PNEUMA 36 (2014) 289–295
Review Essay
∵
Are Pentecostals Merely Evangelicals?
Cecil M. Robeck, Jr.
Professor of Church History and Ecumenics
and Director of the David du Plessis Center for Christian Spirituality Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California
Joshua R. Ziefle
David du Plessis and the Assemblies of God: The Struggle for the Soul of a Movement,
Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 13 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2013).
xi + 230 pp. $129.00 hardback.
David du Plessis is a Pentecostal who is eminently worthy of a significant biographical study. No matter how the story is told, it must necessarily be a multifaceted one for David du Plessis was a very complex figure. An African by birth (1905), du Plessis served first as a minister with (1921) and later as General Secretary (1932) for the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa. For a time (1947–1949) he lived in Europe (Zurich Switzerland) where he became the first Secretary of the Pentecostal World Conference, a position that he held for 5 of its first 6 meetings. Moving to North America, he served for a time with the Church of God (Cleveland, tn) as a faculty member at Lee College (1949–1951). He transferred to the Assemblies of God (ag) in 1951 and became the pastor of a Connecticut congregation. By 1959, he could be found lecturing on Pentecostalism at Princeton Theological Seminary, spending time at the Episcopal Seabury House, and teaching at the World Council of Churches’ Ecumenical Institute at Bossey, Switzerland.
While carrying credentials with the Assemblies of God (1951–1962), he be- came a much-sought after resource to the burgeoning Charismatic Renewal
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-03602007
1
290
review essay
and a personal friend to a vast array of Christian leaders around the world. Through them, he became an ecumenical pioneer, working in various ways with the National Council of Churches in the usa, the World Council of Chur- ches, and the Roman Catholic Church. Questions regarding his participation with these latter groups ultimately led to his dismissal as an ordained minister of the Assemblies of God in 1962 by its Executive Presbytery. From 1962–1980 he remained a faithful member of a local Assembly of God. His ordination papers were returned to him only in 1980 when he was encouraged to re-apply. Yet based upon his experience with ag leadership and fearing that his papers recounting his ministry might be destroyed if he left them to any Assemblies of God institution, he retired to Pasadena, ca with his wife, Anna, where Fuller Theological Seminary established a Center for Christian Spirituality and an Archive in his name,1 and where he deposited his papers. He died in 1987.
There are a number of features about this volume that mark it as a significant contribution to our understanding of this important and complicated figure. Joshua R. Ziefle has written the first published monograph on du Plessis and his relationship to the Assemblies of God, and it appears in a significant scholarly series. Ziefle’s decision to employ Grant Wacker’s categories of primitivism and pragmatism, applying them to the unfolding story of the Assemblies of God’s organizational development is a very useful one.2 The author has some impor- tant things to say about Pentecostal identity and more specifically about the development of the identity of the Assemblies of God. He explores how primi- tivism and pragmatism contributed to that identity and he demonstrates how it provided increasing order in an otherwise chaotic movement. His nearly 40 page appendix, which provides a “Partial Timeline of the Life and Travels of David du Plessis, with Emphasis on Peak Years of His Ecumenical and Charis- matic Activity”, also serves as a valuable resource for anyone who wishes to see how ubiquitous du Plessis was at that time.
There is little question that Wacker’s categories of “a persistent primitivism in rhetoric and spiritual matters” and “a decidedly pragmatic emphasis” were at work within the Assemblies of God during the conflict that led to the dismissal of David du Plessis from its roster of ministers. Ziefle provides several solid illustrations of where these factors had played a role in earlier institutional or organizational decisions of the Assemblies. One may find them at work in discussions over baptism in the Holy Spirit as a divine encounter evidenced
1 Russell P. Spittler became the first Director of the David du Plessis Center for Christian
Spirituality at Fuller Theological Seminary.
2 Grant Wacker, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture (Cambridge, ma: Har-
vard University Press, 2001).
