movements in general. For a more broad examination of the early Pentecostal movement see Nils Bloch-Hoell, The Pentecostal Movement (New York: Humanities Press, 1964.); Harvey Cox, Fire From Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 1995); and Grant Wacker, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001).

8 R.G. Spurling, The Lost Link, 1.

9 Ibid, 20.

10 A.J. Tomlinson, The Last Great Conflict (Cleveland, Tennessee: Walter E. Rogers Press, 1913), 186.

11 Nils Bloch-Hoell, The Pentecostal Movement (New York: Humanities Press, 1964), 18.

12 Homer Tomlinson, ed. Diary of A.J Tomlinson. (Queens Village, NY: Church of God, 1949), 1:25.

13 U. S. Sect Leader Sitting in Red Square Proclaims Himself the King of Russia. Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1923-Current file); Jul 13, 1958; ProQuest Historical Newspapers New York Times (1851-2007) w/ Index (1851-1993) pg. 29

14 Capitol Ousts 'King of World' New York Times (1923-Current file); Aug 9, 1958; ProQuest Historical Newspapers New York Times (1851-2007) w/ Index (1851-1993). pg. 11

15 In 1902 the Christian Union became the Holiness Church at Camp Creek.

16 “Extract from a Sermon by A. M. Mills” The Way no 8 vol 2. (Cleveland, Tennessee: The Way Publishing Co. August, 1905)

17 “Receiving the Holy Ghost” The Way no 9 vol 2. (Cleveland, Tennessee: The Way Publishing Co. September, 1905)

18 W. B. Godbey, Autobiography of Rev. W. B. Godbey, A. M. (Cincinnati: God's Revivalist Office, 1909), 98.

19 The Way no 8 vol 2. (Cleveland, Tennessee: The Way Publishing Co. August, 1905)

20 Tomlinson, The Last Great Conflict, 186.

21 Grant Wacker, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 248.

22 Grant Wacker, Heaven Below, 249.

23 Robins, 203.

24 Charles Conn, Like a Mighty Army (Cleveland, Tennessee: Pathway Press, 1977), 83.

25 Samson's Foxes no 4 vol 1. (Culberson, North Carolina: A. J. Tomlinson. April, 1901)

26 Robins, 117, 183. Tomlinson had, in his earlier years, been influenced by churches already identifying themselves as Churches of God located near Anderson, Indiana.

27 Ibid, 205.

28 This was the location of the meeting prior to their move to Azusa Street

29 Frank Bartleman, Azusa Street. 41-43.

30 Tomlinson, Diary of A. J. Tomlinson, vol. 2. citation found: Robins, 184.

31 Robins, 184.

32 Harvey Cox, Fire From Heaven:The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 1995), 72-73

33 Conn, 85.

34 Tomlinson, Diary of A. J. Tomlinson, 69-70.

35 "History of Pentecost," The Faithful Standard 1:6 (Sept 1922) citation found: Robins, 272.

36 John Thomas Nichol, Pentecostalism. (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1966), 37.

37 As noted earlier, J. H. Simpson left the group following the Pentecostal outburst at the 1908 convention.

Gaston B. Cashwell, 1862 - 1916

Cashwell is often referred to as the Pentecostal Apostle to the South. He converted to Pentecostalism in 1906 following a visit to Azusa Street. After 1906 he returned to his native American South to spread the message of the “Holy Ghost Fire.” His story is a particularly interesting one as his life presents, in vivid detail, the interactions between the racially progressive Holiness-Pentecostal movement and the traditionally racist South. It was Cashwell and his followers, particularly M. M. Pinson, that converted the nascent “Church of God” movement in east Tennessee and North Carolina to Pentecostalism.

For more information on Cashwell:

Denominational Histories:
Brumback, Carl. Suddenly From Heaven: A History of the Assemblies of God. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1961 (57, 84).

