The United Holy Church of America: A Study in Black Holiness-Pentecostalism 9781593333621, 1593333625

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
PREFACE
1. THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC.
2. THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER
3. PROFILES OF THE FATHERS
4. HOLY CONVOCATION
5. THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL
6. HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
8. INDEX

Citation preview

The United Holy Church of America

Gorgias Studies in Religion

23

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs on all aspects of religion in both the ancient and modern worlds. Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution towards the study of religion. Studies on Judaism, Islam and early Christianity and Patristics have their own series and will not be included in this series.

The United Holy Church of America

A Study in Black Holiness-Pentecostalism

William C. Turner, Jr.

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014

‫ܙ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-59333-362-1

ISSN 1935-6870

Reprinted from the 2006 Gorgias Press edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

To my parents, William Sr. and Ruth Turner, who nurtured me and brought me to faith; To my wife Joyce, for patience, support and encouragement; To my adult children, Jamila, Clair, Freddie, and Alice; To my Christian family in the many churches where I have worshipped and served; To teachers, mentors, and colleagues, for intellectual stimulation; TO GOD, WHO GIVES LIFE AND ZEAL.

CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix 1 The Emergence of the United Holy Church of America, Inc. . . . . . . . 1 Manifold Social Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Black Life prior to the Civil War. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Social Conditions in the Late Nineteenth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Essential Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 The American Church in the Midst of the Change . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Resurgence of Holiness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 The Black Church and the Storm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The United Holy Church Is Born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2 The United Holy Church Achieves Its Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 The Classic Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 The Growth of Convocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Internal Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Outward Posture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3 Profiles of the Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 The Fathers as Ministry Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Fisher: The Man of Compassion and Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Branch: The Holy Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Diggs: The Scholar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Houston: The Interpreter of Mysteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Lyons: The Healer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Nichols: The Missionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4 Holy Convocation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Convocation as Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Time and Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Communitas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Prayer, Praise, and Ecstasy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

vii

viii 5

6

7

8

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA The Blackness of Black Holiness-Pentecostal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Question of Blackness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Afro-Christian Consciousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Model for Black Holiness-Pentecostalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Holiness, Pentecostalism, and Black Church Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . The Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Inside View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Matter of Black and White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Black Theology and Black Holiness-Pentecostal Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Black Sacred Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Folkloric Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unpublished Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Books and Articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113 113 117 120 137 146 151 153 155 158 163 164 166 168 169 169 169 177

PREFACE This study of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism is undertaken through a focus on the United Holy Church of America as a representative group. The study seeks to show the United Holy Church as an integral part of the Afro-Christian tradition and as expression of reform within the Black Church. As such, the study provides an alternate to most existing accounts of Black HolinessPentecostalism. The method of the study is sociology of religion. As a branch of the scientific study of religion, this method allows the phenomenon to be brought into view as an empirical reality without reducing the religious dimension. Indeed, the study is an explicit attempt to grasp the religious essence as the primary modality for determining the meaning of the phenomenon. Accordingly, high priority is given to the hermeneutical task. Chapter 1 focuses on the emergence of the United Holy Church against the background of America religious and social history. It explores the roots of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism in the evangelical Protestant tradition and the black religious experience. Further, it examines the inter-relationship of black religious experiences with the social history of the nation as it wrestled with the issues of industrialization, race, and the change from a rural to an urban society. The United Holy Church and Black Holiness-Pentecostalism are presented as outgrowths of the Black Church during those times. Chapter 2 completes the emergent phase and describes the young denomination in its development phase. This phase, coinciding with the tenure of Henry L. Fisher and G. J. Branch as president and vice president respectively, is characterized as the period during which the church experienced its greatest expansion, assumed its fixed structure, crystallized its teaching and doctrine, assumed a discernible social posture, and made strides toward institutional development. Both its inner integrity and its outward extension into society are brought into focus to show how it was a part of the Black Church. Chapter 3 probes the United Holy Church to understand its inner life by looking closely at the persons who had the most profound effect on the institution during the years it took on shape and character. This is done ix

x

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

through profiles of people who figured most prominently in that development. The types are constructed in a manner intended to reveal the inner motivation of the institution. These profiles provide means for investigating characteristic features of the United Holy Church and the way its inner life was fashioned through the instruments of preaching and teaching. This is done by showing the manner in which the Fathers’ teaching, labor, personalities, and overall wisdom influenced the institution, giving it character. Chapter 4 is a description and analysis of Holy Convocation, a session that brings together in the most comprehensive way the full range of practices that give expression to the religious phenomenon in question. Convocation encapsulates nearly every pulsebeat of the organism, bringing together the vast array of language, symbols, gestures, and rituals. As such, it holds one of the hermeneutical keys to understanding Black Holiness-Pentecostalism. Such an exploration of the manifold dynamics encountered in convocation amounts to ethnography. It lays bare the meaningful structures in such a way that the characteristic features of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism can come to light. Chapter 5 examines the relationship between the spirituality of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism and the larger Black Church. Exception is taken to the portrayal of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism that presents it as something essentially different from the historic Black Church or as part of a trend within black religion that rejects the Christian faith. Instead, Black HolinessPentecostalism, as expressed in the United Holy Church of America, is viewed as a reformation of the Black Church from within to preserve a spirituality that in the view of many devout men and women was being lost. Examination of the mutual tensions between Holiness and spiritual empowerment as prophetic social consciousness as exhibited in the United Holy Church is offered as a model for elucidating the blackness of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism and the particularity of this expression of Christianity in America. Chapter 6 details the technical approach and reviews representative works in the field. With some studies, the inadequacy is highlighted; with other studies, an attempt is made to see parallel contributions. An effort is made to show from the literature on the Black Church how the United Holy Church of America, a representative group, is part of the larger constellation that emerged in the twentieth century. Examination of each “family member” is essential before the portrait is complete and mutual interpretation can be done in an adequate manner. The thesis of this study is that the United Holy Church of America, an expression of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism, represents a manifestation of

PREFACE

xi

black religion, which constitutes an integral aspect of the Black Church in America. Religiously speaking, it is to be understood as a particular collective experience of the response to “Ultimate Reality” in America, which keeps alive in mutual and tensional relationship the dynamics of Holiness, spiritual empowerment, and prophetic social consciousness. In the history of religion in America, the relationship, intensely preserved in the United Holy Church of America, is characteristically black; historically, it is the most distinctive feature of the Black Church in America. The religious meaning of the United Holy Church of America suggests that Black Holiness-Pentecostalism offers an appropriate focus for the understanding of Pentecostalism and for internal critique of American Christianity. This book originated as a doctoral dissertation completed for the Graduate School of Religion at Duke University in May 1984. The committee was chaired by C. Eric Lincoln and the other members were Charles H. Long, Frederick Herzog, Grant S. Schockley, and Raymond Gavins.

1 THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC. MANIFOLD SOCIAL CURRENTS The United Holy Church of America, Inc., came into being during a period of tremendous change. The late nineteenth century was a time of fermentation that is perhaps unmatched in the history of the United States. Indeed, 1886, which is the date given for the initial meeting out of which the United Holy Church emerged, is little more than twenty years removed from the Civil War. These were days when the nation had to reckon as never before with the presence of black men and women, for in the eyes of the American population as a whole, the black presence was nothing more than a nuisance. Prior to the Civil War, black people were slaves—hewers of wood and drawers of water. Black men were classed along with the mules and pigs as property of the slave owner. Black women, like all other female livestock, were for the purpose of breeding and reproducing more resources for toil and labor. Even in those sections of the nation that abolished slavery before the war, black men and women were unwelcome. Their presence agitated the immigrants who saw them as an impediment to the promise and dream America represented to them, and there was ever the threat of rioting and violence. What is more, people in the free states never knew when a Southerner would arrive on the scene to reclaim black property and cause untold trouble for those charged with keeping the law and the peace. Again, these were troubled days in the nation as a whole. In addition to having to face the task and toils of rebuilding a republic that had been viciously torn by internal strife, the United States was undergoing the pain of transition from a rustic and agrarian past to a modern, industrial, and urban era. No longer could farmers, entrepreneurs, and industrialists be left alone to earn according to their personal aggressiveness and ingenuity. Without a comprehensive policy for the nation, economic markets would be destroyed through overproduction, the population of cities would swell beyond the capacity of the facilities, and some of the poor and less aggressive would be left to die without even a trace of their struggle. 1

2

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

The Church, too, was caught in the storm. She had long been forced to wrestle with her mandate from the gospel as it related to the African who was brought to the shores of America as a slave. Very early in her history in Colonial America, the decision was made by the Church that as a whole she would not labor for the freedom of Africans. Some groups took a rather passive attitude toward the evangelization of Africans, while others vigorously sought to take them a gospel of spiritual freedom that neither set them free nor threatened the vile institution of slavery. Even where these Africans were claimed as brothers and sisters in Christ, they were subjected to indignities that were sufficient to prompt a black exodus from most of the evangelical denominations. But just prior to the War, the tensions were such that denominational churches were rent asunder; and following the war, these issues did not abate. Within the American Church as a whole—especially the Protestant denominations—there were violent reactions to the changes brought by the urbanization and modernization of the nation. The time-honored practices of rural churches were threatened as members moved to the cities and were subjected to new influences. Modern and enlightened thought encroaching from scientific research, and theories of knowledge filtering in from Europe and the more intellectual Northeast, disrupted the placidity of simple faith which had nurtured the spirit during the colonial days and during the early period of the new nation. The collision between the old and the new sent shock waves throughout the Church. The Black Church that had been more or less unified in its purpose during the days of slavery could not remain aloof. Before the war, all persons of African descent were either slaves or a step or two removed from slavery. Even in “freedom” and in “free” states, black people were subject to having their rights summarily stripped from them. The common plight made the issues of manumission and freedom the top agenda item for all. But following the War, some blacks were to move to positions of relative prominence and insulation from grinding poverty and brutal disenfranchisement. Some, because of unusual educational and employment opportunities, fashioned their version of the middle class, and even in their churches distinctions arose that made them seem foreign to those who knew only a religion of free expression and joyful praise. No one of these issues can be claimed exclusively as the cause for the rise of Holiness-Pentecostalism among black Americans. Indeed, no combination of these elements can give the one hermeneutical key. But since institutional expressions of religion are historical and social manifestations, they are part of the total social reality and can be adequately treated only when

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC. 3 that total reality is brought into view. Accordingly, the historical and social picture of the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries must be sketched before the emergence of the United Holy Church of America can be brought into focus.

BLACK LIFE PRIOR TO THE CIVIL WAR Prior to the Civil War, there was hardly a question regarding the status of slaves and the absolute authority of their masters over them. But despite the generally inhumane treatment they received, slaves remained necessary to the economy. The few who were free posed no threat to working-class whites until the days immediately preceding the War. Then, in the last of the antebellum years, a change took place. The overall prospects for blacks began to plunge downward, and with the exception of a brief respite in a few locations during Reconstruction, this pattern continued well into the twentieth century. In the antebellum cities there was a somewhat different lot for slaves and free blacks. Free blacks still did not have the privileges of free citizens accorded white persons. But neither did they suffer the abject condition of being owned outright as property. Even some slaves in the urban centers enjoyed a lot somewhat above that of their counterparts on the plantation, for it was not possible to maintain close surveillance and restriction on their movements as was done away from the cities. Although most of the urban slaves were domestic servants or unskilled workers, a significant number were skilled artisans. Slave owners in the cities derived a portion of their income from hiring out their slaves for some period of time, up to a year. Slaves with highly developed skills could earn considerable income for their masters. In Richmond, Virginia, for example, most of the slaves were in ironworks and tobacco-processing plants. Their employment ranged from the most menial work to highly skilled jobs. Some masters even encouraged their slaves to find their own jobs and keep a portion of the wages. Indeed, any number of slaves eventually purchased their freedom through this means.1 Blacks, both slaves and free, found their way into the skilled labor market as mechanics and tradesmen.2 Among the well-to-do whites, blacks also found quite a demand for their services as blacksmiths, grocers, and expert tailors. In some of the Southern cities, free blacks monopolized the barbering profession and practically controlled the building trade, and they were 1 2

August Meier and Elliott Rudwick, From Plantation to Ghetto, 87–89. Ibid., 10.

