159
Bishop
J. H.
King
and the
Emergence
of Holiness Pentecostalism
David A. Alexander*
I. The Transition to Pentecostal Holiness
Joseph Hillery King
was born
August 11,
1869 in Rockmill Township,
Anderson
County,
South Carolina. His
father,
a sharecropper,
was
poor
and uneducated. The
family
often lived in hovels,
with
every
member
working
hard from an early age. Due in part
to the
heavy
workload on the
farm,
and also due to the
scarcity of pastors in this rural
area,
the
King family
did not attend church regularly.
It
did, however, occasionally
attend a Baptist
meeting, and later
King
would
report
that his
family
once attended a Holiness
Convention,
due
largely
to its
proximity
to the
King home.
Toward the
beginning
of
1883,
when
Joseph
was
thirteen,
the King family
moved to Franklin
County, Georgia.
There he came under the influence of a Reverend W. O. Butler who was a minister of the Methodist
Episcopal Church,
South. He was
sanctified,
or as he put
it,
“in the
experience
of sanctification,” and he preached the doctrine over the Carnesville Circuit. It was
during
this time that King
first heard of the doctrine of sanctification.
I
On
August 11, 1885,
the Reverend William
Asbury Dodge conducted a campmeeting near
King’s
home.
Dodge
was the Vice- President of the Holiness Association of the North
Georgia Conference. The sermon was a powerful call to salvation, and
King was
among
those
seeking
at the altar. “Thousands have had a brighter
conversion
than I,”
wrote
king,
“but I had
enough
to
put me in the
way
of obedience to
God.”King
referred to this salvation experience
as his double
birthday
since it was his sixteenth. He joined
the Methodist
Episcopal
Church
(South)
on
August 17, 1885.2
A Holiness convention was conducted in this area from October 20-25,
1885
by
the Reverend A. J. Jarrell who was President of the Holiness Association of the North
Georgia
conference. William Dodge
was also
present
at the convention. On
Friday,
October 23 a consecration service was held at 8:00 a.m. for those who were seeking
sanctification.
Speaking
at this service was B. Weed Gorham,
of Iowa.3
The vivid detail in
King’s re-telling
of the
story
of his sanctifi- cation
throughout
his life, demonstrates its importance to him, and the
place
it held in his life and
theology.
.
‘ .
,
.
1
160
The church was filled with the
power
and
glory
of God.
Some began to rise and shout the high praises of God, while
others
laughed, cried,
and gave glory to God. A marvelous
change
was wrought in me. I found
my heart
was filled with
light, love,
and glory… I was, as it were, in Heaven. Peace
unutterable filled my inner
being.
How could an angel feel
any happier
than I did in those moments!4
This
experience,
however
important
to
King,
was not to be final for him. This
experience
of entire sanctification was the
beginning of a
long
and tortuous
spiritual journey
which would take him through
the
experience
of
“fire-baptism”
and then to
“Spirit- baptism.” Though King
was
prone
to doubt the
finality
of the sanctification
experience,
he later came to
interpret
these bouts of doubt and
depression
as a natural desire for
Spirit-baptism.
He also believed that he was
finally sanctified,
once and for
all,
in the experience
which he then
called, fire-baptism.
It was this desire for a
spiritually’fulfilling experience
that
eventually
led him to the experience
of
Spirit-baptism.
It was his
interpretation
of this experience
that led him to accept and articulate the
theology
known as “pentecostal holiness.”5
In November of
1885, the
Reverend A. J.
Hughes
was
appointed to serve as the
pastor
of the Carnesville Circuit. He was not a holiness
preacher,
nor did he believe in the “second
blessing,
or sanctification as an
experience
received
subsequent
to
regener- ation.” The
Reverend J. H. Baxter was
appointed Presiding
Elder of the district.
He, too, opposed
the doctrine of holiness. These men taught
that there was only one
experience
of grace. Baxter had even written a pamphlet
denouncing scriptural
sanctification. “Soon the revival fires died on the
charge,
and all that
professed
sanctifi- cation,
save one or
two,
renounced the doctrine and lost the experience
that
they
had received.”
King perceived
a determination to
stamp
the doctrine out of existence in the North
Georgia Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal
Church, (South). The holiness ranks were
definitely
thinned
out,
and this
opposition pained young King greatly.6
At the
Quarterly
Conference of the district in
May
of
1887, King applied
for an Exhorter’s License. He was turned down. Because he was otherwise
qualified
to receive this
License, King always
felt that his
rejection
was based on his
strong
commitment to holiness theology.7 King
continued to
preach
in
spite
of this
setback,
and was
eventually
licensed
by
the Methodist
Episcopal
Church (South)
in
Augusta, Georgia during
the Fall of 1890.
In
February,
1891
King
travelled to
Atlanta, Georgia.
There he had an
encouraging
encounter with the Marietta Street Methodist.
_
2
Episcopal
Church encouragement dramatically. at
the age immediately
161
with them. With their
(North)
and united
and
help
the
scope
of
King’s ministry
increased
In
March,
1891 he was licensed to preach and in May
of
twenty one,
he became a junior Pastor.
King began
to prepare for the courses of study which would enable him to advance to full connection.
By January,
1894
King
had passed
the second
year examinations,
and he was admitted to full connection with the Annual Conference.8
Tennessee, King
enrolled
1896. King
Church, (North)
Conference,
Circuit. On
May University, completing
take
charge twenty eight years
Later that
year King
in
Chattanooga, the Freedman’s Aid
Society.
in
January,
1895.9
,
Secretary
of the
became familiar- with U. S. Grant
University
which was
operated by
in the School of Theology
The Annual Conference was held in Atlanta,
Georgia
in January,
finished the courses of study
prescribed by the
Methodist Episcopal
and received his Elder’s orders. He was ordained
by Bishops
R. S. Foster and W. F. Mallelieu and was appointed
to the Lookout Mountain
Circuit, ‘
so that he could ‘ continue his
schooling
in
Chattanooga.
In
January, 1897, King
was elected Assistant
and he was
again appointed
to the Lookout Mountain
11 of that same
year,
he
graduated
from the
the entire three
year
course of
study.
10
When
King
left the Annual Conference in
December,
1897 to
of the
Simpson
Circuit in Northeastern
Georgia,
he was
old. He was a graduate of the School of Theology and a fully ordained minister of the Methodist
Episcopal
Church. He was Assistant
Secretary
of his Conference and a member of the
He had been saved and in the
experience
of
for over twelve
years.
He had
already
served as a pastor
for seven
years.
He was
theologically
committed to the doctrine and
experience
of entire sanctification.
arrival at his new
charge
in
December, 1897,
had been conducted
by
holiness
preachers,
“and almost all of the
membership professed –
to be in the
experience
of sanctification.” In addition to the doctrine of sanctification some- –
Examining sanctification
Committee.
Prior to
King’s meetings
thing
else was
being taught.
.
… they
had been taught that the baptism of the Holy Ghost
and fire was received
by faith after the grace
of sanctifi-
cation had been
imparted.
As a result
everyone
that
testified declared that
they
had been
definitely baptized
with the Holy Ghost and fire subsequent to sanctification. ? ? I This doctrine reflected the
teaching
of
Benjamin
Hardin
Irwin,
of
Lincoln,
Nebraska.
King
described the doctrine as being very new and
strange,
since he had never
heard, nor
read
anything
about it before. He
3
162
denounced the doctrine as
unsound,
and one of
religious
extrava- gance.