PNEUMA 36 (2014) 289–295
2
review essay
291
by speaking in other tongues (1900–1918). They were apparent again in the challenge raised in 1913–1916 by those aligned with the “New Issue,” claiming that baptism should no longer be performed using the traditional Trinitarian formula, instead it should be performed by invoking only the name of Jesus Christ. These factors were also evident in the Assemblies of God’s response to the challenge that the New Order of the Latter Rain posed to the fellowship in 1949.
Thus, it makes good sense that the author of this monograph might apply these same criteria to demonstrate that David du Plessis and the Charismatic and ecumenical ministry into which du Plessis believed God had called him were ultimately sacrificed by the Assemblies of God, when the fellowship’s primitivism and pragmatism teamed up against him in 1962 to maintain the institutional, organizational, and perhaps the doctrinal boundaries of the Fel- lowship. All of that can be demonstrated, and Ziefle argues this point from the perspective of this institutional angle as he analyzes the charismatic and ecumenical challenges raised by David du Plessis and the response of the name- less “Executive Presbytery” of the Assemblies of God. I say “nameless” because for the most part he is consistent about speaking of an Executive Presbytery without noting that Thomas F. Zimmerman is its chair, or noting that Bartlett Peterson is its Secretary. In this way, he is able to speak of the Assemblies of God in institutional rather than in personal terms when the discipline of David du Plessis, a person, is being discussed.
It is important to note as Ziefle pointed out (pp. 58, 154) that for a variety of reasons, du Plessis was often his own worst enemy in the growing confrontation that would take place between 1960 and 1962 with this “Executive Presbytery”. Du Plessis was not always clear in what he said. He failed to respond to ques- tions in a timely fashion. And he was sometimes overly defensive. From that perspective, the author has done a fine job of opening up some of the reasons that led to du Plessis’ defrocking. It seems clear, however, that these are only some of the factors that contributed to the dismissal of du Plessis as a minister of the Assemblies of God.
Had Ziefle limited his purpose solely to the demonstration of the role that primitivism and pragmatism played in supporting the Assemblies of God’s institutional need for “order and control” at the time that du Plessis was under scrutiny, he would have done well. But in my opinion he over-reached that claim when he promised to refute “the idea that his [du Plessis’] disfellowship- ping was primarily caused by undue influence from the National Association of Evangelicals” (5).
As Ziefle’s telling of the story unfolds, he notes that there were a number of people evenat that time, who were convinced that the National Association of
PNEUMA 36 (2014) 289–295
3
292
review essay
Evangelicals (nae) played the larger role in these proceedings (82–85, 98), that Thomas Zimmerman voiced concerns that lent “credence to the theory that the Assemblies was becoming closely allied with evangelicalism” (144), and that most recent historians agree with this theory, though he mentions only Allan Anderson as being “suggestive” of this point (8) and later notes Edith Blumhofer in this regard (174). Instead of interacting with or countering these claims directly, Ziefle simply makes his argument for “primitivism and pragmatism” as the primary means to bring “order and control” to the Assemblies of God during this difficult conflict and concludes that his case has been made. He seems to deny any substantial role that the nae might have played in the matter and assumes that his institutional interest in boundary-setting is sufficient to make the case. As he puts it very simply, “… it remains doubtful they [the Assemblies of God] would so consciously hand over their will or purpose to any outside group, no matter the level of acclaim it would provide them” (99).