4

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

prominent as shoemakers, butchers, and caterers. Others worked as hackmen and draymen. On occasion, some were so successful and industrious as to own their own businesses, such as livery stables, coal and lumberyards, and hotels. New Orleans is a case in point: “In 1850, New Orleans’ free blacks included one architect, five jewelers, four physicians, eleven music teachers, and fifty-two merchants.”3 Overall, the prospect for the black entrepreneurs and skilled laborers was far better in the South than in the North, but in all cases it was difficult for blacks to obtain the capital that was required to establish themselves in business. In the South, the skilled black laborers who were slaves had the social and political advantages of their owners to secure and maintain their position in the work market. But in the North, they were on their own in a social arrangement that was mostly inimical to them. Where white businessmen would consent to employ blacks, they were often confronted with the refusal of white laborers to work with them. Eventually this tension erupted into open violence sparked by white workers who felt that their position in the labor market was being eroded. The situation for black skilled labor steadily deteriorated during the nineteenth century. It declined in the South, where there had been little tension, and in the Northeast it went from bad to worse. As Meier and Rudwick put it: As the white working class grew in numbers in the Southern cities, its members made determined efforts to exclude Negroes from the better paying occupations. Savannah ordinances of 1822 and 1831 barred both slave and free Negroes from most of the skilled trades. In 1845 Georgia made it a misdemeanor for a black mechanic to make a contract for the repair of construction of buildings. By the 1840’s the number of black draymen had declined sharply in New Orleans.4

In the South, the competition came from an expanding working class, which resulted in large measure from the growth of plantations to mammoth size. In the North, the competition for black labor came from immigrants. As the Civil War drew near, nearly five million immigrants arrived with hungry stomachs and no marketable skills. The Irish experienced discrimination from the other white Americans and took it out on black workers. Meier and Rudwick quote Fredrick Douglass as observing in 1850 that “every hour sees the black man elbowed out of employment by some newly arrived immigrant whose hunger and whose color are thought to give him a better 3 4

Ibid., 116. Ibid., 115–16.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC. 5 title to the place.”5 In the course of time, blacks were forced out of nearly all the jobs that had characteristically been left to them. At the docks, railyards, and coal mines, black workers were even attacked: Gradually many Negroes were displaced as laborers in these areas in other occupations, such as hod carriers, waiters, barbers, even porters and bootblacks. Black women, who could count on a degree of economic security even when their husbands could not, began losing positions as maids, cooks, and washerwomen. On the waterfront, economic competition and hostility between the two groups was exacerbated when employers, playing one race against the other, hired black workmen as strikebreakers. In New York City this policy produced between the predominantly Irish longshoreman and Blacks, an intense animosity that came to a violent climax in the bloody race riots of 1863.6

Following the War, many blacks went to the urban centers of the South seeking the comfort and protection of the troops who camped in or around these cities. They followed these troops to escape from plantations and the cruelty of masters who could not abide the thought of their former slaves being free persons. Others left simply for the purpose of asserting their freedom and their newfound ability to move from one place to another without asking permission. But many of those who went to these urban centers found their lot most disappointing and dangerous. Some died from hunger, exposure, neglect, or foul play. Others simply disappeared, leaving no trace of their whereabouts. Still others returned to the plantations for lack of work in the cities. Howard N. Rabinowitz, in his study entitled Race Relations in the Urban South, 1885–1890, discusses some of the factors involved: There were many reasons for this flow to the cities; and despite unsatisfactory living conditions the migration continued and even intensified. Many former slaves were simply influenced by the headiness of freedom, which removed their bonds to the land and permitted them to flee the control of their masters. Often they fled the countryside from fear of reprisal by whites who refused to accept their new status. The cities served as sanctuaries housing the federal troops and later the headquarters of the Reconstruction governments; there too was safety in numbers. “They leave the country in many instances because they are outraged, because their lives are threatened; they run to the cities as an asylum,” testified the black leader Henry M. Turner at the Congressional hearings investigating the Ku Klux Klan in 1871. At the same hearings Negroes from Atlanta and Montgomery confirmed that they had fled 5 6

Ibid., 117. Ibid.

6

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA those cities in order to escape white violence in the rural areas. Not only violence drove them from the land. According to Henry Turner, another reason for the migration was that many freedmen were tired of working all year without getting the wages they had been promised.7

But there was no desire on the part of the city fathers for these black freedmen to be included among their citizenry, for the racist and paternalistic notion that black men and women belonged on the farm was still very much in vogue everywhere the blacks sought refuge. Black men and women were regarded by white Southerners as a “swarm” descending on them, “engulfing” them, and “disrupting the previous pattern of urban life.”8 An Englishman speaking the sentiment of many wrote of blacks in Richmond that they “fill the streets of Richmond and other Southern cities with crowds of great, hulking, idle black men, with their tattered and filthy women, and more than half naked, neglected children.”9 Recognizing the potential tragedy that was building, the Freedman’s Bureau and the Army concurred that “all humane and rightful means should be employed to prevent their crowding into cities and towns where they will suffer from high rents, scarcity of fuel and infectious disease.” Judicial agents of the Bureau were ordered to send “all Freedmen found sleeping in the streets, or in excessively crowded rooms, or who are otherwise committed as Vagrants” to specially designated farms.10 Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the pattern of migration had already become a significant factor in black–white relations. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the trek was from South to North. But toward the close of the nineteenth century, the movement from rural to urban settings had become a pattern all over the South. By the year 1890, the black population of Raleigh, North Carolina, was 50.1 percent black, and in the four urban centers of Atlanta, Richmond, Nashville, and Montgomery, the portion of the population that was black ranged from a low of 40 percent for Richmond to a high of 59 percent for Montgomery. White opinion was virtually unanimous that the city was no place for blacks. In freedom as in slavery, their place was believed to be on the farm. “Our advice to them is to go into the country and cultivate the soil, the employment God designed them for, and which they must do or starve,” declared the Montgomery Daily Ledger in 1865. Added its editor, the city was 7 8 9 10

Howard Rabinowitz, Racial Relations in the Urban South, 22. Ibid., 21. Ibid. Ibid.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC. 7 “intended for white people.” Few others would entirely exclude Negroes from urban areas, but most whites would have agreed with the Atlanta Constitution that “no better laborer for cotton than the colored man can be found” and would have shared its disappointment that “he is unwilling to leave the city to go into the country on a farm.” In 1873, immigration agents in Nashville estimated that there were about two or three hundred able-bodied Negroes in the city without regular employment. The Republican Banner argued that their services were severely needed in the countryside, but “They will not leave the city under any consideration, and when asked if they would like to work in the rural districts, scornfully reply that they have been living in the city for so many years and if the agents wanted anybody to go they had better go themselves.”11 There is little doubt, then, that this lack of welcome on the part of whites, accompanied by the utter refusal of blacks to leave, contributed to the vicious and brutal violence heaped on blacks. Compounding these factors, there was the general unwillingness of the Army to be any more punitive toward the defeated South than in their judgment was absolutely necessary. The overall effect was an utterly dismal outlook for black men and women in this time.

SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY The late nineteenth century was characterized by monumental and revolutionary changes in the social makeup of the country. Chief among these was the swift pace at which America changed from a rural to an urban country. In 1850, less than 13 percent of all Americans lived in cities, and only nine of these cities contained more than fifty thousand people. But by 1920, over half of all Americans had made their home in the urban centers. Continuing at that quickened pace, 60 percent of Americans had made their homes in the city by 1950. This movement from the rural areas to the cities was spurred in large measure by the great increase in the sophistication of agricultural technology. No longer was it necessary for each individual and each family to eke out subsistence from the good earth. Instead, people were free to pursue life in its broader dimensions. One of the first consequences was to move from the rural areas that could no longer satisfy a people with leisure time.12 Along with this movement came serious and significant social pressures resulting from the inadequacies of cities to accommodate this infix. Overall, 11 12

Ibid., 24. Carl N. Degler, Out of Our Past, 304–5.

8

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

life in the city was inimical to the well-being of those who had their roots planted deep in the soil and milieu of America’s countryside.13 The impediments of urban life notwithstanding, country life was unable to satisfy the population. Without the overwhelming preoccupation of the labor that had characterized the pre-technological era, the energies of those who lived in the country could not be fully absorbed. In addition, values of the urban areas were penetrating the entire country, such that apart from differences in physical outlay and ecology, the division had become much less pronounced. Indeed, in 1909 President Theodore Roosevelt told the Congress: It would be idle to assert that life on the farm occupies as good a position of dignity, desirability, and business results as farmers might easily give it if they chose. One of the chief difficulties is the failure of country life, as it exists at the present, to satisfy the higher social and intellectual aspirations of country people.14

But these were even more perilous times for black Americans. C. Eric Lincoln summarizes them as follows: Floods, crop failures, boll weevils, and night-riding Klansmen all served to hasten the Negro’s exodus from the South. One hundred Negroes were lynched during the first year of the twentieth century. By the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the number lynched stood at 1,100. When the war was over, the practice was resumed—twenty-eight Negroes were burned alive between 1918 and 1921. Scores of others were dispatched by equally cruel methods.15

Those who left the worn-out lands that had sustained the huge plantations of the antebellum South for the fertile undeveloped lands of the rich Mississippi Delta were rudely met by “the lynch rope and the flaming cross, and by a crass interpretation of white supremacy as meaning total black subjection in every single aspect of racial contact or style of life.”16 According to Lincoln: In the last sixteen years of the nineteenth century, 2,600 human beings were sacrificed to the rope and faggot. Thereafter, from 1900 to the outbreak of the World War I in 1914, the pace of killing was more leisurely; an annual average of seventy-eight black men and women graced the

13 14 15 16

Ibid., 319. C. Eric Lincoln, Sounds of the Struggle: Persons and Perspectives on Civil Rights, 51. Ibid., 227. Ibid.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC. 9 magnolias, or popped and sputtered in the bonfires before the altar of white supremacy.17

Statistics show how swift the exodus was when opportunities became available in the North and West, firing the hopes, which made the risks worthwhile. For the 120 years from 1790 to 1919, nearly 90 percent of all blacks in the United States lived in the South. During this period, the percentage varied by only two points—from 91 in 1790 to 89 in 1910. In terms of raw numbers, between 1910 and 1920 net migration of Negroes from the South was 454,000; between 1920 and 1930, about three-quarters of a million; from 1930 to 1940, 347,000; during the next decade between 1940 and 1950, 1.2 million, and between 1950 and 1960, 1.5 million.18

For the most part, this change in the prospective fortunes of blacks in the North was due to the consequences of World War I. The flow of European immigrants ended. At the same time, the demands on industry escalated astronomically, with the need for ships, tanks, guns, and munitions to supply both the Allies and the United States. When the foolishness of prejudice yielded to the truth that blacks as well as immigrants could be trained for skilled labor, the demand for black labor was greater than the flow of black immigrants from the South could supply. Labor agents were required to augment the flow. Through advancing the cost of travel, agents made possible the relocation of countless thousands of blacks seeking refuge from the cauldrons of Dixie and the promise of better days above the MasonDixon Line. Throughout this mammoth social revolution, the Church did not remain unaffected. Indeed, the ineptitude of Protestantism, countered by the appeal of Catholicism for the masses in the cities, forced changes in the posture of Protestantism as a whole. Most significant for our purposes, this is the era that witnessed the proliferation of Holiness associations and churches. Indeed, there is a sense in which the Holiness movement was for the poor and dispossessed in rural regions of the West what Roman Catholicism was to immigrants in the East, namely, a haven of refuge. But Holiness was also that haven of refuge in the East and in the urban centers for those who, because of their bias toward Protestantism, could not embrace the Roman way.19 17 18 19

Ibid., 229. Ibid. Degler, Out of Our Past, 341.