“I thought that I would never
profess any experience beyond that of sanctification. “12
In January,
1898, King
attended a meeting held at
Pennington’s Chapel
outside of
Royston, Georgia.
This
meeting
was conducted by
men of the
Wesleyan
Methodist Church who
espoused
the doctrine of “fire-baptism.”J. H.
King
was deeply moved
by what he saw and
experienced
at these
meetings.
Afterwards he professed to have received the
experience
of “fire-baptism.1113
King
is vague on what
exactly
occurred in the
Pennington Chapel meetings.
It is obvious that
they
affected him
profoundly.
He also does not describe his
experience
of fire-baptism in the same
explicit terms as he did his
previous experience
of sanctification. He was evidently
influenced
enough by
this
experience
to surrender his charge,
and
thus, effectively resign
from the Methodist
Episcopal Church
(North).
This he
did,
on
May 1, 1898,
at the
Quarterly Conference. He records the fact that
many
members were “struck dumb
At this
time,
Irwin decided to consolidate his
many
state associations into a
single
denomination. His first national convention was held in Anderson, South
Carolina,
from
July
28 to August 8,
1898.
King
attended this
meeting
with
many others,
and there he united with the
newly
formed
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church.
King’s
attitude toward the doctrine of fire-baptism is as strange as his
previous
attitude toward the
experience
itself.
Later,
he obviously developed
some reservations both about the doctrine and the
experience,
and
ultimately
he rejected it. He also influenced the Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church to do the same. As
such,
it is especially
unfortunate that he did not discuss the doctrine or experience
in more
explicit
terms. 15
King, however,
did not
totally
discount this
experience
called fire-baptism
which he received in connection with the
Pennington
He came to his as the
” Chapel meetings. interpret “fire-baptism”
experience
of sanctification. From that time
on, King
did not doubt that he was
entirely sanctified,
once and for
all,
at
Pennington Chapel.
He held to this conviction to the end of his life.’”
King
attended the General Convention of the
Fire-Baptized Holiness Church in
March,
1899 at
Royston, Georgia.
He had spent
most of the last
year preaching fire-baptism
in various meetings.
After
leaving Royston,
he traveled to his new
pastorate
in Toronto,
Canada. One
year
later in
March, 1900, King
received a letter from
Benjamin
Harden Irwin himself
asking King
to come to Lincoln,
Nebraska and to
”
be the Assistant Editor of the Church’s paper,
Live Coals
of
Fire.
,
.
.
4
.
Lincoln
is as ambiguous
163
on his relation-
Though
Irwin was the editor of the
paper,
he was
away
from
most of this time.
King
did not elaborate
ship
with
Irwin,
or the reasons
why
Irwin called him to Lincoln. He
in describing his relationship with
Irwin,
as he was in describing the doctrine and
experience
of fire-baptism itself.”
In
June, 1900,
word was flashed
throughout
the
Fire-Baptized Holiness Church that Irwin had fallen into sin. A General
was unanimously
throughout
medium also to
spread understood
it Fire-Baptized
Canada, as
being,
special
services in
Ontario,
‘
knowledge. Argue people. “They
‘
Convention was called
by King,
at Olmitz, Iowa, for
July 1, 1900,
in order to elect a new General Overseer. On
July 2, 1900,
J. H.
King
elected to this
post.
He was
thirty years
old.
King worked
tirelessly
for the next few
years, traveling
and
preaching
the United States and Canada. His
purpose
was to heal the wounds of Irwin’s
fall,
and consolidate the Church’s functions. He
became the editor of the Church’s
paper,
and he used this
the doctrine of the
“Spirit-baptism”
as he
at that time.
During
his
tenure, King
influenced the
Holiness Church to denounce
fire-baptism
as an experience subsequent
to sanctification. 18
In
September 1906, King
conducted
for the Reverend Goff.
King
described this man’s doctrine
“in
perfect harmony
with that of the
Fire-Baptized Holiness Church.” On the
trip home, King
traveled with a friend, the Reverend A. H.
Argue. Argue
told
King
about the new revival which was in
progress
in
California,
which
King
had no
prior
referred to the
group
as
“Apostolic
Faith”
are
seeking
and
obtaining
the
baptism
of the
Holy Ghost with
speaking
with other
tongues
as on the
day
of Pente-
One
of
Argue
left a copy of a paper with
King
which described the beliefs
of this new
group. King
read the
paper carefully,
several
days
later.
of the was that the of the .
things they taught baptism
Holy Ghost was received subsequent
to sanctification. This , ‘
was what I had believed and taught for a number of years,
.
and had come to be
thoroughly .
convinced that it was
scriptural.zo
enabled Church, teachings searching
Holiness Church had
Episcopal him
theologically
to
accept
the
movement. He was
,
King
realized that the
Fire-Baptized
him to
separate
from his beloved Methodist
and that it had
prepared
and
experience
of the new Pentecostal
for a
satisfying experience beyond
entire sanctification which would be complete and final. At first, he thought that he had found such an
experience
in the so-called
“fire-baptism.” Though
had renounced the doctrine of a subsequent fire-baptism, he
the idea of a
Spirit-baptism subsequent
to sanctification.21
King
was still
open
to
5
164
The man
responsible
for the
promulgation
of this new doctrine in
the Southeastern
region
was a minister of the Holiness Church of
North
Carolina,
the Reverend Gaston Barnabas Cashwell. Cash-
well had
departed
from
Dunn,
North Carolina in November, 1906,
traveling by
rail enroute to Los
Angeles,
California. He intended to
investigate
the revival at the Azusa Street Mission for himself.
While in Los
Angeles,
Cashwell
sought for,
and received this new
experience
of a Spirit-baptism at which he
spoke
in
tongues.
Cashwell returned to North Carolina
immediately,
and
began
a
meeting
in Dunn, December 31, 1906. This revival continued
through January,
1907 and
heavily
influenced the members and ‘
ministers of the
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church and the Holiness
Church of North Carolina.
Among
those
present
at the Dunn
meeting
were members of the
congregation
in
Toccoa, Georgia
where
King
was
technically serving
as interim
pastor.
It was
upon
his return from Canada that these folks encountered
King
with a
new
message.22
Cashwell arrived in Toccoa in mid-February of
1907,
to conduct
meetings along
the lines of the new doctrine.
King
took this
opportunity
to
oppose
the new doctrine both
publically
and
privately.
The
point
that
pained King
about the new doctrine was
the insistence on the
necessity
of
speaking
in
tongues
as the
exclusive evidence for the
Spirit-baptism. King
felt that he had
bested the new doctrine at each confrontation.23
From what
King
has written, he is not
explicit
as to
why
he
allowed Cashwell to use his church
building
in the first
place.
It is
likely
that he did not want to alienate the
growing
faction of people
and ministers who had embraced this new doctrine and
experience
completely. King may
have felt that he could coerce them into
modifying
their insistence on the evidence of
tongues
as the
.
‘
exclusive
sign
of the
Spirit-baptism.
It is also
possible
that
King
allowed Cashwell to come to Toccoa, because of his own subconscious desire to be confronted
by the new doctrine and
experience. King
had
already
shown a
proclivity toward
being
in the
right place
to encounter new doctrines and experiences.
He had rushed to a special consecration service at
age sixteen where he first
experienced
entire sanctification. Later he appeared
at the
Pennington Chapel meetings
and
eventually embraced the doctrine and
experience
of
fire-baptism.