I, too, doubt that the Assemblies of God would have “consciously” handed over its will or purpose to the nae. But my doubts on this matter, and so do Ziefle’s, require evidence to support them. He does not provide any evidence to show his doubts are well-based and, therefore, stops short of fulfilling his promise.3
Institutions cannot be studied well, apart from looking at those who lead them. In this case, the Assemblies of God was being led by Thomas F. Zim- merman. Zimmerman served as Assistant Superintendent (1953–1959) and as General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God (1959–1985) during these difficult years. At the same time, he served as President of the National Reli- gious Broadcasters, an affiliate organization founded by the nae (1954–1956) and he continued on its board after his presidency, and then he became Presi- dent of the National Association of Evangelicals precisely during the years of conflict with du Plessis, 1960–1962. These facts might suggest for some that the Assemblies of God and the National Association of Evangelicals were in full agreement already and that in 1960–1962 du Plessis was at best a maverick that needed controlling. Ziefle seems to suggest that this was the position of
3 See, for instance, Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Name and Glory: The Ecumenical Challenge”, my
Society for Pentecostal Theology presidential address, published in Harold D. Hunter, Pastoral
Problems in the Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement Cleveland, tn: Church of God School of
Theology, 1983. This address was substantially rewritten and published as Cecil M. Robeck, Jr.,
“The Assemblies of God and Ecumenical Participation: 1920–1965,” in Wonsuk Ma and Robert
Menzies, Eds, Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William W. Menzies JPTSupp
11 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 107–150. Neither of these appears in Ziefle’s
bibliography.
PNEUMA 36 (2014) 289–295
4
review essay
293
the “Executive Presbytery” during those years. This was surely the position of Thomas F. Zimmerman, who stood at the helm of both organizations. In a very real sense, he personified the agreement between these two organizations, and where they did not agree, he sought to bring them more closely into accord with one another, generally moving the Assemblies of God into conformity with the National Association of Evangelicals. This can be seen in several ways.
From at least 1920, the division of Foreign Missions of the Assemblies of God had worked closely with several ecumenical agencies. While serving as General Secretary to the Assemblies of God and as editor of The Pentecostal Evangel, J. Roswell Flower attended the World Council of Churches 1954 Assembly in Evanston, il. Although he never published anything on that Assembly, he did write a five-page report on the meeting, which I am quite sure was circulated among Assemblies of God executives, in which he wondered at the wisdom of theological conservatives to ignore the World Council of Churches (wcc) because of allegations that it was controlled by “liberals,” especially when he had looked for liberals at the Assembly and could find none. He even concluded that, “They [the conservatives] can dominate it [the wcc] if they have the mind to”.4 While Flower’s report was written six years before the confrontation with du Plessis, the report might have opened the Assemblies of God to new possibilities had it not already aligned itself with the conservatism of the nae and for some, even with the Fundamentalist, Carl McIntire.
While Zimmerman was leading both the nae and the ag at the time of the conflict with du Plessis, neither he nor Ziefle seems to have perceived Zimmer- man’s leadership as involving any conflict of interest. What Zimmerman did during these years in which he served as the head of the Assemblies of God and oftheNationalAssociationofEvangelicals,however,wastoleadtheAssemblies of God into conformity with nae expectations and away from all other forms of ecumenical relationships.
What might have been a more fruitful approach, then, would have been to focus attention on the specific role that Thomas F. Zimmerman played in all of this. Had Ziefle examined the evidence surrounding Zimmerman’s role in leading this nameless or faceless “Executive Presbytery” with Bartlett Peterson
4 J.RoswellFlowerwroteafive-pagesingle-spacedtypewrittenreportofhisweekinEvanstonin
which he clearly enjoyed his time at the Assembly and wondered whether conservative Chris-
tians were right in their condemnation of the World Council of Churches. This paper may be
found in the Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center, Springfield, mo. For a fuller discussion on
the role that David du Plessis, Donald Gee, and J. Roswell Flower played in participating in or
assessing it, see Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “A Pentecostal Looks at the World Council of Churches,”
The Ecumenical Review47:1 (1995), 60–69. The Flower quote appears on page 62.
PNEUMA 36 (2014) 289–295
5
294
review essay
working simply as the messenger who ferried the questions and pronounce- ments of this institutional or organizational body to David du Plessis, he could have argued his point that the nae was not the primary player here, though he might well have concluded that its President, Thomas F. Zimmerman was.
Ziefle is not ignorant of Zimmerman. He includes a very brief biographical sketch of his rise to power (64–67), but then seems to set him aside in favor of describing the debate in terms of the Executive Presbytery, only to pick him up again, recognizing Zimmerman and du Plessis as having been “antagonists” (168).5 A move to personalize the issues in the way I have suggested might have thrown more light on the conflict between two well-meaning but strong personalities, each of whom had points to make and interests to protect. It might also have made apparent the conflict of interest in which Zimmerman was clearly engaged when he led the Executive Presbytery in its actions.