10

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS “Holiness” is the equivalent of the Greek word (hagios) that means “sanctified,” or set apart. This term is used in the New Testament writings to designate the practices consistent with the teachings of Jesus—living in Christ, walking in the Spirit. The early church went further, calling for separation from pagan culture to live the holy life. The term was given renewed prominence by John Wesley and those who searched with him for “methods” of attaining the life of Holiness. Among some Methodists and within evangelical circles, Holiness was associated with a discrete religious experience following conversion that perfected love for God and resulted in a life of strict discipline, deep devotion, and selfless service. The discrete experience, called “entire sanctification,” was also known as the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or Spirit baptism. Adherence to this teaching, known as Holiness doctrine, led increasingly to a separate identity. While some adherents remained within their local churches, others preferred to leave, and still others were expelled. Pentecostalism, which has roots in the Holiness movement, went further to accent gifts of the Spirit. Special place was given to speaking with tongues as initial evidence of Spirit baptism, and to gifts that manifest the dynamic power of God in the church. Some Pentecostals embraced the doctrine of Holiness teaching on sanctification, but they reserved the name Spirit baptism for the experience where speaking with tongues was the evidence. Examples include the denominational churches known as the Church of God in Christ and the Pentecostal Holiness Church. Other Pentecostals embraced the doctrine of Spirit baptism with tongues as evidence, while rejecting the Holiness teaching of sanctification as a separate experience. An example is the Assemblies of God. Another group of Pentecostals embraced the doctrine of Spirit baptism with tongues as evidence, but rejected the Holiness doctrine of sanctification, the Trinitarian formula for baptism, and the doctrine of the trinity. They are known as Apostolics, or Oneness Pentecostals. An example is the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. The term Holiness-Pentecostal is reserved in this book for those who accepted the Holiness doctrine of sanctification as a life of strict discipline, deep devotion, selfless service, and a discrete experience. The baptism of the Holy Spirit (actually the “baptism of the Holy Ghost” was the preferred expression) was called a gift of power that could come with entire sanctification, or in a separate experience. Speaking with tongues frequently accompanied the experience and was affirmed. This is different from Holiness churches who rejected speaking in tongues, considering it a gift that ceased with the early church. But the doctrine of speaking with tongues as “necessary initial evidence” was never adopted formally by the United Holy

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC.11 Church. Nor was there the distinction between the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and baptism “in” the Holy Ghost that some Pentecostals prefer to make. With this terminology I wish to indicate that I am looking at “one member of a much larger family,” with the United Holy Church serving as a case study of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism.20 One might go so far as to consider the Holiness movement and Pentecostalism that followed as a reform of Protestantism that adjusted the valences on orthodoxy as right opinion about God, and orthodoxy as right experience of God. With Pentecostalism, the adjustment goes as far as to set forth an orthodoxy to say what that “right experience” of God is. Chapter 5 below, in particular, probes for the tensions and balances that were at stake.

THE AMERICAN CHURCH IN THE MIDST OF THE CHANGE Throughout her long history in America, the Church has been caught in the throes of social and political changes, sometimes being the catalyst and at other times merely reacting. More so than any other denomination, the Methodist Church found itself caught in the eye of the storm. In the process it was violently convulsed, especially over the issue of Holiness and the relationship the church would maintain with black members. These two issues over which the church was exercised so greatly are by no means unrelated. From the beginning, Methodism in this country was characterized by enthusiasm. Methodism, as taught and preached by John Wesley and his followers, held that conversion was such that one was justified before God, but that a residue of sin remained. The penitent one was forgiven, but the inbred sin resulting from the Fall of Adam was to be removed through a second work, or a second blessing, called sanctification. “This experience purified the believer of inward sin and gave him ‘perfect love’ toward God and man.”21 In the teaching of Wesley, such perfection did not mean that there would be no flaws in judgment, that there would be none of the physical and mental passion common to men, or that there would be no more temptations. One was still capable of willful disobedience, which would allow him to fall into sin again. Wesley taught, “A perfection of motives and desires was attainable in this life. ‘Sinless perfection’ would come only after death.”22 In the meantime, the sanctified soul, through careful self-examination, godly discipline, methodical devotion, and avoidance of worldly plea20

See William C. Turner, Jr., “A Review of African American Holiness/Pentecostal/Apostolics.” 21 Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States, 18–19. 22 Ibid., 19.

12

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

sures, could live a life of victory over sin. Some early Methodists in America, according to Vinson Synan, taught that this second blessing, or sanctification, was accomplished in a definite experience. This was an experience of intense emotion and was often accompanied by exceedingly strong motor manifestations. Among the practical implications of this emphasis on sanctification was the manner in which it translated into social consciousness. Its ascendancy was accompanied by a corresponding decline of the gloomier view of humankind and the world that attended Calvinism. The more intellectualized version of this mood was seen in the ethical ideals of Emerson and Thoreau and received classic expression in Transcendentalism and Unitarianism, which became a “refuge for a few romanticist intellectuals.”23 But the common man’s counterpart was the perfectionism of Methodism. Perfectionism as advanced by the Methodists was a sort of “evangelical transcendentalism” which “thrived on the idealism of the young and growing America.”24 This perfectionistic outlook replaced the notion that men and women were doomed to a world order of oppression, brutality, and inhumanity. Even though these elements of behavior were prevalent, the possibility of stamping them out existed with the help of the Lord. Along with the drive to perfect sanctification, there arose a parallel drive to stamp out the evil of slavery. Sanctified Christians came to believe that slavery was a blot on society and the church and that it should be abolished. Antislavery thought was the direct cause of the formation of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in New York and New England in 1843–44. Leaders of the new sect charged that by compromising with the evil of slavery, the Methodist Episcopal Church had renounced its duty to become “evangelically anti-slavery.”25 In addition to fighting against slavery, those possessed of the zeal resulting from the desire for perfection besought Christians to bring about reforms with respect to women’s rights, to combat Masonry, and to enforce the cause of Prohibition. A consequence of this alliance between evangelical perfection and social reform was the effective elimination of the Southern churches from this quest for Holiness. Because the champions of Holiness took a particular posture against slavery that was claimed to be a consequence of perfect love, the Southern insistence on slavery brought two warring religious camps into being. Long before 1858, the Southern churches had largely abandoned the 23 24 25

Ibid., 28. Ibid. Ibid., 30.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC.13 quest for Holiness, in theory and in practice. From about 1830 until the outbreak of war, Southern theological energies were directed toward supporting and defending the institution of slavery. By the time of the War, Holiness had become a “bad letter in the Southern churches, and the early holiness movement had come to an end.”26

THE RESURGENCE OF HOLINESS The Methodist Church, with its exceedingly large following among black Americans, was severely agitated from within by issues of Holiness and social responsibility. In particular, the Wesleyan Methodist Church, established largely due to the discontent and efforts of the Reverend Orange Scott, was strongly committed to the abolition of slavery along with its firm position of Christian perfection. The issue of slavery was ripping the Methodist Church from stem to stern in the 1840s. The catalyzing event was the decision of the General Conference of 1844 that Bishop James O. Andrew, who had come into the possession of slaves by marriage, not be allowed to exercise the prerogatives of his office until he ceased being a slaveholder. While the Northern conferences considered this to be the minimum censure required to maintain the integrity of the Methodist Church, the Southern conferences considered this to be an extrajudicial interference. The result was the Plan of Separation, which allowed for the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church South. While the decision of the Conference in 1844 was viewed as overbearing by the Southern conferences, some in the North considered it to be too mild. Indeed, they were still smarting from the rebuff to abolitionism in the condemnation of the General Conference of 1836. Accordingly, the Reverend Orange Scott and others of his abolitionist bent set forth the principles for the organization of the Wesleyan Methodist Church with the following points: Methodist Episcopal Church having no rule forbidding slave-holding by private members; and by declaring that slave-holding is in harmony with the Golden Rule, and by allowing Annual conferences to say that it is not a moral wrong, makes itself responsible for slavery; The government of the church is aristocratic and Its attitude toward dissenting brethren is uncharitable.27

Although a tenet on Christian perfection was not explicitly included in 26 27

Ibid., 30, 31. John Leland Peters, Christian Perfection and American Methodism, 125.

14

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

these three points, it was argued by the founders of the Wesleyan Methodist Church that “this doctrine was so fully taught in the other part of the doctrinal standards, Wesley’s Sermons and his notes, that no one thought it necessary to make any more specific statement of this doctrine.”28 However, at the first General Conference, held in 1844, this article on sanctification was prepared and inserted in the Discipline: Sanctification is that renewal of our fallen nature by the Holy Ghost, received through faith in Jesus Christ, whose blood of atonement cleanseth from all sin; whereby we are not only delivered from the guilt of sin, but are washed from its pollution, saved from its power, and are enabled, through grace, to love God with all our hearts, and to walk in His holy commandments blameless.29

The other case where dispute over the practical meaning of Holiness and Christian perfection was the cause for fraction was that of the Free Methodists. Here the issue and the place of Holiness with respect to both doctrine and practice was clearly prominent, even more so than with the Wesleyan Methodists. In this case, the immediate cause was the expulsion of one B. T. Roberts during the General Conference of 1860 for reprinting an article that was considered by the Conference to be unchristian and immoral. Roberts and others who were considered conservative were exceedingly uncomfortable with the position taken by too many Methodists in matters such as secret societies, amusements, dress, and abolition. In their view, a general worldliness had become characteristic of the church—especially in the matter of secret societies. The feeling was that affiliation with them was having undue influence on the appointments made by the Annual Conference. Doctrinally, these conservatives were distressed that the preaching of the second blessing was so little emphasized. Roberts published an article in which he deplored the departure from the faith on the part of those who were called liberals; and he titled his article “New Methodism.” He and the conservatives, who were called “Preacherscome-back-to-the-Disciple-Society,” gave their voice in these matters through this article by calling for the restoration of the camp meetings and the classic features of primitive Methodism. At the Conference following the publication of the article, Roberts was reproved. Although Roberts claimed no responsibility for the reprinting of it, when the article was printed again Roberts was censured by expulsion in the General Conference of 1860. The response of Roberts and those of like conviction was to call for a 28 29

Ibid., 126. Ibid., 127.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC.15 Free Church where the work of holiness could be promoted. The three points forming the basis for the separate organization were as follows: 1. Doctrines and usage of primitive Methods, such as the witness of the Spirit, entire sanctification as a state of grace distinct from justification, attainable instantaneously by faith, free seats and congregational singing, without instrumental music in all cases, plainness of dress. 2. An equal representation of ministers and layman in all councils of the church. 3. No slave holding, and no connection with oath-bound societies.30

These two groups figured prominently in the Holiness movement of the late nineteenth century, whose complex composition included at least four distinct elements. First were those evangelical Christians who remained completely loyal to their own “sect” or denomination and kept their hopes high for calling the “worldly churches” back to primitive Christian purity and power. Second, and by far the greatest in number, were the Methodists, for it was within Methodism that the doctrine of Holiness received its most prominent formulation. But there were Methodists and others “who were rapidly being driven to the conclusion that the “old bottles” were not pliable enough to tolerate their vital experience.31 These people were not content, to say the least, with the more formal ritualistic practices that in their opinion quenched the Spirit. A third faction comprised people who were already identified with the groups that were explicitly Holiness in nature and accepted that nomenclature. They favored a form of church government that was much looser in organization. The fourth group comprised persons who had been converted but who were unchurched. They held no loyalty to any tradition; they had not been tutored to abide in any particular form of church government, and they were not susceptible to any connectional pressure. Indeed, their only commitment was to their newfound God, their newfound faith, and the evangelist who led them to their spiritual awakening.32

THE BLACK CHURCH AND THE STORM The Black Church escaped no gale of the storm. Indeed, it was due in large measure to her refusal to be passive that the storm did not abate with concomitant easy victory to the forces of oppression that are regnant in religion 30 31 32

Ibid., 128–29. Melvin E. Deiter, “Revivalism and Holiness,” 250–51. Ibid.