He had already
determined that there was an
experience
of Spirit-baptism subsequent
to sanctification.
Though King
was
opposed
to the doctrine of
tongues,
he was
certainly open
to an
experience
of Spirit-baptism.
Now he was face to face with a “Pentecostal” recently
from Azusa Street.24
.
6
165
It would be a gross misunderstanding,
however,
to interpret King as someone who
shallowly
followed after new
religious experiences. King
seems
simply
to have had an instinctive
hunger
for a profound experience
with God which would
satisfy
him
spiritually
and permanently. King
found such an
experience
in entire sanctifi- cation and then in the
subsequent Spirit-baptism
with the evidence of tongues. These
religious experiences
of entire sanctification and Spirit-baptism
were not
fleeting.
Indeed this final transition of doctrine and
experience
defined
King’s
life and
ministry
for four
. decades.
His
opposition
to this new doctrine and
experience
and
Spirit- baptism
were not restricted to his
personal
confrontations with Cashwell and others in Toccoa,
Georgia. King published
an article in the official
paper
of the
Fire-Baptized
Holiness
Church,
Live . Coals. The article was written
by
J. Hudson Ballard and covered fully
a quarter of the issue. It is a clear and
cogent
refutation of the tongues
doctrine based
upon scriptural arguments.25
King
had committed himself to
altering
the new movement’s .
on the exclusive evidence of
” position tongues.
He had also committed himself to do this
through scriptural arguments.
On February 14,
1907
King
secluded himself in order to
study
and prepare
his
position
further. It is likely that he wanted to be even more exact in his
exposition
of the
scriptural arguments against tongues
as the exclusive evidence of the
baptism
of the
Holy Spirit. It is also
likely
that he wanted to reflect
upon
what he had seen and heard. ‘
The
study began
with an examination of the Greek New Testament. His main source was Dean Alford’s critical comment-
ary. King’s discovery
stunned him. Alford indicated that
though tongues
were not
expressly
mentioned in all of the Acts accounts of Spirit-baptism, tongues
were
definitely implied
in the Greek text. Further
study
and
prayer
on this
point
from various other commentaries led
King
to doubt and then
reject
all of his own
previous arguments.26 ‘
‘
I felt that I must accept the truth, or be dishonest. I had said
that
if proof was produced
from the Word in support of this
theory,
I would
accept
it. By this investigation it had been
done. I could not deny it, and so I accept
King began
to
pray
and seek in earnest this new
experience
of a Spirit-baptism
which he now believed was
taught
in
Scripture.
He slept
little that
night,
and the next
day
continued to fast and to pray. At an afternoon service on
February 15,
1907
King
received this Spirit-baptism experience
and he
spoke
in tongues.
He described his
experience
as follows:
‘
‘
.
7
166
Praises seemed to well up from
my inner being
in a new manner,
and
my tongue
was moving in some way. I felt a deep peace
settle in my spirit such as I had not had before.28
There was a joy in my heart and I began uttering
praise with
my lips.
There was a moving of my tongue,
though
I cannot
say
that I was speaking in a definite
language.
I only know
that there was some
moving
of my tongue as I had never
experienced
before.29
Rushing immediately
to
Royston, Georgia, King
informed the other leaders of the
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church of the
change
in his doctrinal
position,
and of his
subsequent experience.
This explanation
took the entire
night
of
February 15,
1907. On the following morning,
these men
accepted King’s explanation
and went to Toccoa themselves in order to seek this
experience. Cashwell was then invited to conduct further services in
Royston, Georgia,
an invitation which he
accepted
sometime in
March, 1907.3? As a result,
King
related what
happened
in the Church.
During
the first months of 1907 all of the ministers and
members of the
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church and the
Holiness
Church of North Carolina
accepted
the truth of
Pentecost as now
being taught
and entered into the
experience
of the
baptism
of the Holy Spirit.31
The
following year
in Anderson, South
Carolina,
at the General Convention of the
Fire-Baptized Church,
the Articles of Faith were officially changed
to reflect the new doctrine and
experience. They read:
We believe that the Pentecostal
baptism
of the Holy Ghost
and fire is obtainable
by a definite act of appropriating
faith on the part of the fully cleansed believer, and that the
initial evidence of the
reception
of this
experience
is
speaking
with other
tongues
as the Spirit gives utterance.32
King
would
preach
and teach this
understanding
of the
Spirit- baptism
until his death in 1946.
II. The
Leadership
of Pentecostal Holiness
After J. H.
King
led the
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church into the doctrine and
experience
of the newer
apostolic
faith
movement,
he went
through
a
period
of reflection and
depression.
This is not surprising
since
King
was a very sensitive man. This
sensitivity
is especially
obvious when one reads his
spiritual autobiographies. He had
undergone
several
periods
of reflection and
depression since his
experience
of sanctification in 1885. These
periods
were the
sign
of a spiritually sensitive man
coping
with various transit- ions in his doctrine and
religious experience.
–
.
.
‘
8
167
The
difficulty
of this
period
for
King
was further enhanced because of
King’s marriage
failed.
King
had left his wife almost immediately
after their
marriage
in 1890 when she refused to follow him into the
ministry.
The absence of a stabilizing home life is often felt
keenly, by anyone
as sensitive as King. It is interesting to note that
King
did not record similar bouts of
depression
after his
to Blanche L. Moore.33,
–
,
second
marriage,
Another reason for this
period
of depression was probably King’s growing
awareness of the
implications
of the new
teaching
on Spirit-baptism.
These
implications
extended to himself and to the church which he led.
King’s process
of reflection extended
through a world tour and a subsequent
period
of wandering
upon
his return to the United States. It
ended,
when
King
was elected General Superintendent
of the Pentecostal Holiness Church in
January, 1917 at
Abbeville,
South Carolina. After his
election, King proceeded
to act
quickly
and
decisively
in his first months of office.
A period of reflection
began
in August of 1908. He was
working at the Falcon Holiness School in
Falcon,
North
Carolina, shortly after the
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church had
officially adopted
the doctrine of a Spirit-baptism with the evidence of tongues. After one year. King unexpectedly resigned
from his
position
at the school and commenced a tour of Pentecostal works on the
foreign
mission fields. This tour was
plagued by periods
of spiritual
doubt,
and
by a lack of funds.
.
.
.
. .
.
His desire to tour the Pentecostal works in
foreign
fields
may
have been
prompted by
the reasons
already
discussed.
King
had a
growing
sense of the
implications
which the new movement had for
. him.
King likely
took this time to reflect on the movement
theologically.
He used this time to
integrate
the
theology
of a
Spirit-baptism
with his
theology
of entire sanctification.
King
also . understood that the
resulting
doctrine of
“pentecostal
holiness”
held
implications
for him as an administrative leader. He at .
‘
knew,
least
instinctively,
that he would
eventually
be called
upon
to lead
the new movement. This
period
of reflection and
wandering
prepared
him to do just that.3d
While
King
was
abroad,
the
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church . united with the Pentecostal Holiness Church at
Falcon,
North
Carolina. The
resulting organization
took the name of the latter.
King
was the General
Superintendent
of the former at the time of
the
merger.
After the
merger,
he was elected Assistant General
. Superintendent,
for
foreign
missions.