Campbell, Joseph E. The Pentecostal Holiness Church, 1898 – 1948: Its Background and History. Franklin Springs, GA: The Publishing House of the Pentecostal Holiness Church, 1951 (239-41).

Conn, Charles W. Like a Mighty Army: A History of the Church of God, 1886-1976. Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 1977 (84-85, 97).

Frodsham, Stanley. With Signs Following: The Story of the Pentecostal Revival in the Twentieth Century. Revised Edition. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1946 (41-42).

Kendrick, Klaude. The Promise Fulfilled: A History of the Modern Pentecostal Movement. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1971 (56, 62-63).

Academic Histories
Nichol, Joh Thomas. Pentecostalism. New York: Harper & Row, 1966 (36-37, 62, 104-05).

Synan, Vinson. The Holiness Pentecostal Movement in the United States. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971 (114, 122-29, 133-34, 138-39).

HEAVENLY CALL: RADICAL PACIFISM IN PENTECOSTAL LEADERSHIP AND LITERATURE DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR

If anyone has an interest in reading a short book on the pacifist history of certain Pentecostals during World War One, you can read my book here.

Abstract

Pacifism in the Pentecostal movement was ubiquitous before and during the First World War. However, toward the end of the War, the pacific consensus among Pentecostals was disintegrating. Scholars have attributed the loss of pacifism primarily to two facts: first, a lack of a uniform ideological justification for pacifism among Pentecostals. Second, the loss of pacifism has been attributed to the acculturation that was a product of the upward social mobility of the second and third generation of Pentecostal leaders. While the acculturation argument may have some merit, the lack of uniformity argument does not. The Pentecostal movement was, by the time of the First World War, not homogenous.The theology and practice of Pentecostals varied widely. Even the lack of “uniform ideological justification” would not necessitate a loss of a distinctive doctrine. Though many arguments were advanced for pacifism, there was agreement on the foundational principles of pacifism among the most radically pacifist Pentecostal leaders. Radical pacifists are an understudied subgroup of first-generation Pentecostals. The primary cause of the loss of radical pacifism resulted from a theological process of paring down one’s belief system to foundational truths and contingent truths. The foundational truths are those that serve to characterize the movement. For Pentecostals this includes evangelism, glossolalia, and faith healing. The contingent assertions are negotiable practices that are allowed to disappear as they become irrelevant or inconvenient. For Pentecostals, pacifism belongs to the second category with other abandoned practices such as fire and snake handling, the rejection of medical professionals, mixed gender swimming, movies, and other popular forms of entertainment. It was when pacifism started being perceived as interfering with the foundational doctrine of evangelism that pacifism lost its hold on Pentecostals.

In chapter 1, “Radicals,” I look at some radical Pentecostal pacifists and the methods they employed in their objections to war, as well as the governmental repercussions of these positions. Chapter 2 examines the historiography of Pentecostal pacifism. The chronology of Pentecostal pacifism with relation to the First World War is documented in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 contains a more complete examination of radical Pentecostal pacifism as it existed during World War I by examining its practical and ideological antecedents; including, Quakerism, gender demographics, rural ideologies, and the asceticism that characterized the Holiness Movement. Chapter 5 examines the ideological and scriptural arguments used by radical Pentecostal pacifists in justifying their pacifism. The most frequently used arguments against Christian participation in war break down to five categories: murder, greed, heavenly citizenship, eschatology, and evangelism. Virtually every one of the ideologies has as its underlying principle “evangelism.” Chapter 6 shows how an evolving understanding of evangelism began the process of undermining the radical pacifism of many Pentecostal leaders.

This research included archival materials from Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center in Springfield, MO and Dixon Pentecostal Research Center in Cleveland, TN. The staff members at both archives were very helpful.

Snake Handling in the early history of the Church of God, Cleveland, TN

 In the developmental years of the Church of God, the leadership and membership supported a very radical form of Christianity. This manifested itself in severe pacifism, asceticism, a dogmatic refusal to watch baseball games, refusal to consult medical professionals, and even snake handling.