16

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

devoid of Holiness and prophetic social consciousness. From its inception, the Black Church was characterized by a religion that joyfully celebrated the Spirit’s presence and an intense passion for freedom. Born as it was in the crucible of slavery, its life was stamped indelibly by the marks of suffering and oppression. But those who held faith in the God who brought the children out of Egypt and who is the Father of the Lord Jesus never doubted his love for them. Neither did they waver in their earnest expectation of the Holy Spirit who was given as their Comforter and Guide. Almost without exception, slave religion showed little preoccupation with issues of doctrine. The emphasis was more on celebration, rejoicing, and immediate manifestations of power. God the Father was real; so also were the Son and the Spirit. God was spoken of matter-of-factly, and nothing was any dearer to the slave than to be carried away in the Spirit and blessed with a vision travel.33 An understanding of God as defender of the weak was interwoven with joyful celebration. Those in bondage were encouraged to hold onto God in anticipation of the day when he would break the oppressor’s yoke. If the opportunity came to escape or to strike a blow for freedom, they were to rest assured that God had made the way and would be with them. If possible, they were to facilitate the freedom of another. But above all, they were encouraged to trust in God. The slaves’ theological sensitivities enabled them to distinguish between the practices of white Christians, whom they regarded as hypocrites, and the God of Israel who commissioned Moses to lead the children to the Promised Land. In the midst of trouble and tribulation, they were to trust in the Lord and hold to God’s hand. The understanding of God that guided the Mothers and Fathers of the Black Church in the North prompted them to articulate clearly and forcefully their belief that God was on their side and that he would surely judge those who oppressed them. It was this conviction that led Bishop Richard Allen, the patriarch of African Methodism, and those who followed him from Saint George’s Church in refusing to suffer the humiliation of being snatched from their knees in prayer because of their color.34 Speaking more explicitly to the concern of God for African people, Bishop Allen said, regarding human bondage, that God hated slavery and was the first pleader of the slave’s cause. He reminded those who kept slaves and approved the 33

For more on the meaning of vision travels, see Mechal Sobel, Trablin’ On: The Slave Journey to an Afro-Baptist Faith, 112–13. 34 See Carter G. Woodson, The History of the Negro Church, 64; and Richard Allen, The Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours of the Rt. Rev. Richard Allen.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC.17 practice of slavery that God destroyed kingdoms and princes for oppressing poor slaves. Allen asserted unequivocally that God takes the side of the slave and stands in judgment of those who enslave.35 Nathaniel Paul, a black Baptist pastor in the early nineteenth century and a contemporary of Allen, held that slavery was contrary to the law of God and that it would be abolished. In his view, slavery stood against the divine decree and in the way of God’s grace. It was a hateful monster, and avaricious demons, the scourge of heaven and curse of earth. He believed that slavery was so contrary to the law of God that it would forever be disapproved of by him. Henry Highland Garnett, a black antebellum Presbyterian preacher in New York, argued that the slave was made in the image of God and that it was as evil for Europeans to enslave Africans as it would be for Africans to enslave Europeans. Garnett taught that God smiled upon every effort of bondsmen to free themselves from their chains.36 In the South, slave preachers were prevented from enjoying free speech by the iron grip of slave culture. Nevertheless, they made their presence felt and witnessed to the concern of the Almighty for them in their limited manner. Because of the suspicion with which they were regarded, these heralds of truth were not permitted to declare openly the gospel message. When slaves were allowed to worship, they were forced to do so in the company of their masters; and if they were permitted to conduct their own meetings, they were kept under the watchful eye of white supervisors. Even then, the preaching was usually done by a white person whom the master approved. When the slaves did steal away to hold their meetings, their preachers informed them of a gracious God.37 Down on the praying ground, where they could share the truth gleaned from their own contact with the living Word that burned in their souls, these heralds told the story of how God delivered his children in such a manner that their hearers knew God would deliver them. So great was the power they developed within the slave community that these preachers came to be both hated and feared by slave owners. The slave preachers were powerful persons on the plantation. Often regarded as conjurers by the master and the overseer, their character was frequently maligned, and they were called troublemakers, liars, braggarts, fakers, opportunists, and bad niggers. The chief factor in this pejorative image offered by whites was the tremendous influence of the black preacher within 35 36 37

Benjamin E. Mays, The Negro’s God, as Reflected in His Literature, 33. Ibid., 46. Miles Mark Fisher, Negro Slave Songs in the United States, 91.

18

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

the slave community.38 Often more fluent in preaching than their white counterparts, they used vivid imagery and storytelling in communicating their message. Indeed, the whites themselves often preferred their preaching to that of the white preachers whose churches they attended. Africans were further noted for their “exercises,” physical manifestations—bodily affections—such as dancing, rolling, or shaking (a term frequently used in reference to the Great Awakening). Indeed, one of the detractors of the Methodists found fault with the Society in Philadelphia for being influenced by the heathen ways of the Africans and their plantation airs. He charged that the Methodists were behaving like the Africans instead of elevating them.39 So notable were their exercises that Bishop Asbury made reference in his letter to a friend of a young white girl who attended the African exercise on Saturday night and found the Lord. Upon returning to her church on the following Sunday, she leaped the family pew, causing a stir.40 It was in the South under the aegis of the “invisible institution” that the enthusiastic, exciting traits of black religion were most pronounced. These secret meetings, outlawed in most states, were sometimes held early in the morning or at midnight.41 The way slaves worshiped nearly defied description. There was heartfelt singing that drew the entire body into the motion established by its rhythm. Accompanied by clapping of hands and tossing of heads, such singing would continue for hours. Often someone would lead in a style that would resemble recitation and the others would join in the chorus. When these praise meetings, as they were called, were held in a house, it would literally shake as ecstasy expressed in jubilant shouting, stamping of the feet, and dancing broke forth.42 When such a praise meeting was held in a clearing in the woods near the swamps, pots were placed around the perimeter, with their mouths turned toward the center of the gathering, to prevent the sound from carrying to the keen ears of paranoid masters and overseers. Slave preaching also was filled with this rhythm and vibrancy. Most slaves endured the discourses of those preachers selected or permitted by their masters, but they made no secret of their preference to hear their own.

67.

38 39

Eugene Genovese, Roll Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made, 215–84. Allen J. Raboteau, Slave Religion: The Invisible Institution of the Antebellum South,

40 41 42

Francis Asbury, The Journal of the Letters of Francis Asbury, 3:219. M. Fisher, Negro Slave Songs, 67, 75. John W. Blassingame, The Slave Community, 64.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC.19 The following is a description of the dynamics of slave preaching. Typically, the preacher begins in a carefully measured way and steadily works toward a more rhythmical and intense delivery. As the rhythm, rising and falling, builds toward a climax, punctuated by groans, grunts, and cries, the preacher virtually breaks into a chant and then a song. No two sermons can be alike, and each shows the marked influence of the spirituals and vice versa. Each sermon becomes a new poetic construction and a new combination of artistic elements.43 Before the meeting was over an exercise referred to as the “shout” usually took place. This shout, a sort of religious dance, involved three or four persons clapping their hands and beating time with their feet while others sang in unison. Special shout melodies were reserved for this exercise, and soon after it began those in the ring would cease singing. Instead, they would move their feet in a step that was something between a shuffle and a dance. This motion, extremely difficult to describe or imitate, was punctuated with outbursts of praise and rejoicing in the salvation of the Lord.44

Amid the joyful celebration, a sense of mission and purpose remained that was consistent with the perceived nature of God. The call to the African American Christian was to live a life of sobriety and responsibility. Those who were free and had made acquisitions were to aid their brothers and sisters, and to this end they organized the resources of the Church.45 Upon the Church devolved the responsibility for teaching the avoidance of immorality, drunkenness, and those things that were degrading. When slaves escaped from the South, the Church was to give them comfort, and, wherever opportunity arose, she was to lift her voice against the moral evils of the land. It was this tradition of black religion that came under threat in the wake of the Civil War and the Reconstruction period that followed. During Reconstruction, many missionaries from the Protestant denominations showed great concern for the Africans who had been freed. One of the chief ways in which this concern was shown was through education. But inasmuch as this education was an extension of a particular culture and a worldview, a price came along with it. The consequence was that in many instances African people were asked to exchange the ways of their mothers and fathers for the learning that was extended to them.46 43 44 45 46

Genovese, Roll Jordan Roll, 267–68. Blassingame, Slave Community, 65–66. William Douglass, Annals of the First African Church in the United States, 15. Woodson, History, 196–97.

20

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

Larger churches in the cities had much to offer from a material and physical standpoint. But often there was no warmth within them for the lowly and the downtrodden. Similarly, there was a decreasing openness to those with deep spiritual fervor and the desire to express it. Many persons migrating from the Southland felt like numbers instead of persons in urban churches. They were not missed when they were absent; they were not visited when they were sick. In their church back home they had their own seat, and they were free to praise God as they desired; when this freedom was not permitted, their joy was taken as well.47

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH IS BORN At the same time that Holiness associations were proliferating throughout the country, and the Black Church was seeking an appropriate character for the new day, Holiness was beginning to spread in the South. According to Henry L. Fisher in his History of the United Holy Church of America, Inc., the first meeting under the auspices of persons professing Holiness was held in a cottage in the town of Method, North Carolina, a suburb of Raleigh, the capital. The meeting was held on the first Sunday in May 1886, and in its wake the adherents to Holiness in the South “rose into a great host.” Fisher states: Among the persons who met were the late Rev. L. M. Mason, G. A. Mials, Isaac Cheshire, and H. C. Snipes, all of Raleigh, North Carolina. This was the first meeting of its kind in the state and of the southern United States. This meeting gave birth to what is now known as the United Holy Church of America.48

This account establishes the very early date for the meetings out of which the United Holy Church sprang. Indeed, the date is among the earliest given by a modern Holiness-Pentecostal denomination.49 But the account does not indicate whether there was any influence in this meeting from older 47

E. Franklin Frazier and C. Eric Lincoln, The Negro Church in America/The Black Church Since Frazier, 56–58. 48 Henry L. Fisher, The History of the United Holy Church of America, Inc., 11. Chester Gregory in his centennial volume (The History of the United Holy Church of America, Inc., 1886–1986) quotes this same source in establishing this early date. Gregory’s work is a splendid resource for names and biographical sketches of early leaders, bishops, officers, and others who have made notable contributions to the United Holy Church. His publication includes portraits and documents that provide a rich vein for further research. 49 The Church of God lays outright claim to being the oldest of all Pentecostal bodies, dating its origin to the Christian Union led by R. G. Spurling in 1886 (see Charles Conn, Like a Mighty Army: A History of the Church of God (1886–1976), 15–20;

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC.21 Holiness groups.50 Neither can there be any certainty from Fisher’s account concerning all denominations and influences present and prominent at this first meeting. It is not apparent from this history whether those present knew they were in company with others throughout the nation seeking a deeper life in the Spirit. But by the time of this writing, it was clear to Fisher that these pioneers were part of a great work God was doing in the land. This first meeting in Method was followed immediately by the organization of churches, conventions, associations, and revivalistic campaigns. One of the first churches to be organized was in the home of Elder and Mrs. C. C. Craig of Durham, North Carolina. Inspired by the Method meeting, they proceeded to build a church edifice, which was completed in 1889 on a lot adjacent to their home. This church, which came to be known as Durham Tabernacle, was a center for Holiness and became a focal point for the convergence of several groups throughout the state. In addition, it became a seedbed for numerous churches in the Durham area.51 Indeed, it was in the city of Durham that pioneers from Method, and others who joined them, held the first convocation of Holy People in North Carolina in 1894. This convocation had among its leaders L. M. Mason, who was to become the first president, along with G. A. Mials and H. C. Snipes, who were also present at the earlier meeting in Method. Other leaders, such as D. S. Freeman and G. W. Roberts, were joined by the many delegates who attended. Out of this first convocation of the Holy Church of North Carolina came the impetus that would bring other “Holy People” throughout the state into a united fellowship.52 During the same period, another revival spawned by the meeting in Method broke out in the city of Wilmington, North Carolina, and the surrounding area. The Reverend Elijah Lowney, one of those who met in Method, traveled to the city of Wilmington as an evangelist. A former Methodist preacher from Cleveland, Ohio, Lowney’s preaching of Holiness in the eastern North Carolina port city stirred an outbreak that was to bring the most influential leader of the emerging church into the fold of “Holy Peoand Leonard Lovett, “Black Holiness-Pentecostalism: Implications for Social Transformation,” 49). 50 It was at this meeting that the concern for Holiness was raised in a way that was detachable from the ongoing life and operation of established denominations (see Synan, Holiness-Pentecostal Movement, 33–35). Shortly thereafter, very prominent associations were established in Iowa, Indiana, and the Southwest. 51 The Souvenir Journal for the 93rd Anniversary of Fisher Memorial United Holy Church in Durham, North Carolina, 1. 52 Fisher, History, 11.