Upon
his return to the United States in August,
1911, King
was
appointed principal
of the Falcon Holiness School
‘
by
its
founder,
J. A. Culbreth.
King stayed
here
only
a short while. We can
only
speculate
as to
why King
left Falcon
unexpectedly
9
168
By
1915 he had drifted to
Memphis,
Tennessee. There he was elected
Superintendent
of the Annual
Conference,
an office to which he was re-elected in 1916. It was in this
capacity
as Conference
Superintendent
that he attended the Third General Conference of the Pentecostal Holiness Church where he was elected General
Superintendent.
This ended his
period
of reflect- ion. His
flurry
of
activity
as General
Superintendent
was in stark contrast to his administrative
inactivity
since 1908.36
When
King
assumed his duties as General
Superintendent
of the Pentecostal Holiness
Church, many things
had
changed
since he had last been the adminsitrative head of a denomination. For one
thing, King
was not
re-building
a demoralized Church from
tragedy as he had when he had been thrust into
leading
the
Fire-Baptized Holiness Church. The
advantage
of his
previous position
was that he had built an organization that was
administratively loyal
to him. This was not true of the Pentecostal Holiness Church. It’s organization
was
already
six
years
old and there were several men capable
of
challenging King’s position.
Two of these ‘men. G. F. Taylor
and J. A. Culbreth were men of
proven
character and ability. They
had established a successful
school,
a church
printing business,
and a famous
campmeeting
in
Falcon,
North Carolina. , King
would
attempt
to match these feats over the next two
years.37
Because
King
had no
permanent home,
he had been
conducting most of his administrative affairs in a transient status. This transience was also due to a lack of any fixed
headquarters
for the Church. It is no wonder that
King
would desire to consolidate the affairs of the Church at one location. Such a
geographical consolidation would also serve to consolidate
further,
his adminis- trative role as the new
Superintendent.
In
1918,
a
piece
of resort
property
in a state of
disrepair
was discovered
by George
0. Gaines to be for sale. It was located in Franklin
Springs, Georgia. Gaines,
who was
Superintendent
of the Georgia Conference,
had
hoped
for
many years
to locate the Church’s
headquarters
on that
property.
Since the Church would not be able to
purchase
the
property
until the next
meeting
of the General
Board,
Gaines formed an ad hoc committee called the “Pentecostal Benevolent Association” in order to
purchase
the property
for the church.
After the
purchase
of the
property
in
March,
1918
King
moved quickly.
That same month he made the decision to locate a school on the site. It is a wonder that
King
made such a far
reaching decision on such short notice and with such little consultation with the whole denomination. This lack of consultation left
King solely and
personally responsible
for the school’s success or failure. In the
‘
10
169
next several
months, King engaged
in a flurry of activity in order to establish the school on the
property.
He
appointed
teachers and invited G. F.
Taylor
to leave the Falcon Holiness School in North Carolina,
in order to become the
principal
of the new school. Taylor
was
obliged
to move his
family
and his successful
printing business to North
Georgia.38
All of these
arrangements
were made without the official consent of the church. This consent was not
granted
until
January 8, 1919. By then,
the school was
already
in
place, functioning
with a principal, teachers,
and students.
King presented afait accompli
to the General Board. At this
meeting
the General Board also initiated the formation of a new
orphanage
at Franklin
Springs.
This orphanage
was
quickly
closed due to a lack of
organization
and financial
support.39
I have
already
mentioned several factors which influenced
King’s desire to consolidate the Church
headquarters
at a fixed
geo- graphical location,
but a further
question
one
might
ask would
be, why King placed
such
importance
on the Franklin
Springs property when the more
logical
choice for a new
headquarters
would have been
Falcon,
North Carolina?
First,
it is
possible
that there still existed some tension between the two churches six
years
after the merger. I
do not wish to
suggest
that there existed
any
intense animosity
this
long
after the
merger,
but it is certain that the General
Superintendent
felt more comfortable in North
Georgia away
from the former
headquarters
of the Holiness Church of North Carolina.4? For
King,
this was more true of Franklin
Springs than
anywhere
else.
Second,
the Franklin
Springs property
was located
only
a few miles from his
boyhood
home.
Furthermore,
it is close to where he had so
successfully
conducted the affairs of the
Fire-Baptized Holiness Church. Franklin
Springs
was
definitely
more favorable to
King personally
than was the more distant
Falcon,
North Carolina.
Third, King
had himself lived in Falcon, North Carolina on two prior
occasions. In both instances,
King
had been
appointed by J. A. Culbreth, to a position with the Falcon Holiness School. He had worked
closely
with G. F. Taylor there. Both of these occasions had resulted in
King’s leaving
for
unexplained
reasons. Since both of these occasions were
during King’s period
of reflection
(and depression)
it is likely that he came to associate Falcon with this period
of his life. Falcon for him
might
have become a symbol of his failures.
By contrast,
all of
King’s personal
and administrative triumphs
had come in North
Georgia.
G. F.
Taylor
and J. A. Culbreth were still
present
in Falcon. Both
>
.
‘
.
.
‘
11
170
essentially
a North tablished successful
Carolina
Holiness Church when it was
Both men had es-
established at the
The school
had been members of the Pentecostal
organization.
institutions in Falcon which illustrated the leadership capability
of both men.
King might
have been uncomfort- able surrounded
by
men of proven administrative
leadership
in the midst of their own
symbols
of success.
King’s
desire to consolidate his administration at Franklin Springs
centered around his efforts to establish a school there. It has
already
been mentioned that the
orphanage,
same time as the
school,
failed
quickly
and
completely.
would have met the same
ignominious
fate had it not been for the will and determination of one man-G. F.
Taylor.
Had it not been for Taylor’s
persistence
in sustaining the school at Franklin
Springs well
beyond
its natural life
span, King’s early
administration and the
subsequent history
of the Pentecostal Holiness Church
might have been
quite
different.
King’s
fortunes as General
Super- intendent
very
much
depended upon
the success of at least one of his
enterprises
at Franklin
Springs.
It was
Taylor
who was
for that success. It
was, however,
a
Pyrric
accom-
responsible
First,
the school was demographic years
ably by
difficulty twenties.
plishment.
What factors led to the demise of the Franklin
Springs
Institute?
located
away
from the Center of the Church’s
concentration. This became
especially apparent
two
later when the
Georgia
Conference was weakened consider-
the
healing controversy
which resulted in the formation of the
Congregational
Holiness Church. This isolation from the Church’s center was
especially
in traveling in the rural South
during
the decade of the
acute when one considers the
Another factor which related to the demise of the Franklin
expended large
‘
plagued by
its
The Pentecostal Holiness established schools in
Greenville,
Springs
Institute was the unsuitable condition of the
property
for a school at the time of the
purchase.
A lack of
properly
heated facilities and a lack of the
necessary
school and
dining equipment caused immediate
hardship
at the school’s
inception.
G. F.
Taylor
sums of his own
private
income in order to keep the school afloat. Without
this,
substantial financial
support by
G. F. Taylor,
the school would never have survived.41
The Franklin
Springs
Institute was further
competition
from other institutions.
was
already supporting
Carolina and
Falcon,
North Carolina. For several
years
from the Western Conferences were
King’s College
at
Checotah,
This
problem
of official Church
financing
for the Franklin
Springs
Church
South
portions
of expected support diverted to the shortlived
Oklahoma.
12
171
Institute was further
complicated by King’s flurry
of arrangements at the school’s
beginning
without
properly soliciting
the Church’s support.
The denomination did not correct this
problem
until the Sixth General Conference in 1929.