On January 24, 1914, A. J. Tomlinson, Overseer of the Church of God, wrote of Church of God meetings, "There are marvelous cases of healing, devils cast out, some of the gifts of the Spirit slightly demonstrated, like as of fire seen, angels seen in our midst, serpents and burning fire handled with no harm to the saints..."

On May 9, 1914, J.B. Ellis (the Ellis of "Atkins-Ellis Hall" at Lee University) wrote extensively of snake handling. It is too lengthy to quote here however, he provides a qualified endorsement arguing that it is a sign of the Holy Spirit not intended for all people, but it serves as a testimony to the power of God.

An unnamed author, I think it was probably A.J. Tomlinson, wrote on September 19, 1914, of a successful Church of God meeting led by Brother Hensley. The piece is extensive but in one particularly interesting portion, the author states, "The power of God was demonstrated successfully... and several handled [the rattlesnake] and no one was injured by it. Some were bitten, but with no damage to them.... On Sunday night Sept. sixth they took in a 'Copperhead.' This was handled with as much success as the first, and many were made believers on account of the demonstration of God's power." This article contains many more accounts of snake handling. But, the author closes, "Beware of presumption. Never try to handle a serpent yourself. Be sure that it is the power of God that compels you... then there is no danger."

In an article entitled "White Heated Love: Necessary for the Development of a Perfect Christian Character," published in volume 5, number 44 of the Church of God Evangel the writer notes that members of the Church of God are "Christ-like in their conversation, clean in their lives, free from sin and able by His power to do wonders in healing, signs of tongues, taking up serpents..."

In notes from the Church of God General Assembly of 1914 it is stated, "Our people are taking up serpents and literally handling fire with no harm."

One of the most telling quotes from this period is from the November 21st, 1914 issue of the Church of God Evangel. It reads, "it is true, that poison serpents are taken up and handled any way with no injury to those exercised by the power of God. A few years ago if some one should have mentioned such a thing he would have been considered a fanatic, but among us now it is only looked upon as one of the signs that are expected to follow believers."

There are countless other examples, but to continue to list them is only to belabor a point that is well made. The Church of God (Cleveland, TN) endorsed snake handling from about 1910 until around 1930. To members of the Church of God: do not be ashamed of your church's past. Be proud of spiritual predecessors; those peculiar people who did their best to praise God the only way they knew how. They, like everyone, incorporated their folkways and rural identity into their search for a transcendent experience of the divine. In some cases, the resulting mixture was transformative and endures in Pentecostalism to this day; in other cases, the result was more mutable. Regardless, what is revealed here is the depth of conviction regarding faith. Theirs was not a convenient faith, it was not a popular faith, but it was their faith, sincerely held and fervently practiced.

Last Word: I am putting this together quickly in an attempt to answer a tweet, so I apologize for any grammatical/spelling/writing errors. The writing may be clumsy, but I stand fully behind the research.
You can check some of my sources at the Consortium of Pentecostal Archives.

Verses for Hope

 

Gen. 15:1–6

After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. 2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4 And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Psalm 33:12–22

12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,

    the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!

13 The Lord looks down from heaven;

    he sees all the children of man;

14 from where he sits enthroned he looks out

    on all the inhabitants of the earth,

15 he who fashions the hearts of them all

    and observes all their deeds.

16 The king is not saved by his great army;

    a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.

17 The war horse is a false hope for salvation,

    and by its great might it cannot rescue.

18 Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear him,

    on those who hope in his steadfast love,

19 that he may deliver their soul from death

    and keep them alive in famine.

20 Our soul waits for the Lord;

    he is our help and our shield.

21 For our heart is glad in him,

    because we trust in his holy name.

22 Let your steadfast love, O Lord, be upon us,

    even as we hope in you.

1 John 4:16–21

16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Luke 16:19–31

The Rich Man and Lazarus

19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”