22

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

ple,” namely, Henry Fisher.53 The Reverend Lowney was a “scholarly man of God” who delivered with “such unusual power an unction that thousands of people thronged to the church to hear him.”54 This meeting, held in the First Baptist Church of the city, was attended by an interracial group, which was typical for Holy People in the early days of the movement. However, the church could not contain the enthusiastic worshippers and seekers very long. Fisher says of this meeting: This church being far too small for the ever-increasing crowds of all races and denominations, the old Sam Jones Tabernacle which held about four thousand people was secured and here many of the citizens of the various churches sought and embraced holiness. At the close of this great revival campaign there was a company who had taken a stand for this deeper life of entire sanctification including myself, a young man about eighteen years of age, along with a number of other young people.55

Before the meeting in the Sam Jones Tabernacle ended, an indelible mark had been left on the city and the church that was to emerge. Within the next eight years, considerable activity toward planting Holiness in North Carolina occurred in Wilmington and the surrounding area. At least three churches were organized in the city itself, and several missions were established in the area around the city. With the donation of a permanent place of worship, the revival was continued and lasted for three years. The growth that followed necessitated a larger place, which was secured by means of another generous donation. Following a controversy over the importance of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, the Holy Temple Church was established under the leadership of the Reverend Robert White. Growing out of the work of the Reverend W. H. Fulford came the New Covenant Church, called the Church on the Hill.56 The founder of the Holy Temple Church, the Reverend Robert White, was a local preacher in St. Steven’s African Methodist Episcopal (A. M. E.) Church at the time he embraced Holiness. The Holy People in Wilmington were then meeting in a small building on Red Cross Street that was over53

The name “Holy People” was used by the adherents of Holiness to designate themselves. These people consistently rejected the term “holiness” in their name, arguing that “holiness” was a way of life, and “holy” the adjective telling what sort of people they should be. An interview with R. K. Diggs, December 1982, made this point clear. 54 Fisher, History, 5. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid., 6–7.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC.23 crowded. While the young Henry Fisher was leading the hymn, “The Holy Fire struck him and he cried out and the people gave a great shout.” As a result of being struck by the “Holy Fire,” White testified, “What I am I was not; and what I was I am not.” With his background and stature in the city of Wilmington and the surrounding area, the Reverend White soon became the acknowledged leader of the “Holy People.”57 In leaving St. Steven’s A. M. E. Church, White left one of the most prominent black churches in the entire South. St. Steven’s Church, which grew out of the Front Street Methodist Church, traced its beginnings to the early preaching of Methodism in this country. Founded by the Reverend William Meredith, a missionary who landed in Wilmington from the West Indies, the Front Street Church came to be known as the African Church because of the large number of Africans holding membership. Following the Civil War, the 642 Negro members withdrew and joined the African Methodist Episcopal Church under the leadership of the Reverend W. H. Hunter, a chaplain in the Union Army.58 Racially mixed churches ended with the Civil War; the exodus of the black members with Hunter symbolizes what took place all over the South. Indeed, the coming of the African Methodists signaled the moment for which the black independent denominations had waited. Prior to the War, they were forbidden to operate in the slaveholding South. Blacks, both slave and free, welcomed them. Whites who had kept slaves close for purposes of monitoring them had no desire to commune with them on terms of equality. Even though there were occasions where assemblies were racially mixed during revival meetings, the War and its aftermath brought an end to the integrated churches. Indeed, the Reverend Robert White was among the prominent members of the Wilmington “black aristocracy.” He owned a grocery store and was well known by the merchants and others of the city. In addition, his wife’s father was a constable in the city following the Civil War. As such, White was among a significant number of black businessmen, entrepreneurs, and persons highly skilled in the trades. For that reason it was a puzzle to the 57 58

Ibid., 5. The A. M. E. church was founded before the Civil War, with a structure similar to that of the Methodist Episcopal church. Richard Allen, the first bishop, was consecrated by Bishop Francis Asbury in 1816. St. Steven’s Church had the distinction of hosting the first General Conference of the A. M. E. Church ever held in the South. It was built by ex-slaves and boasted hand-carved woodwork and a membership consisting of some of the most prominent people in the city. See the Directory of St. Steven’s A. M. E. Church, Wilmington, N.C.

24

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

members of St. Steven’s Church when White joined the “Holy Band.”59 White organized the flock coming out of the Wilmington revival into the Holy Temple Church. Although “Holy Temple” was the official name, the church was known to most people in Wilmington as “Reverend White’s Church.” Despite the fact that St. Steven’s members considered him to be “another fool gone crazy,” there was no bitterness between White and members of his former congregation. Indeed, many of them, along with other citizens of Wilmington, would make it a point to get to the services early or to stand outside to hear the “Holy People” sing. They would sing songs such as “Send the old time fire upon us, Lord, and burn up all the dross.” The Reverend White would carry the songs to the “Holy People” and supply the rhythm for which they were so well known. This singing would be accompanied by the piano when someone was present who could play it. But the singing would also be accompanied by tambourines and drums. So lively was the music that the church was sometimes referred to as the “band room.” That the relationship between St. Steven’s and Reverend White’s Church remained amicable is attested by the fact that upon his death in 1919, St. Steven’s Church offered to accommodate the funeral services.60 The founder of the New Covenant Church, the Reverend W. H. Fulford, came to Wilmington as a member of the A. M. E. Zion Church who had embraced Holiness. A powerful preacher, Fulford attracted great crowds of people to hear him. Starting under a tent, the group soon grew to the point where a church organization was needed. The New Covenant Church, known to many as the Church on the Hill, multiplied its numbers to the extent that a building with a seating capacity of 1,500 people was required. The first hastily constructed edifice soon gave way to be a beautiful building that remained for many years.61 Fulford, who did powerful preaching in Wilmington, served for fifteen years as the president of the Holy Church of North Carolina and Virginia.62 His impact on the young church was quite pronounced, for in addition to his work in Wilmington, and as president of the young Holy Church, he was in great demand as an evangelist. His influence was somewhat short-lived due to his inability to make his understanding of “everlasting life” sufficiently 59

The term “Holy Band” was often used interchangeably with “Holy People.” Most often, “Holy Band” designated the evangelists and others who sought to promote Holiness aggressively. 60 From an interview with Miss Fannie P. White, granddaughter of the Reverend Robert H. White, Wilmington, N.C., December 1982. 61 Ibid. 62 Fisher, History, 6.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC.25 clear to leaders of the Holy People. In his effort to show that the true and abiding life of the Spirit is given in this world such that it continues without ceasing, he was understood as promulgating a doctrine of “everlasting life in the flesh,” for which he was censured and held to be in error by the leaders of the Holy Church.63 In Wilmington and the surrounding area, several mission churches were established to make provisions for numerous persons who had been converted to the Holiness faith. Although these fathers and mothers had no intention of organizing a new denomination, it became necessary to build churches and provide support for those who took a bold stand only to find that they no longer had anywhere to worship in peace. Those who assumed leadership and oversight for the people aided them in building churches and missions, and they organized conventions and associations to provide for fellowship and encouragement. The Union Holiness Convention was organized for the Wilmington area at the St. Rest Church of that city in September 1900 under the leadership of Elders C. J. Wilcox and John Scott. In Sampson County, the Big Kahara Association was organized by the Reverend P. N. Marable of Clinton, North Carolina, and the Reverend W. C. Carlton of Turkey, North Carolina.64 These groups from Durham, Wilmington, and Sampson County were called together by Elder and Mrs. C. C. Craig in 1900. The explicit purpose of this convention held in Durham, North Carolina, was the bringing together of the “Holy People” of North Carolina as an independent organization. The outcome was that all the Holiness groups united under the banner of the “Holy Church of North Carolina and Virginia,” with Elder L. M. Mason of Goldsboro, North Carolina, being chosen Vice President.65 The Convention soon sensed the need for a comprehensive manual for Holy Churches, which was prepared by H. L. Fisher and adopted at the Annual Convocation in Durham in 1910.66 In time, this Southern Convocation was to give birth to others throughout the country and beyond its borders.67 Although the Holy People in North Carolina moved in a relatively short time to establish an organization, this posture was not reached without considerable debate and tension. A sizeable group of the early adherents to Holiness contended that members of Holiness associations and conventions 63 64 65 66 67

Ibid., 8. Ibid., 7. Ibid., 8. Ibid., 8–9. Ibid., 9.

26

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

should remain members of established denominational churches. This group, called the “In-Church-People,” taught that it was unnecessary to leave their different churches, but that they should come together at stated times and hold what they called Holy Convocation outside the churches. Indeed, those In-Church-People saw their mission as that of purifying the denominations that had previously been advocates of Holiness in their preaching, teaching, and living. To them, it was a grave and serious injury to break their fellowship with and leave these better-established communions. These “loyalists” were insistent in their chastisement of the “come-outers,” as they were called, and of the doctrine of “no-churchism.” For them, their mission was to spread Holiness through the existing churches; on this point they were adamant.68 Such tensions were present in the Holiness movement at large; they were inescapable given the differing minds of those people who were attempting to associate. While those who remained loyal to their churches sought to keep others in a similar fellowship, bands of Holiness evangelists were extremely active and aggressive in their work. They were decidedly prejudiced against tight control, for they saw it as incumbent on them to be obedient to the Holy Spirit and to him alone.69 However, when these Holiness meetings were over and the In-ChurchPeople returned to their communions, they were persecuted and treated so shamefully by their pastors and fellow members that it became unbearable for them. The consequence was that “the great majority of them came out of their churches and joined the come-outers.”70 The come-outers had argued all the while that it was a hopeless cause to attempt this reform while remaining within the larger denominations. In their view, this revival of Holiness was of God and was bigger than the denominational churches. Still, a saving remnant was needed. In one case, an entire group of former Methodists affiliated with the “Holy People,” becoming one of the outstanding early congregations and supplying one of the church’s most noted leaders. This group left the St. 68 69

Ibid., 12–13. One of the most hotly contested cases involved Daniel S. Warner and the Indiana Holiness Association. The Association took the position that all members must belong to some established denominational church, and although Warner vigorously sought a rules change, he did not succeed. Indeed, following his tenure as vice president of the association, he was dismissed as a member when his fellowship was broken with the Church of God (Winebrennerian) (Deiter, “Revivalism and Holiness,” 287–88; Fisher, History, 68). 70 Ibid.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC.27 Paul Methodist Episcopal Church in Winston-Salem as a response to the moving of their pastor, the Reverend J. D. Diggs. Diggs had just completed a building program for the St. Paul Church when he was sent to Mt. Airy, where there was no prospect for building, expanding, and developing. Diggs, who as pastor of St. Paul promulgated the preaching and teaching of Holiness, had made quite an impression on the members, who were unwilling to let him go. At the insistence of some hundred members, he organized the Union Mission Church, which from the outset was unaffiliated. Initially this group met in the Masonic Hall, and thereafter a church building was erected. Diggs, who was a carpenter by trade, undertook the major role in constructing a facility with a total seating capacity of over twelve hundred. The church remained unaffiliated until some two years later, when H. L. Fisher, a traveling evangelist, entered the city and conducted a revival at the Union Mission. Subsequently, this church and the well-trained pastor affiliated with the “Holy People.” The pastor of the Union Mission, J. D. Diggs, was highly instrumental in leading the “Holy People” during the phase of emergence toward incorporation and achievement of legal status. On one occasion during this era, he responded to the call of another pastor, in Martinsville, Virginia, whose church had been padlocked as the result of complaints to the sheriff. Not knowing the teachings and practices of these “Holy People,” it was assumed by those who complained that they were involved in unseemly practices of those to whom the stigma “Holy Roller” was affixed. Upon arriving at the church and finding the door padlocked, Diggs proceeded to conduct the service from the steps in front of the church. No explanation had been given for why the door was padlocked; there was only a notice on the door. While the service was in progress, the sheriff arrived. After listening to the preaching of the Reverend J. D. Diggs, and observing first-hand the behavior of the people, the sheriff took it upon himself to remove the lock. Actions such as this both enhanced the stature of “Holy People” and demonstrated the need for protection under the law.71 In most cases, the denominational backgrounds of the early adherents to Holiness in North Carolina are not mentioned in Fisher’s historical account. But where this information is provided, they are said to be Methodists, if from different groups. In this regard, the early Holiness movement in North Carolina out of which the United Holy Church of America emerged had some similarity with the Holiness movement in the rest of the country. These “Holy People” saw the call to Holiness as the centerpiece of the 71

Interview with Elder R. K. Diggs, .December 1982.