The
early problems
with the Franklin
Springs
Institute were not totally
inherent in the
property
itself. This is evidenced
by
the fact that later
on,
a
school,
which served the Pentecostal Holiness Church
well,
was
successfully
established at Franklin
Springs.
The difference in the
founding
of the two
institutions, lay
in the establishment of an initial
philosophy
for the second one
along
with a commitment of the church’s financial
support. King
did neither for the Franklin
Springs
Institute.
All of these factors led to a general dissatisfaction
throughout
the Church
surrounding King’s projects
at the Franklin
Springs property.
The Church had
expected
more from
King’s leadership
in his first ten
years
than
heavy
debts on a school, and the
purchase
of a
property
of dubious value.
King’s
fortunes as General
Super- intendent became
increasingly
tied to the success of the Franklin Springs
Institute. These circumstances set the stage for the dramatic events
of 1929.42
In
April,
1929 it seemed that the fortune of the doomed Institute and the
apparently
unsuitable
property
had
changed.
J. A. Culbreth offered to give his school, his orphanage, and his
property at
Falcon,
North Carolina to the Pentecostal Holiness Church. In one
stroke,
all the financial difficulties and other setbacks associ- ated with the
property
at Franklin
Springs might
have been eliminated. G. F.
Taylor might
have realized his
lifelong
desire to head a successful
college
for the new Church. The
headquarters
for the Church would have been
significantly
closer to the Church’s demographic
center and
away
from the isolation of North
Georgia.
Culbreth’s
generous
offer was
rejected by
the Sixth General Conference of the Pentecostal Holiness Church in May, 1929 after King
had voiced his
strong opposition
to the move. One of
King’s stated
objections
to the Culbreth
offer,
was the
prohibitive
cost of moving
several families and the church’s
printing press
to Falcon. Unfortunately
such costs were to
pale against
the
expense
of remaining
at Franklin
Springs-,and keeping
the failed school afloat.43
One can
only speculate
as to why
King opposed
the
acceptance
of the Culbreth offer. It is likely that certain of the factors
previously discussed influenced his decision. It is also
likely
that
King
was concerned about
maintaining
his
position
of
leadership
in the church.
King’s
success as a leader had become
increasingly dependent upon
the success of the Franklin
Springs
Institute.
To.
.
‘
‘
‘
.
‘ ‘ .
13
172
conclude that
King’s
desire to maintain administrative control of the Church was due in part to selfish
motives, however, would be a gross misunderstanding
of
King
himself.
King
had
instinctively come to understand that his
position
of
leadership
in the Pente- costal Holiness Church was administrative as well as
theological. King’s
desire to force his will on the Church
regarding
the Franklin Springs property
reflected his
congruent
desire to force his theological
will on the Church. He came to associate the Church’s acceptance
of his
leadership regarding
the Franklin
Springs property
with the Church’s
acceptance
of his doctrine of
“pente- costal holiness.” Given
King’s subsequent
re-elections as General Superintendent,
in
spite
of the Church’s dissatisfaction with the events
surrounding
the Franklin
Springs property,
it is likely that the Church understood and
acquiesced
to
King’s
administration in the same
way.
III. The
Theology
of Pentecostal
Holiness
There has been much discussion
recently
about the
supposed
lack of a distinct
pentecostal theology.
While there
may
be a certain lack of theology within some areas of
Pentecostalism, depending upon what is meant
by “theology,”there
is no such lack
of theology
in the case of J. H.
King.
Part of the
problem
in evaluating any Pentecostal
theology
is the methodological presupposition
that
any
true
theology
must offer a significantly
different
interpretation of scriptural
truth or Christian experience
than
previous
ones. It is presupposed that
theological “borrowing” by any group
or
person
reflects the absence of a significant theology.
It would
appear
that such a
presupposition should be
rejected. Many theological
traditions have borrowed heavily
from their
predecessors
without
losing
the distinctiveness of their own
theology.
It is not
surprising
that
early
Pentecostalism borrowed
heavily
from other
theological traditions,
since the movement
aligned
itself within the center of several
already existing traditions. This
theological “borrowing,” however,
did not neces- sarily prohibit
the
development
of certain distinctives in Pente- costal
theology.
Though King
was
not, strictly speaking,
a
theologian,
he
was, nonetheless, capable
of substantial
theological
reflection and interpretation.
He had read
widely
in Holiness literature. He had successfully completed
the courses of
study
for ordination in the Methodist
Episcopal Church,
and he had
graduated
from a formal school of theology. He had a facility with Biblical
languages,
and he showed
familiarity
with the
problems
of Biblical criticism and
14
173
translation. He demonstrated a
precise knowledge
of
theological terms,
and a
general knowledge
of doctrinal
history.
This theo- logical understanding
was further
developed through
decades of careful
writing
and
editing
within the context of various churches and
experiences.
The fundamental
presuppostion
of King’s theology was that the doctrine and
experience
of “Pentecostal holiness” was authenti- .cally apostolic.
For
King,
Acts 2 recorded not
only
the
outpouring of the
Holy Spirit
on the New Testament
Church,
but also Peter’s doctrinal
interpretation
of that event in terms of the
person, work, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is in the actual event of the outpouring
of the
Holy Spirit
on the
day
of Pentecost and in its subsequent
doctrinal
interpretation
that one finds the essentials of King’s
distinctive
theology. King
could not conceive of
teaching
a religious experience,
which he believed to be
apostolic,
while rejecting what
he also understood to be authentic
apostolic doctrine.
The
importance
of
King’s
commitment in this connection between
experience
and doctrine can be seen in his use of the terms “Pentecost” and
“Apostolic.” King
understood his
experience
of Spirit-baptism
as being directly related to that of the one hundred twenty
on the
day
of Pentecost. The idea that the new revival was akin to the one that had
inaugurated
the
Apostolic
Church was a powerful one,
indeed.
King
was not oblivious to
understanding these
implications.
He made this
understanding explicit
on several occasions when he contrasted the
“Apostolic Pentecost,”
with the “Pacific Coast Pentecost.”
King’s
commitment to the
understanding
of his doctrine and experience
as
apostolic
is seen in his
interpretation
of the
Spirit- baptism itself.
He did not
interpret
the
outpouring
of the
Holy Spirit
on the
day
of Pentecost
exclusively
in charismatic terms. He interpreted
the event as a decisive revelation of the
Trinity
which was essential to the Church’s
message
and
self-understanding.
In this same
way, King interpreted bis
own
personal pentecostal experience
as an inward revelation of the
Trinity.
This inward revelation of the
Trinity
in the believer was unknowable to
anyone outside of the
pentecostal experience.
For
King,
this
knowledge
of the
Trinity
was
essential,
in order for the Church as a whole and the believer in
particular,
to be
truly apostolic.44
This
understanding
of the
apostolic
doctrine and
experience extended
beyond King’s understanding
of the
Spirit-baptism.
He was also
commited
to holiness
theology
and
experience.
This commitment to the holiness tradition had become fixed earlier in King’s
life.
.
‘
.
.
‘
‘
‘
_
15
174
a period
.
This
study
of the doctrine,
covering
of near five
years, thoroughly
convinced me that sanctification as an
experience
distinct from Justification was Scriptural. I was
rooted and
grounded
in this view of the
truth,
and have
‘
never been moved from it by any species of reasoning or
supposed Scriptural arguments
that have been put forth
by
the
opponents
of the Second
Blessing theory
of Holiness,
whether Calvinists, Antinomians, Zinzendorfians, or the
“Finished Work” advocates.