Zimmerman alone could be seen as responsible for breaking off the long- standing ecumenical relationships that the Assemblies of God had held. Zim- merman alone, unilaterally closed Assemblies of God offices at 475 Riverside Drive in New York City that had been established under his predecessor, Ralph M. Riggs, at the strong encouragement of the ag missions department so that it might work more closely with such ecumenical agencies as Church World Service. I would contend that Zimmerman led the crusade to pursue du Plessis relentlessly until he had been dismissed, ultimately authorizing the develop- ment of a bylaw that “disapproved” of much ecumenical participation. And Zimmerman alone internationalized the issue by taking on Donald Gee and David du Plessis at the 1961 Jerusalem Pentecostal World Conference. Gee, a supporter of David du Plessis and editor of Pentecost, the official organ of the Pentecostal World Conference, who disagreed with Zimmerman on the treat- ment of du Plessis and what he stood for, and recently had published an arti- cle inPentecost, supporting greater ecumenical openness.6 Zimmerman would have none of it, and without naming either Gee or du Plessis, he announced in Jerusalem only that “Those who … would join hands with those who … com-
5 I realize that Ziefle’s reference may be taken to the Assemblies of God or to the Executive
Presbytery. My understanding comes from the fact that Thomas Zimmerman is the Chairman
of both bodies and it is he who, on the following page is credited with reaching out to du
Plessis, inviting him to a meeting with the Executive Presbytery and ultimately, inviting him
to re-apply for ordination. In personal conversation, du Plessis always viewed Zimmerman
both as the one who instigated his dismissal and as the one who offered reinstatement to
him.
6 D. Gee, “Contact Is Not Compromise,”Pentecost53 (November – December 1960), inside back
cover.
PNEUMA 36 (2014) 289–295
6
review essay
295
promise are being unwittingly used as tools against us …”7 That was a word to the National Association of Evangelicals, whose byword was “Contact without Compromise”.
It is not my desire to make David du Plessis into a hero and Thomas Zim- merman into a villain. Each of them was undoubtedly called by God for the period of service that they performed, and both of them were human beings with all the foibles that this designation carries with it. But it seems to me that Ziefle’s study deserves at least one more chapter, one that takes seriously the question of whether it was merely a nameless group of people who sought to limit the impact of du Plessis or whether it was one individual, who had the potential of losing his reputation with the National Association of Evangelicals as a man who could not control one of his own “mavericks.” Why, you might ask, is it so important to do so? The inclusion of such a chapter is so impor- tant today because we need to continue the discussion of what constitutes the Pentecostal identity. Ever since the time when Thomas Zimmerman used the Executive Presbytery to discipline David du Plessis in the name of “order and control” of who the Assemblies of God would be and who its friends would be, there has been increasing confusion among Assemblies of God leaders and pas- tors regarding whether the Assemblies of God is a Pentecostal body or whether it is merely an Evangelical body with a little bit of punch, courtesy of the Holy Spirit. These two terms, Evangelical and Pentecostal, may be closely related, but they are neither synonymous nor does either provide a definition of the other. By identifying itself as an Evangelical body, the Assemblies of God runs the risk of losing its Pentecostal voice, its identity, and possibly its soul.
7 Thomas F. Zimmerman, “Twentieth Century Pentecost,” Addresses Presented at the Sixth
PentecostalWorldConference,Jerusalem,Israel,May19thto21st,1961(Toronto: Testimony Press,
1961), 55. This sermon was also published as “Twentieth-Century Pentecost,” The Pentecostal
Evangel No. 2465 (August 6, 1961): 3-28-29; See Gee’s response, “What Manner of Spirit?”
Pentecost57 (September – November 1961), inside back cover.
PNEUMA 36 (2014) 289–295
7
Leave a Reply