28

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

gospel’s teaching and truth. Holiness, or Christian perfection, was to be the restraint against apostasy even as it had been in apostolic times. By keeping its teaching and emphasis within the hearts of the members, a remnant could be preserved for God in days when men and women were falling away from the faith. Even their sojourn in the dark wilderness of oppression, Jim Crow, disenfranchisement, and lynching would not overwhelm them so long as they had the assurance God gives to those traveling on the highway of Holiness. They believed that what God desired was a return to true doctrine and faithful teaching. It was with such purpose in mind that a Manual was prepared for holy churches by H. L. Fisher in 1910. He was especially concerned that churches be supplied liberally with copies so that spiritual vitality and efficient services for Christ could be properly enhanced.72 The Holy Churches believed that they were following the New Testament idea of a Christian Church. This necessitated a divine call and separation from the world. Being part of this church was not simply a matter of holding membership in an organized group; it involved separation from all things that did not measure up to the scriptural standard of holiness. Order in the church was not a matter of establishing and following laws. Instead, it involved obeying what Christ required according to the New Testament. Where matters of business were involved, churches were encouraged not only to seek a majority vote from members, but insofar as possible, to seek unanimity in decisions. In this way, peace and fellowship could be preserved among the people.73 Initially there was no concern for establishing a denomination as such. Neither were the questions of the proper form of church organization and government directly answered. Instead, these people saw themselves following the organic pattern evidenced in the early church.74 More than anything else, the church was seen as dynamic, vibrant, and powerful. It was the body of Christ in the world through which Christ operates. Through the Church he “saves souls, reveals God’s nature and will to men, and does mighty works, thus glorifying the Father which is in heaven.” Wherever the Church was located, it represented Christ. As his body in a particular community, the Church could not be indifferent to the needs of its surroundings. On the one hand, locality was transcended through the Church’s universality. But on the other hand, believers formed particular congregations in time and space. 72 73 74

Henry L. Fisher, Manual, 3–4. Ibid., 5. Ibid.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC.29 Each believer was to be indwelled by the Holy Ghost, who baptizes and imparts gifts within the Church. The mind of Christ, imparted by this same Spirit, caused members to care for one another and to sustain the work of the ministry.75 These “Holy People” were preeminently concerned that the Church be kept pure. Accordingly, there was no great concern for numerical strength. They took seriously the instruction of the Scriptures to “put out from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Cor. 5:13).76 They interpreted this injunction from the other side as an admonition to receive the good ones. Specifically, those to be excluded consisted of any who were evil or immoral. They were also careful to exclude any who meddled, who would not work, who tattled, or who did not hold and teach sound doctrine. Likewise, any who were unruly and who would not receive the discipline of the Church were not to receive fellowship. To be received into membership, applicants had to give satisfactory evidence of regeneration and saving faith. Or, they could be received by letter if they had been members of the Holy Church elsewhere, and in harmony with the doctrines of the Church. Far-reaching authority was vested in the pastor. Upon him devolved the responsibility of visiting all members and ascertaining their spiritual conditions. He was to encourage, reprove, or rebuke where needed, and to pray in their homes. The pastor was to have oversight of all the departments of the church and to give careful attention to all doctrines that were taught.77 In their zeal to remain scriptural in all things, these “Holy People” used New Testament nomenclature to identify their leaders. Thus they recognized the titles of bishop, elder, and deacon. The pastor, who was a preacher, might be called either bishop or elder; he was to give his attention explicitly to the ministry of the word. Deacons were to relieve the pastor wherever possible. They were especially to work in matters pertaining to the temporal needs of the Church. They were to be elected to an unlimited term of service, and they were to remain in their office so long as there was mutual satisfaction. They were to visit the sick and the needy, and to minister to the spiritual and temporal wants of the people. Considerable concern was given to how the “Holy People” conducted themselves, for in large measure Holiness was to be seen in conduct and character. Private offenses required being taken through as many as four stages for redress. Public offenses were to go directly to the church. These offenses, which included false doctrine, disregard for authority, contention 75 76 77

Ibid., 7–8. Ibid., 10. Ibid., 11.

30

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

and strife, immoral conduct, disorderly walk, covetous spirit, and taking a fellow church member to court, were considered as bringing dishonor to the church, and the offender ran the decided risk of being disfellowshipped. In the face of being tainted by those with a reproach upon their lives, it was judged that the greatest good was accomplished through not letting the entire Church suffer because of one person.78 The “Holy People” adhered to baptism by immersion, communion, and foot-washing. They stood absolutely against the sale and use of intoxicating beverages, opium (or any of its products), and tobacco. Chewing, smoking, and dipping were specified offenses, and persons indulging in these practices were to have no place among the “Holy People.” Members of the Holy Church were forbidden to belong to a secret society; any who either joined or remained members of such organizations were to be excluded from the church. No encouragement was given to superfluity of apparel, and any who did not leave off superfluous ornaments were not to be received in the Church.79 “Holy People” were absolutely forbidden to marry divorced persons, or to remarry in the event they were divorced. Beyond that, they were discouraged from marrying people who were not members of the church, and they were considered to have no place among the “Holy People” if they married an “unsaved person.”80 The church was to be kept from, and never polluted with, fairs, festivals, feasts, or any kind of abomination. Income was to be received through freewill offerings. All contributions were to be voluntary and not to be taxed or assessed. But the ministry was to be supported. Indeed, where possible, churches were to sustain their pastors so they would not have to work otherwise.81 The early Manual included services for marriages and funerals. As such, it was quite complete. Through the Manual, ministers were equipped to handle the many situations that arose. They were enabled to perform as professionals with all the dignity accruing to their office. Throughout these days, the relationship between Black Holiness-Pentecostals and the larger Black Church remained one of ambivalence. Those who embraced Holiness felt they had been forsaken by their brethren. In their eyes, the churches they left had apostatized: they had turned their backs 78 79 80 81

Ibid., 17–18. Ibid., 25–29. Ibid., 29–30. Ibid.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC.31 on the God who had brought them out of bondage and darkness, and they had turned their backs on the brothers and sisters whose only desire was to retain the true faith as they understood it. It was felt that there was no welcome for those who wanted to sing with vigor, testify with passion, shout for joy, and speak with tongues of ecstasy in the departed church. These old practices had come to be despised and rejected in favor of more dignified ways that were acceptable to the white brethren. From the other side, the brothers and sisters who went forth to establish independent Holiness-Pentecostal organizations were viewed as traitors to the Black Church. In the view of those who sought to preserve the historic denominations, they threatened to take the church back to the unenlightened era from which they had just emerged. They were regarded as overly zealous, intolerant, and impatient in their disdain for the discipline to which they were expected to adhere. They were peace-breakers who were shattering the fellowship of the Body of Christ, and they were to be denounced as such. Hence, tensions arose wherein both groups considered themselves right and their counterparts wrong, and in which each consigned the other to Hell. Again, the relationship was one of ambivalence for all who remained despite the persecution they suffered. Some remained because the climate of their evangelical congregation was not tremendously dissimilar to that of the more radical ones. Indeed, it must be remembered that the revival which ushered the Holiness-Pentecostal groups into being occurred within evangelical churches. According to an elderly Pentecostal lady, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians all received their “Pentecost together.”82 Even after the great exodus that separated those who could remain within the evangelical churches from those who could not, a genuine fellowship continued between some of the members and ministers. Some evangelical churches continued to allow Holiness-Pentecostal groups to use their facilities for conventions, convocations, and so on. Individual members and congregations from among the evangelicals made donations to building projects, and some ministers assisted Holiness preachers in acquiring rudimentary training. The services of the “Holy People” remained a source of attraction for many members of the evangelical churches. In addition to attending revivals, members of these evangelical churches would—following their shorter services—go to the tabernacles, tents, church buildings, and storefronts to watch, and sometimes to join, the “Holy People” in their 82 From a conversation with Mother Lucille Light of Philadelphia, Pa., September 1981.

32

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

lively singing, dancing, speaking in tongues, and healing. Black Holiness-Pentecostalism possesses many roots, the primary ones being the black religious experience and the Black Church. Black HolinessPentacostalism did not spring forth full-blown. Nor is it so bizarre that no social factors related to its rise can be identified. While no single factor can be isolated as the cause of its emergence, a coalescence of forces provides the background against which it came into being. The United Holy Church of America, and Black Holiness-Pentecostalism as a whole, achieved social viability in the context of inner and outer pressures exerted by the social inertia that reacts against change, resisting the incoming of new things. Chief among those pressures was the experience of people in the United States with dark skin and African ancestry. At this level, the United Holy Church and Black Holiness-Pentecostalism are “black” not only because the members are African Americans, but because their concrete existence is shaped by the legacy of slavery and oppression.

2 THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER THE CLASSIC PHASE The year 1916 marked a turning point in the life of the young church in a number of significant ways. This was the year the young Henry Lee Fisher replaced the older W. H. Fulford as leader. Ascending with him was the even more youthful G. J. Branch as vice president. These two men, who possessed youth, forcefulness, energy, and great dreams for the church, presented an image of leadership within the church and an image of dignity outside the church that went far in giving it stature. The year 1916 was important further in that the name of the church was changed from the Holy Church of North Carolina and Virginia to the United Holy Church of America, and particular steps were taken toward incorporation.1 Shortly after the change at the helm in this pivotal year, an era of inward development, expansion, and social responsibility ensued, signaling that the church had fully emerged. Four years after the ascension of H. L. Fisher and G. J. Branch, the church expanded into the northern United States. Under their leadership in the 1920s and 1930s, the church further expanded to no fewer than twenty-two states and beyond the borders of the country. It was also during the leadership of Fisher and Branch (from 1916 to 1947) that the church took on the permanent features of its internal structure and overall character. For these reasons the years of this joint leadership are designated as the Classic Phase.

THE GROWTH OF CONVOCATION Without a doubt, the key to the expansion of the church was the development of convocations. The term “convocation” was used to designate both a meeting and administrative structure. The “convocational session” was a meeting that was held annually and the “convocational structure” was an 1

Henry L. Fisher, History of the United Holy Church of America, Inc., 9, 11.

33

34

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

administrative unit that ordered, planned, and implemented life, growth, and development with the church. With expansion of the church, convocational sessions were held in many areas. These areas came to be known as “convocational districts.” Once expansion occurred, one umbrella convocational structure exercised oversight for the entire church, and a separate convocational structure operated within each district to meet needs and provide services affecting the church in the given area. At the time of incorporation (in 1918), the convocational structure consisted of a president, vice president, secretary-treasurer of education, secretary-treasurer of foreign missions, general superintendent of Bible schools, recording secretary, assistant recording secretary, treasurer, statistician, editor of the official journal, and assistant statistician as elected officers. Members of the various boards of elders, presbyters, and trustees served in their respective offices by appointment. Also included in the structure of the convocation were missionaries to Africa, the standing committees of finance, reports, foreign missions, obituary, the ordained ministers, the licentiates, and the local missionaries. Following the licentiates, the list also included those who had “fallen asleep.”2 As the structure evolved, the president and vice president were elevated to the status of bishop.3 Joining their ranks were other elders judged worthy of the high honor and office, comprising a board of bishops.4 The office of secretary-treasurer of education evolved into a Department of Education. The office of secretary-treasurer of foreign missions developed into a Department of Foreign Missions, and the office of general superintendent of Bible schools emerged as the Department of Bible Church School and Young People’s Holy Association. By 1947, the end of the classic phase, the structure consisted of an Executive Department, including a president, vice president, recording secretary, corresponding secretary, treasurer, general mother, president of Women’s Home and Foreign Missionary Department, 2

Yearbook of the United Holy Church, 1918, 3–6. The expression “Fallen Asleep” was the way reference was made to deceased members. 3 This elevation took place in 1924. H. L. Fisher, G. J. Branch, and J. D. Diggs were consecrated by elders of the church. It is reported that E. B. Nichols was also considered worthy of consecration, but he declined this honor due to his personal convictions with respect to the office and the title “bishop” (interviews with R. K. Diggs and Bishop W. N. Strobar). 4 The number of bishops remained quite small throughout the classic phase. J. W. Houston appears to have come with the office and title. Beyond that, only E. B. Lyons and H. H. Hairston were elevated during the time Fisher and Branch were at the helm of the church.

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER

35

general board of bishops and assistants, general board of elders, and general executive board of missions.5 The chief administrative officer within a convocational structure was the bishop who served as the president. Prior to 1929, there was one convocational structure presided over by a president and a vice president. Following the expansion of the church and the organization of other convocational districts, it became necessary to distinguish between the presidency of the church as a whole and the presidency of a convocational district—since the president of the Southern District Convocation was president of the United Holy Church throughout the classical phase.6 The president of the church became known as the general president; the entire membership of the church became known as the general church, and the gathering of the entire membership became known as the general convocation. The general president held responsibility for immediate oversight of the general church, and responsibility for immediate oversight of the convocational districts devolved upon district presidents. This structure remains a fundamental and permanent feature of the organization of the church. The general president in his exercise of oversight for the church gave the program for work and growth. It was his responsibility to promote unity throughout the church. In the promotion of unity, he addressed the church in general convocational sessions concerning the state of affairs, offering encouragement, criticism, and concrete proposals for making the needed improvements. The general president presided when the general convocation was in session; between sessions he implemented his program by coordinating the efforts of departments and convocational districts. This coordination required regular contact with department heads, to whom the auxiliary work of mission and training was delegated. Working closely with the general president was the bishop elected to serve as vice president. Together they formed the nucleus of the Executive Department. When the president could not serve, it was the duty of the vice president to fulfill his responsibility. Routinely the two worked together in directing the life of the church. At regular intervals or in instances of emergency, all the bishops met as a board to advise the chief administrators, but 5 6

Yearbook, 1948, 2–3. Until 1928, there was no clearly distinguished General Convocation. Bishop Fisher pointed out in his quadrennial message of 1932 that General Convocation had been held in the annual meeting for almost forty years. In 1936 a separate quadrennial convocation was held in Washington, D.C. (Yearbook, 1932, 13ff.).