How grateful
I am to God that
I was thus established in sound doctrine in the beginning of
my
Christian life.45
,
To the
very
end of his
ministry, King
insisted that he had never altered his
understanding
of
scriptural
holiness.
I have never renounced the doctrine that the Adamic sin is
removed from the heart
subsequent
to the new birth. I do
not see that the soul is fully cleansed from all
eousness in the act of regneration.46
unright-
King’s understanding
of this
point
is illustrated in his use of the term “Pentecostal holiness.” The term is used twice in the Consti- tution and
General
Rules of the
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church in its theological sense. The term
“pentecostal”
was used
by King
as an adjective
to describe the doctrine and tradition of “holiness” which he had come to
espouse.
This
phrase encapsulated
the two traditions
upon
which
King
relied for his theology. He could just as well have termed his
theology “apostolic
holiness.”4′
The holiness
experience
related to the
Spirit-baptism
in one
very important way.
As a work of grace, the holiness
experience,
as King understood
it, treated
the sin
problem decisively,
and thus cleansed the believer in preparation for the
subsequent baptism
of the
Spirit. King
could not
separate
the idea of heart
purity
and the
indwelling of the
Holy Spirit.
Neither could he
separate
the idea of
personal ethics and charismatic
activity. King’s understanding
of
apostolic experience
included a commitment to the doctrine of entire sanctification as
necessary
before one could
experience
the real Spirit-baptis M. 41
King’s
contributions to a distinct Pentecostal
theology
can be summarized as follows:
I. He relied
upon Scripture, interpreted literally,
as the final authority
over
experience,
doctrine and
theological
tradition. This placed
him
squarely
in the Biblicist tradition and
supported
his understanding
of the doctrine and
experience
of Pentecostal holiness as
apostolic.
2.
King
was committed to what he understood as
apostolic doctrine. This was
especially
seen in his emphasis on an evangelical understanding
of the
person
and work of Jesus Christ to include his
16
175
death and resurrection. Also central to
King’s understanding
of apostolic
doctrine was a Trinitarian
understanding
of the God- head.49
3.
Bishop King
understood the
Spirit-baptism
as an authentic apostolic experience.
He saw the
pattern
for this doctrine and experience
in the New Testament itself. It is doubtful that
King would have ever
espoused
an
experience
whose
pattern
was not so clearly
identified in the New Testament.
–
This distinct
theological methodology
was
dependent upon
the relationship
of religious
experience
to
Scripture. King
understood this
experience
of “Pentecostal holiness” to be
authentically apostolic.
It was
only logical
for him to turn to the Bible for a theological interpretation
of this
experience.
The similarities between the events on the
day
of Pentecost and his own
religious experience
were too
powerful
to resist.
4.
Furthermore, Bishop King
understood the
experience
of Spirit-baptism
as a personal revelation of the
Trinity.
This reflected his understanding of the
Day
of Pentecost as a cosmic revelation of the
Trinity. Consequently
he understood the heart of the Church’s message
to be this
apostolic understanding
of the
Trinity.
5. A commitment to the holiness doctrine of entire sancti- fication which included an
understanding
of heart
purity,
was also important
to
King.
This
understanding
included a commitment to a high
standard of
personal
ethics as a consequence of heart
purity and the
Spirit-baptism.
6.
King’s
value as a source for
understanding
Christian
experi- ence can be seen in his
acceptance
of two distinct
experience oriented traditions and his subsequent theological
interpretation
of each. It was this
integration
of the two traditions which made his ,
“Pentecostal holiness.”
‘
‘
theology distinctly
His
theology
of “Pentecostal holiness” is not to be understood as simply addending
his
experience
of
Spirit-baptism
to his under- standing
of entire sanctification.
King
understood the two
experi- ences as
complimentary
and
inseparable.
For
King,
authentic apostolic experience
had to be spiritually satisfying and
scriptur- ally comprehensive. King reinterpreted
his understanding of entire sanctification as necessarily
preparatory
to the Pentecostal
infilling. He also understood the holiness
experience
as
influencing
the experience
of
Spirit-baptism qualitatively. King
did not
consider _ the
experiences
to be
separable.
He saw them more as one total experience
which he considered
apostolic.
The result was neither a purely
holiness nor a purely charismatic
understanding
of Christian experience
or the Christian life. It was
distinctly
an
experience
and life of “Pentecostal holiness.”
.
.
17
176
APPENDIX
Chronology
of the Life of
Bishop
J. H.
King,
Early Life
and
Ministry
1869-1897
August 11, 1869 – Joseph Hillery King
is born in Anderson
County,
South Carolina
January,
1883 –
King’s family
moves to Franklin
County, Georgia March, 1883 –
Attends Allen’s Church on the Carnesville Circuit for
the first time
August 11,
1885 –
King
is converted
August 17,
1885 –
King
united with Methodist
Episcopal Church,
South
October
23,
1885 –
King
has sanctification
experience
Year of 1886 –
King preaches
his first
sermon,
Anderson
County,
South Carolina
June, 1887 – King’s application
for License is
rejected by M.E.,
. South
August 10,
1890 – Marries the first time
Fall of 1890 – Licensed to
preach by M.E., (South)
in
Augusta,
Georgia
February, 1891 King joins
the Marietta Street Methodist
Episcopal
Church, (North)
in
Atlanta, Georgia
March,
1891 – Licensed to
preach by M.E., (North)
May,
1891 – Junior
Pastorship
in
M.E., (North)
January,
1892 – Admitted on Trial
by M.E., (North)
January,
1894 – Ordained a Deacon
by M.E., (North)
January,
1895 – Entered School of
Theology
at U.S. Grant
University
in Chatanooga, Tennessee
(now
the
University
of Tennessee at
Chatanooga)
January,
1896 – Ordained an Elder
by M.E., (North)
‘ May 11,
1897 – Graduates from U.S. Grant
University
Fire-Baptized
Holiness 1897-1906 December,
1897 –
King
encounters the
Fire-Baptized
Group
on
Simpson
Circuit in Northeast
Georgia
Holiness
18
177
January-February, 1898 – Pennington’s Chapel. King
later
professes
to have received the
experience
of fire-baptism
May 1,
1898 –
King resigns
from Methodist
Episcopal Church,
(North)
August,
1898 –
King
unites with
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church in
Anderson,
South Carolina
April,
1899 –
King begins
his
ministry
in
Toronto,
Canada with
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church
March,
1900 – Becomes Assistant Editor
of,
Live Coals
of Fire,
in
Lincoln,
Nebraska at B. H. Irwin’s invitation
July
2: 1900 – King
is elected General Overseer of the
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church after Irwin’s fall
.
.
1902-1907 –
King
edits Live Coals and works as General Overseer to
consolidate
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church in wake of
Irwin’s fall. The church is moved to
Royston, Georgia
Early
Pentecostal Period 1906-1909
September,
1906 –
King
hears about
“Apostolic
Faith” movement
for the first time
January,
1907 – King confronts the Pentecostals in Toccoa,
Georgia February 12,
1907 – G. B. Cashwell
begins
the
Toccoa, Georgia
meetings
after
returning
from Azusa Street in Los
Angeles,
California
‘
February 14,
1907 –
King
studies
scriptures relating
to the
Baptism
of the
Holy Spirit
and
prayed
February 15,
1907 –
King
receives the
Baptism
of the
Holy Spirit
with the evidence of tongues
February 16,
1907 – Leaders of the
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church
receives the
Baptism
of the
Holy Spirit
with the evidence of
tongues
April,
1908 –
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church
officially adopts
the
doctrine of “tongues as evidence”
December
31,
1908 –
King
locates in
Falcon,
North Carolina. He
begins working
with the Falcon Holiness School. He
begins
to
publish
The
Apostolic Evangel.