36

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

when neither the convocation nor the board was in session, the president and the vice president exercised authority. Completing the Executive Department were the recording secretary, who kept the official minutes of all sessions of the General Convocation and all meetings of the Executive Department; the corresponding secretary, who sent the communications of the Executive Department; and the treasurer, who held the funds of the general church. Directing the auxiliary work are the heads of the departments of Mission, Bible Church School and Young People’s Association, and Education. The mission president, usually a woman, concentrated primarily on fundraising and joined the vice president of the department, the general president, and designated bishops to comprise the board of missions that supervised the foreign mission work of the church. The superintendent of Bible schools worked to insure that each church had an operating school. The president of the Young People’s Holy Association was the promoter of training in the traditions of the church and of fellowship among young people. The chairman of the education department worked primarily to facilitate the training of ministers and Christian workers. As appointees of the general president, the members of the board of elders settled disputes, rendered judicial decisions, and enforced the rules of the church. This convocational structure was reproduced in each convocational district of the church, with the chief difference at the district level being the operation of the board of presbyters and the district elders. The board of presbyters examined candidates of the convocational district churches. A system of reporting finances and the progress of work provided the link connecting district officers to their respective counterparts at the general level. The chief stimulator of the district convocation’s life was the bishop who presided over the session and served as the primary administrator between sessions. As a colleague of other bishops, serving with them on the board of bishops and attending other convocations, he brought a perspective that was enriched by the broader vision of the church. It was the district president’s duty to advance the general program along with the district program. Although during the classic phase the district president often did not live in the district over which he presided, he was bound to stay in close contact with the people in order for his work to be effective. This demanded frequent trips and regular communication. Without his motivating the people, the segment of the church over which he had oversight would appear lethargic, causing the bishop in question to appear unworthy of his office.

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER

37

During the session of the convocation, the bishop was responsible for the tone of the meeting, which directly affected the enthusiasm of the people between the sessions. People’s experience of the convocation influenced their decisions for staying with or leaving the church, decisions to attend the next session, and attitudes toward the bishops and the church in general. Both during and between the sessions, the bishop was like the captain of a team, overseeing the various departments and boards by means of which the many phases of the work were properly conducted. If he sought to be an autocrat, the bishop would surely fail. But if he obtained full support from the entire staff, the achievement could be notable. The session of the district convocation was the time and place for the unity and strength of the United Holy Church to be displayed. To the session flowed the people and finances providing resources for continuing the work. From the session flowed the mandate for ministry, the program, and the life of the church. In addition, the convocational sessions served as magnets for people of Holiness faith and sympathies, even when they were not willing to establish denominational affiliation. Missionaries heading for and returning to the foreign fields found, in the convocational session, an unsurpassed forum for sharing the burden of their call, reporting on the work accomplished through the preaching of the gospel as well as garnering funds to aid their work.7 The organization of a new convocational district followed two basic patterns. In some instances, Holy churches in a given area were brought together through the initiative of the local leader. In other instances, representatives of an already established convocational district took the initiative in organizing ministers and their churches into a convocational structure. At times these approaches conjoined. Or, evangelists would go into an area to preach and teach and, following their efforts, churches would be established and formed into a convocational district. In every case, the move that sparked significant growth was the organization of a convocational structure with clearly defined lines of authority and responsibility. By means of the convocational session and the influences of the officers, the United Holy Church became known in the area comprising the convocational district. The order, the potential growth, and the possibilities for fellowship often attracted even more independent pastors and their congregations. Persons from Methodist, Baptist, Holiness, and Pentecostal denominations 7

Bishop J. T. Bowens, general president of the United Holy Church of America, says of convocation: “It was literally, and is now our total life” (Interview, August 1983).

38

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

came seeking membership. Many women who had been refused the license to preach by their local churches or denominations sought and received their ministerial credentials in annual sessions of district convocations so that they could freely exercise their gifts.8 The process by which new convocational districts were organized can be seen most clearly in the establishment of the Northern District. In 1917, several persons from the northern area attended the convocational session in Goldsboro, North Carolina. They included A. D. Tonkins of New York City; H. H. Hairston, F. H. Veney, and N. W. Thomas of Philadelphia; and J. M. McLaurin of Chester, Pennsylvania. These were pastors whose churches were listed in the statistics of that year. But they did not report to the session with finances. The next year a “Get-Together Convention” was held in Philadelphia. Its minutes read: This convention was organized June 4th, for the purpose of bringing about a closer fellowship and cooperation among the many Holy People throughout the world. The Saints came from all quarters of the globe in the Spirit of the one Lord, and for the purpose of getting together in closer fellowship and operation.9

These persons from the northern area seem to have been persuaded that a convocational structure and annual session would enrich and regulate the life of the church, making available the resources and vitality of such an organization to churches just being organized, and enabling them to establish churches with no affiliation. The leaders of the Southern District Convocation were called on for assistance in organizing “Holy People” in Philadelphia. H. L. Fisher and G. J. Branch were among those present, and Branch was elected president. It was during this Get-Together Convention that the Northern District Convocation of the United Holy Church of America came into being.10 The Northwestern District Convocation was organized in a similar fashion in 1924. Elder John E. Harris, pastor of the Gospel Tabernacle in Columbus, Ohio, was the key person in that area. Bishops Fisher, Branch, and Diggs, officials of the convocation in the South, gave aid. Diggs was sent to the district as president. A similar pattern occurred in New England in 1925, with Branch remaining as the president.11 The Western District, which included the Pacific Coast, was authorized in 1928; and the Western 8 Yearbook, 9 Yearbook, 10 Ibid. 11

1930, 28, 120. 1920, 26.

Fisher, History, 12.

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER

39

Central District in 1935. Although formally organized as a convocational district only in 1936, Bermuda boasted strong work in the United Holy Church as early as 1921 and in every way resembled a convocation structure in its working.

INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT Indispensable for the working of the church was the regulation of its life in practical discipline. Settling disputes was vested with the board of elders and the district elders, who usually served on this board. The board operated as a judicial arm. It recommended pastors for churches, settled matters between congregations and pastors, received ministers coming from other church bodies, and applied sanctions to those whose moral life and ministry were not up to the proper standards. This board normally comprised the senior, more mature, and wiser ordained ministers of the church. The authority of the elders could be quite far-reaching, as became apparent shortly after the classic phase began, when the church found itself in a precarious and untenable position. Teaching regarded by the church as unscriptural was being promulgated. Elder W. H. Fulford, who had been the president, was charged with preaching harmful doctrine and disseminating literature advancing the same. The responsibility fell upon the board of elders to face this challenge. Because of the sensitivity of the issue, the board of presbyters was called into joint session with the board of elders.12 The minutes of that meeting read as follows: A majority of members of the Board of Elders met in Raleigh on June 6th for the purpose of considering complaints against the teaching of Elder W. H. Fulford and others concerning everlasting life in the flesh. Letters from Elder W. H. Fulford were read before the Board tended to show the Elder Fulford’s doctrinal position. After much prayer and deliberation the following resolution was adopted—namely: resolved that the doctrine or teaching that “Everlasting life in the flesh, so as to continue to dwell on earth among men in the flesh and blood, immune from death,” held by this meeting of the Board of Elders and Presbyters to be unscriptural and false. Also, that “Jesus Christ is already come in His second advent,” is erroneous and false.

12

The board of presbyters, which is discussed later, had the primary responsibility of examining candidates for ministry. Its normal duties did not cover judicial matters.

40

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA It was further agreed that Elder J. D. Diggs should advise with Elder W. H. Fulford and J. R. Beamen as to the board’s action, and if possible, secure their acquiescence thereto by the grace of God.

Apparently the efforts of Elder J. D. Diggs proved fruitless, for in its regular session during convocation in Goldsboro, the board recommended “that the right hand of fellowship be withdrawn from Elder W. H. Fulford, J. R. Beaman, and their continual followers, even the distributors of harmful and improper tracts and literature. This includes ministers, missionaries, and laymen; in fact, all who preach everlasting life in the flesh, or who aim to continue.13 The board of elders dealt with matters pertaining to discipline on a routine basis, and it was not at all unusual for penalties to be applied as discipline to those of greater and lesser notoriety. Among the more popular or well-known persons to receive censure were Elder B. (Broomfield) Johnson, who in 1929 was “ordered to be dropped from the roll because of ministerial indiscretion.”14 Another case involving a high official was that of Bishop A. E. Shadd of San Francisco, California. Beginning in 1928, he was listed as the president of the Western District. Yet the official record of the board of elders convening in the Northern District Convocation of 1932, conspicuously lacking in details, reads: In matters of complaint against Bishop A. E. Shadd of the Western and Pacific Coast District the Bishop and Elders recommended the suspension of the said Bishop A. E. Shadd from all official ministerial duties in and under the authority of the United Holy Church of America, Inc. until these maters shall be heard and passed on by the Quadrennial Convocation appointed to be at Goldsboro, North Carolina, 1932.15

The absence of any further word in this matter indicates that the action 13 14

Yearbook, 1932, 14–15. Elder B. Johnson became the founder of the Mt. Calvary Holy Church. According to Bishop W. N. Strobar and H. W. Fields (interviews, 1981 and 1982), this action was taken when Elder Johnson refused to meet with the board and the bishops to discuss rumors that were circulating against him. It cannot be determined with certainty whether this action to go out on his own preceded that of the convocation in dismissing him. The very short mention of this most consequential case is included in the Board of Elders’ Report from the Northern Convocation of 1929 (Yearbook, 1929, 27). 15 The meaning of remaining in fellowship with the church can be seen in the statements of bishops and leaders to the convocation, but it appears most clearly in the resolutions of the convocation. For example, see Yearbook, 1931, 83.

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER

41

of the board of elders was sustained; and the name of A. E. Shadd never appears again in the records of the United Holy Church of America, Inc. On a more routine basis, the board of elders did what might be called the disciplinary work of the church. The oversight it exercised and the chastisement it administered were necessary to prevent moral laxness. It was especially crucial in the case of this young church, for the banner under which it lived and the standard that gave it reason for existing was Holiness. In the eyes of many, the word “holiness” was little more than an over-exercised shibboleth, the standards “Holy People” claimed to uphold were unrealistic, and the people themselves were nothing more than disgruntled misfits. Detractors constantly looked for every opportunity to discredit the movement and prove their points against it. So the church acted zealously, sometimes excessively, to prove its seriousness of purpose and its resolve to live up to its claim. The work of such a board was exceedingly crucial due to the fragile nature of the young church. A spirit of independence, a willingness to stand alone, and the propensity to take radical action in defense of certain principles were very much alive. Indeed, it was such a cluster of dynamics that gave rise to the young organization in the first place. The fathers and mothers themselves had “come out” and as a matter of fact there were very few members of the church during this day who had not left some other organized church body; people who left once would leave again. The term “come out” was a commonly used expression for those who felt compelled to leave for another evangelical church body. Ample testimony to this can be seen in cases similar to that of Elder Johnson discussed above. But this dynamic is also evident in the number of ministers and congregations that were continually joining the United Holy Church. Some were Baptists and Methodists. But others were Holiness and Pentecostal people who had “come out twice”—moved from one group to another. There is a sense, then, in which the board maintained a delicate equilibrium within the church. Discipline that was too firm would cause the departure of those refusing to abide by such measures of authority. But discipline that was too lax would precipitate disaffection among those who preferred a high and rigid standard. Variations on this theme are in a real sense the key for understanding the growth, lack of growth, and splintering of the United Holy Church and other Black Holiness-Pentecostal bodies. In its role as guardian of the church’s integrity, the board spared the bishops disdain that could have come their way. It rendered its decisions even in cases where everyone was not satisfied. But it could not be said that matters were overlooked. At times the decisions were harsh, and in most

42

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

cases detailed information was not given to the public or made part of the record. Surely, this left room for less than honorable motives and actions, and it sometimes placed the church in awkward positions wherein actions were not fully understood. But it also saved many from untold embarrassment. All ministers were required to attend the convocational session in their district and indicate their fellowship with the church. When this was not done, the minister was asked to surrender his or her credentials and the license to preach was withdrawn. Attending the convocation was crucial because this was the primary means for learning the doctrines and rules of the church and for receiving instruction in the Scriptures. Pastors were also required to make a personal report on the work done in their local setting. Through this report the entire church could be apprised of spiritual life, increase or decrease of membership, acquisition of properties, payment of debts, and the relationship between the pastor and the members. Ministers who were not pastors were expected to report on their work, to satisfy the convocation that they were upholding the church and living in harmony with their church and pastor. In addition, all ministers were expected to make a financial report.16 Hence, failure to attend the convocation was regarded as a sure sign that fellowship had been broken. Persons considered to have such a relationship with the church were to be visited by a committee of three preachers who would “wait on” the minister who was out of fellowship and require that the license be returned.17 A high moral standard was required of all members, but it was especially strict with respect to ministers. While the discipline of members was a congregational affair, the disciplining of ministers devolved upon the convocation, and more especially the board of elders. Nothing was more cherished within the young church than its preaching, testimony, and witness to the saving and keeping power of the Holy Ghost. Next in importance, though, was the church’s good name. Hence, any evidence contrary to the manifestation of this power and any behavior that contradicted testimony to salvation was grievous beyond measure. Accordingly, any minister charged and found guilty of drunkenness or moral conduct could be almost certain of having his license revoked and being dropped from the roll.18 The board would also take action against persons for violation of the rules and the doctrine, and for indiscreet statements against the leaders of 16 17

Yearbook, 1930, 66. For example, charges of drunkenness and immorality, see Yearbook, 1937, 115; 1938, 114, 119.