He
begins
the
Falcon
Orphanage
.
‘ ,
,
‘
‘
.
19
178
World Tour 1910-1912
May,
1909 – Travels to Oliver Mission in
Columbia,
South
Carolina. Here he is urged
by
Mr. and Mrs. Garr to make a
world tour
January 1,
1910 –
King
announces his intention to leave
Falcon,
North Carolina. He surrenders The Apostolic
Evangel
and
the Falcon
Orphanage
to Mr. J. A. Culbreth
September 20,
1910 –
King departs
San Francisco for
Hawaii,
Japan
and China
January 30,
1911 – Pentecostal Holiness Church and
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church
merge
at
Falcon,
North Carolina.
King
is
elected Assistant General
Superintendent
for
Foreign
Mission in absentia.
(This
was the First General Convention
of the P. H.
Church)
Year of 1911 –
King
travels to
Singapore
and India
June,
1911 –
Departs
India for Australia via
Ceylon
August,
1911 – Abandons the Australian tour due to lack of funds
and
returns to India
December,
1911 –
Departs
from India for the Middle East Year of
1912 – Departs
Palestine. He speaks at Pentecostal services
in
Switzerland, Norway, England,
Holland
Denmark,
Finland,
and Scotland
August 10,
1912 –
King
Arrives in America from Scotland
Wilderness Years 1912-1916
August, 1912 – King
is appointed Principal of the Falcon Holiness
School. Present in Falcon are J. A. Culbreth and G. F. . Taylor
,
January,
1913 – The Second General Convention of the P.H.
Church at
Toccoa, Georgia. King
is elected a General
Trustee of the P.H. Church and the President of the
General Missions Board
Fall of 1913 –
King
writes From Passover to Pentecost
November
1, 1915 – King
is elected
Superintendent
of the
Memphis
Conference in Tennessee
November,
1916 – King is re-elected
Superintendent
of the
Memphis
Conference in Tennessee
‘
20
., January,
is held at Abbeville,
179
1917-1934
..
.
Early
General
Superintendency
1917 – The Third General Conference of the P.H. Church .
South Carolina.
General
Superintendent.
Bible Conference in
conjunction
Conferences
He
King
is elected is commissioned to conduct a
with all of the Annual
.
throughout
the church
.
Year of 1917 –
King
conducts conferences
March
1, 1918 – The
Franklin
Springs property
is purchased by the
“”Pentecostal Benevolent Association”
1918 – A
decision
is made to build a school at Franklin
March,
Springs, Georgia
August,
is held at Franklin
Springs,
.
July,
1918 –
King appoints
Miss Blanche Leon Moore as a teacher
for the Franklin
Springs
Institute
1918 – A
campmeeting
Georgia.
It is the first official function of the P.H. Church
at the new site. G.F.
Taylor
attends in order to view
He
accepts King’s appointment
to lead the .
27,
1918 – G.F.
Taylor
arrives in Franklin
Springs,
‘
held
the property.
‘. new school
December
Georgia
with his
family January
term
1, 1919 – The Franklin Springs
Institute
opens
for its first
the ill-fated
orphanage
Georgia.
‘
regarding is held at Franklin
Springs,
South
. ‘
. ‘
January 8, 1919 – The
General Board of the P.H. Church establishes
at Franklin
Springs
and
officially
approves King’s arrangements
the new school
August,
1919 – A large
campmeeting
The Reverend N.J. Holmes of Greenville,
Carolina is fatally injured while
attending
Year of 1920 – The
healing controversy
the formation of the
.
Congregational
Church
results in
in the
Georgia
Conference
Holiness
.
‘
.
June
1, 1920 – King
marries Miss Blanche Leon Moore at Franklin
Over
1,000 people
attend
.
Springs, Georgia.
May,
1921 – The Fourth General
held at
Roanoke, Virginia.
Superintendent ‘
October,
1923 – Construction
at the Franklin
Springs
plagued by
debt
throughout
on the new academic
building begins
It’s construction is
Conference of the P.H. Church is.
King
is re-elected General
,
Institute.
1924.
Taylor
incurs a
heavy
21
180
.
debt, part
of it in his own
name,
in order to
complete
the
building
for the
upcoming
General Conference
May,
1925 – The Fifth General Conference of the P.H. Church is
held at Franklin
Springs, Georgia. King
is re-elected
General
Superintendent.
He is also
appointed
editor of the
Pentecostal Holiness Advocate in order to relieve G.F.
Taylor
October
28, 1925 – King’s College opens
in Checotah, Oklahoma. It
will close in 1932
February 4, 1926 – Taylor resigns
as Superintendent of the Franklin
Springs
Institute in order to
study
at
UNC-Chapel
Hill May,
1926 –
Ty
Cobb’s offer to
buy
the Franklin
Springs property
was made and withdrawn
October
23,
1926 – One of the three
original buildings
at the
Franklin
Springs
Institute is burned
March
23,
1928 – The second of the three
original buildings
at
the
Franklin
Springs
Institue is burned
Summer of 1928 – The General Board of the P.H.
Church,
led
by
King,
commits itself to erect a new school
building
at
Franklin
Springs, Georgia
in spite of the
heavy
debt which
already
exists. It is
completed,
after severe financial
hardship, in
1939
April,
1929 – J. A. Culbreth offers to
give
his
Falcon,
North
Carolina
holdings
to the church
May,
1929 – The Sixth General Conference of the P.H. Church
convenes at Oklahoma
City,
Oklahoma. The Culbreth .
offer is rejected. The Church makes a definite decision
to .
locate a
college
at Franklin
Springs. King
is re-elected
General
Superintendent
and released from the
editorship
of the Advocate
July 2, 1 93 1 – Taylor resigns
his post as head of the Franklin
Springs
Institute due to insurmountable financial burdens
June,
1933 – The Seventh General Conference of the P.H. Church
takes
place
at
Marion,
North Carolina.
King
is re-elected .
General
Superintendent
November
16,
1934 –
Taylor
dies at the
age
of 53
22
181
Later General
Superintendency
1935-1946
January,
1935 –
King
is re-appointed editor of the Advocate
upon
the death of
G.F. Taylor
.
June,
1937 – The
Eighth
General Conference of the P.H. Church
.
occurs at
Roanoke, Virginia. King is elected as General .
Superintendent, along
with Dan T. Muse. Here the title of
Bishop
is conferred.
King
is relieved of the Advocate
editorship
June,
1941 – The Ninth General Conference of the P.H. Church
takes
place
at Franklin
Springs, Georgia. King
is elected
General
Superintendent
under Dan T. Muse
September,
1941-
April, 1945 –
The
King family
lives in Washington,
D.C.
July,
1945 – The Tenth General Conference of the P.H. Church is
held at Oklahoma
City,
Oklahoma.
King
is re-elected
General
Superintendent
April 23,
1945 –
King
dies in
Anderson,
South Carolina
*David A. Alexander is an ordained minister with the Assemblies of God. He is currently a candidate for the MAR
degree
at
Wesley Biblical
Seminary
in Jackson,
Mississippi.
‘
‘Joseph
H. King, Yet Speaketh
(Franklin Springs,
Ga.: The Publishing House, 1949),
19-27.
2 Yet Speaketh, 33-34.
3The problems in developing an accurate
chronology
of
King’s
life are illustrated in this account.
King said he was sanctified on the first day of the convention which would have been the 20th. Then he gave the exact date as the 23rd. These
chronological problems
are recurrent in
King’s writings.
For a chronological account as f have reconstructed it,
please see the Appendix.
4 Yet Speaketh, 37-38. From Passover to
Pentecost, 1914, 150-15 1. ..
5See below, notes 16 and 18 for references to
King’s understanding
of fire-baptism
as sanctification.
6 Yet Speaketh, 41-42. See also Blanche King, interviewed
by A. M. Long (interview
from the Archives of the International Pentecostal Holiness Church)
June
11, 1951.
8 ‘ Yet Speaketh,
49. From Passover to Pentecost, 1 9 14, 1 55-1 57.
Yet Speaketh, 55-63. King did not describe the circumstances of how he was 9 led to Atlanta.
Yet Speaketh, 66.
.
‘
23
182
10 Yet Speaketh,
76-77.
Yet
Speaketh,
78. From Passover to
12
Pentecost, 1914, 163-164.
13 Yet Speaketh,
79.
14 Yet Speaketh.
Blanche
King interview,
June
11, 1951.
Yet Speaketh, 83-86.
15See below, n. 18.
16From Passover to Pentecost, 1 9 14, 1 64-1 65. King called his
at
experience
Pennington Chapel,
“full cleansing.”
‘ ‘ Yet Speaketh, 98-101. King mentions that he took
part
in the General Council of the FBHC
though
he is not explicit. He may have first attracted Irwin’s attention there. See The Pentecostal Holiness Advocate March
31, 1921. ‘8
Yet Speaketh, 104. The Pentecostal Holiness Advocate,
April 17, 1921; April 14, 21,
1921. This
rejection
of fire-baptism
subsequent
to sanctifi- cation is one of the most confusing points rising from
King’s ambiguity
in describing fire-baptism. King
insists that in September, 1906 he believed there was a Spirit-baptism
subsequent
to sanctification. I have concluded that
King came to reject fire-baptism
as a Spirit-baptism, that he came to understand
fire-baptism
as sanctification, and he ultimately
expected
a Spirit-baptism
which was subsequent to sanctification.
19 Yet Speaketh,
I I I – I 1 3.
20 Yet 21
Speaketh,
1 I 1-1 13. From Passover to Pentecost,
1914, 167.
Yei Speaketh. King described the
harmony
of the Fifth General Convention as
preparatory
for the
coming
doctrine and of
He also described a hunger for the Spirit-baptism
experience Spirit-baptism.
created in his heart when he read about Azusa Street. The Pentecostal Holiness Advocate, April 7,
1921. King
wrote,
“The Lord was
preparing
us for Pentecost
though
we knew it not.”
1 13-I 14.
_
22 Yet Speaketh,
23 Yet Speaketh, I 16. From Passover to Pentecost, 1914, 168-172.
24 Yet Speaketh, 1 13. Again reference the desire created for a
Spirit- baptism.
From Passover to Pentecost, 1914, 171-174.
25J. H. Ballard,
“Scriptural
Gifts with
Special
Reference to the Gift of Tongues,”
Live Coals,
February 13, 1907. It must have been bewildering
to receive this issue in the mail along with the news of King’s Spirit-baptism and his doctrine of tongues speaking!
26 Yet Speaketh, I 1 6- 1 1 9. From Passover to Pentecost, 1914, 179.
27 Yet Speaketh, 119. From Passover to Pentecost,
1914, 179.
28From Passover to Pentecost, 1914, 182.
29 Yet Speaketh,
30 Yet Speaketh,
120.
‘
122.
Yet Speaketh, 124.
32J.H.
King,
Constitution and General Rules
of
the
Fire-Baptized Holiness Church
(Royston, Georgia, 1908), 2.
3?It should be noted that
King’s happy marriage
to Miss Moore coincided with a crystalization of his theology and his election as General Superintendent.
24
183
34It is interesting that Frank Bartleman’s own world tour coincided with that of
King.
Bartleman had also
just
visited the Oliver Mission in Columbia,
South Carolina.
35 Yet
36
Speaketh, 145, 294-295…
Yet Speaketh, 302. King admits he had done nothing for the Memphis Conference as Superintendent. He actually
‘
had not even been in Tennessee for most of the
year.
3?King
was replacing G.F.
Taylor
as General
Superintendent. Though King
had
actually
founded the
orphanage
in
Falcon,
he had left it to Culbreth when he departed for his world tour. Culbreth was responsible for the orphanage’s success. King also left the new Apostolic Evangel in the same 38
way.
Yet Speaketh, 109. King had already sought to place the headquarters of the
Fire-Baptized
Holiness Church in North
Georgia.
He also had a vision of
establishing
an educational institution
along
with a Church headquarters.
See also The Pentecostal Holiness 39
Advocate, May 16, 1918.
Yet Speaketh, 315. King does not discuss these events in Yet Speaketh. He does call 1918 one of the most eventful
years
of his life. He credits Taylor
with opening the school!
Probably
because of his
prominent
role in . the PHC at this time Taylor became
something
of a scapegoat for these projects. Joseph Campbell,
The Pentecostal Holiness Church 1898-1948 (Franklin Springs,
Ga.: The Publishing House,
1951), 285-287.
aoCampbell,
287. Campbell mentions “sectional barriers” as late as 1925.
4’Vinson
Synan,
Emmanuel
College (Washington:
North
Washington Press, Inc.),
30.
_
42 Yet Speaketh, 334.
King
was not unaware of the Church’s dis-
. satisfaction. He mentioned
“misunderstandings”
and
“prejudice”
at the 1925 General
Conference,
320.
King
himself was more than
pleased
to
.
, accept
the Ty Cobb offer to
purchase
the property before it was withdrawn, 324. Campbell, 494.
43Though King
discusses the
negotiations surrounding
the
purchase
of Mr. Taylor’s printing
business,
he does not mention the Culbreth offer at all in Yet Speaketh. Campbell, 491. Evidently there was a strong movement in the Church to accept the Culbreth offer.
a4 Joseph
H. King, From Passover to Pentecost, Third Edition
(Franklin
. Springs,
Ga.: The Publishing House,
1955), 119, 136, 182-183, 192. Joseph H.
King,
From Passover to Pentecost
(-Memphis, Tenn.: H. W. Dixon Printing Co., 1914),
179. It is interesting to note that Frank Bartleman interprets
his experience of Spirit-baptism in terms of God’s
sovereignty. 45King,.
From Passover to Pentecost, 1914, 148-149. ab
Yet Speaketh, 42.
4?King,
Constitution and General ‘ Rules, 8 and 13. See also Yet
. Speaketh,
137.
48Frorn Passover to Pentecost, Third Edition, 118-125, and 153.
49 From Passover to Pentecost, 182.
King wrote,
“I have a
higher
. appreciation
of the atonement of Christ,” as a direct result of the
Spirit-
See also From Passover to Pentecost, Third
Edition, 133, 146-
‘ baptism.
148,
153 and 187.
.
_
.
..
‘
.
_
25
Leave a Reply