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER

43

the church. But in these matters it appears that apologies were readily received. It was abundantly clear that untrained persons could easily misstate a position of the church. Furthermore, with such a great percentage already having had fellowship with other bodies, and exposure to their teaching, lapses in orthodoxy were hardly avoidable. The same was true with respect to the leaders. It could not reasonably be expected that no disagreements or irritation would arise. Disciplinary action, then, was more a matter of keeping a modest measure of restraint on loose speech. Among these issues about which boards of elders were greatly concerned was the marital status of ministers, and in this, the boards reflected the attitude of the church. A very unyielding posture was manifest with respect to those whose domestic situation was questionable. Ministers desiring to marry again had to receive permission from the board if they were to remain in fellowship. It was held that so long as a husband or wife was living, the spouses remained bound to one another, and one person with two living spouses was regarded as not following God’s word. In some cases, ministers resigned or remained inactive until one spouse died. In other cases the problems were solved with annulment. Where there was neither settlement nor resignation, informal penalties were still applied. For with the stigma of an irregular marriage hanging over one’s head, there was no hope of progress and normal treatment.19 It must be pointed out, however, that the purpose of the board of elders was not simply to administer discipline or make life hard for ministers and pastors. They also provided a mechanism for their defense. Misunderstandings between pastor and a congregation, for example, could not summarily lead to dismissal. Churches had a right to appeal through their officers to the board of elders, and thereby to the convocation when it appeared that a pastor’s judgment was in error or that he had overstepped the bounds of his or her authority. But officers did not have the right to dismiss pastors without intervention of the convocation. Neither were boards of trustees to lock the doors against a pastor. Rather than congregations having the prerogative of hastily voting a pastor out of a church, the procedure was for the district elder to be summoned for an adjustment in the matter. 18

An example of such discipline and the reception of apologies can be seen in the report of the board in the North District in 1930. See Yearbook, 1930, 63, 72; 1939, 11. 19 This doctrine of marriage and remarriage is based on Mark 5, Romans 7, and 1 Corinthians 7. Little consideration is given to the exception found in Matthew 9. For examples of the hard line that was taken by boards of elders see Yearbook, 1930, 63; 1934, 72; 1939, 11.

44

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

As a representative of the convocation, he was a liaison between the pastor and the congregation.20 Through the board of elders, the convocation also protected pastors from overzealous ministers whose misguided efforts at organizing new churches threatened existing work. A pastor had the right to complain if a splinter group or a mission attempted to operate too closely to the established church. Such actions always threatened to pull at the loyalties of members and to put pastors and congregations in competition with one another. In some instances, a minimum distance was required between churches. The prevailing sentiment was that a mission not be opened without the consent of the district elder, a procedure which represented the desire of the convocation to plan the extension of the church. Beyond that, formal expression was given to the will of the entire body that “ministers not organize new churches with the remaining members of a divided church,” since such an action amounted to little more than splitting what was already in existence as opposed to growth and expansion.21 Such practices were regarded as wrongdoing against the church. Ministers coming from the Baptist, Methodist, and other Holiness and Pentecostal groups came regularly to join the convocation, and in some cases they brought entire congregations with them. When these ministers already had credentials, a decision of the board was required to honor the license or to make an independent judgment concerning an appropriate license. Such judgment was based in part on knowledge of the denomination from which the minister came. But more often than not, the decision represented the boards’ independent findings. The examination of such members was an effort to determine the nature of their Christian experience, habits, and beliefs, willingness to comply with the discipline of the United Holy Church, payment of fees, and willingness to accept ministerial training. It was expected that all members could testify to experiences of regeneration, sanctification, and Spirit baptism, for this understanding of salvation was to govern their preaching. Habits and practices were to be above reproach, and behavior was not to include any of the practices the church condemned. Persons known or confessing to being 20

See Yearbook, 1949, 119, for a case in which the trustees were chastised and told that they “committed a crime against the church and the community in shutting the people out of the ‘House of Prayer’”; and following the determination the board affirmed their right to voice a complaint. See also the case of the Roxboro pastor who was told that he acted in error for his dismissal of a member, in Yearbook, 1943, 96. 21 For cases and resolutions in this regard, see Yearbook, 1940, 5.

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER

45

smokers, drinkers, gamblers, or in questionable marital relationships would be turned down immediately. A minister coming into convocation was required to pledge submission to the government and discipline of the church.22 Ordinarily, the examination of ministers to determine their qualification for license was the work of the board of presbyters. Occasionally this board worked with the board of elders in constituting a joint board. But routinely its work consisted of examining candidates for the ministry, determining the license needed by specific candidates for their work, seeing to it that the ministers of the church were knowledgeable in the doctrine of the church and adequate to perform the sacraments and ordinances, and setting the overall standard for ministry. From the very early days, this board made its presence felt in the pressure it exerted on ministers to achieve and maintain a certain quality of ministry. Prior to 1918, even a clearly given “Course of Study for Ministers of the Convocation for the United Holy Church of America” had been adopted. The course which appears in the 1918 Yearbook included: First Year Studies- English Bible (with Oxford helps); Synthetic Bible Studies ($1.50), by James M. Gray, D.D. Reading- The Spirit Filled Life ($0.30), by John McNeil; How to Bring Men to Christ ($0.75), by R. A. Torrey, D.D.; Abraham Lincoln ($1.00), by D.D. Thomason. Second Year Studies- English Bible Theological Compend, Ch. I–V ($1.00), by

Edgar P. Ellyson; Life of Christ ($0.60), by James Stalker, M.A. Reading- Pilgrim’s Progress ($1.00), by Bunyan; Amanda Smith’s Own Story ($1.00), by Amanda Smith.

Third Year Studies- English Bible; Theological Compend. Ch. VI–XVIII ($3.60), by Edgar P. Ellyson; Life of St. Paul ($0.50), by James Stalker, M.A. Reading- The Coming of the Lord ($0.30), by A. T. Pierson, D.D.; History of the United States ($1.90), by Montgomery. Fourth Year Studies- English Bible (American Revised); Christian Doctrine

($1.00), by F. W. Farr, M.A.; Many Infallible Proofs (Evidences) ($1.00), by A. T. Pierson, D.D. Reading- The Ministry of Healing ($0.50), by A. J. Gordan, D.D.; General History ($1.50), by Meyer.

22 For an example of how ministers were taken in and examined by the convocation, see the 1951 minutes of the Pacific Coast Convocation in Yearbook, 1951, 243.

46

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

These books were to be ordered through the educational secretary, the Reverend J. D. Diggs of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Furthermore, those expecting to receive a license were told beforehand to order the first-year books and study them before coming to the convocation to be examined.23 Receiving a license upon request or on the basis of the testimony of a call to preach was by no means guaranteed; the granting of a license was the sign of the convocation’s approval. Further, the granting of ordination certified the worthiness of the minister in question to represent the church as a professional. Constant pressure was being applied to these boards by persons calling for quality in ministry commensurate with the needs of the time. From the other side, pressure was exerted by ministers who felt their call to preach should be sufficient qualification. Some aspirants sought to acquire a license by circumventing the board and avoided becoming subject to its strictness. This led to the continual reinforcement of the authority of the board of presbyters. Eventually, boards began to establish minimum scores as an absolute requirement for persons to receive ordination.24 All ministers who were granted privilege to preach were required to hold a license that was to be renewed each year. Upon renewal of the license, a card was issued to show that the specified person was in fellowship with the convocation. The card indicated the type of license held: missionary, evangelist, elder, and so on. By virtue of this procedure, no person desiring to begin or continue to preach could escape the pressure of the board (and thus the convocation) to make preparation for some sort of ministry. Some persons chose not to face the board, thereby forfeiting formal recognition as preachers. Others elected to find church organizations in which they could exercise the calling they felt without the strictures and regulations of the convocation. Still others went out to establish independent congregations and in some cases other denominational churches. This examination of the structure of the church, as constituted mostly in the activity of the bishop and the boards, reveals to a substantial degree the inner working and integrity of the church. These structures were related directly to a normative understanding of Holiness, in consequence of which their preservation was a matter of utmost concern. Convocation was not considered an optional matter. The Lord had commanded “His Holy People” to have a “Holy Convocation,” this they were bound to do in order to 23 24

Yearbook, 1918, 5. The Northern District, for example, passed a resolution requiring applicants for ordination to score at least 90 percent in order to be passed (see Yearbook, 1938, 12).

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER

47

be “Holy.” Neither were the titles and broad names arbitrary. Bishop, elder, and presbyter were scriptural designations. The strong measures of discipline that were meted out, especially to ministers, were regarded as absolutely essential in raising the standards and giving the right signals to the world.25 An overriding theme among the saints was the holiness and purity of the church, and it was crucially important that consistency be maintained between doctrine and practice. Far less significant were matters such as the size of the congregation or even the overall size of the convocation. Although quite impressive, statistics were kept only to show membership and financial support. They were never considered the indicators of true success. Despite the passion for teaching and nurture, it was not regarded as a crisis when members or ministers chose to stay with the “Holy People” for only a short time and then leave. Such persons were regarded as never having been “true” members in the first place, as persons unwilling to pay the price of “true” Holiness. The overriding consideration was that the church be holy, without spot or blemish. Hence, the hand of fellowship was readily withdrawn from those who failed to live up to a standard of uncompromising holiness. “Holy People” were those who had forsaken families, friends, jobs, and esteem to travel the sanctified way—a way which consisted of inner piety and outward manifestations on an personal level as well as structural patterns with their own integrity that were highly visible at the communal level. What other religious leaders thought did not matter. Ultimately, if they did not embrace holiness, then they were not truly God’s people. If they could not claim, with vindication, that they spoke words of revelation from God, then their ideas were of no use. The pattern had been set, and the way had been made plain. A nearly inseparable connection mutually reinforced doctrine and the culture arising among “Holy People.” Anyone seeking to sever the connection was quickly charged with compromising the faith, and the charge of compromise was serious enough to discredit the challenge immediately. The church’s preoccupation was not solely with internal matters. A clearly demonstrated concern for the relation of the church to the larger world was evident within the departmental work, especially that of mission and education. The inner motivation derived from the vision of Holiness and the self-image of “Holy People” as God’s instruments for bearing light to a fallen generation. But in the practical sense, the pressing needs of the surroundings would determine substantially the shape various programs 25

Fisher, Manual, 10–11.

48

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

took. Mission work, in particular, was undertaken to meet the needs of the poor, the hungry, and the destitute in the community. This was home mission. But mission also was directed to those in faraway lands. This was foreign mission. It was conducted primarily in Africa and the Caribbean, with the greatest portion being undertaken in Liberia, West Africa. It is significant that foreign mission work done by the church was in “black nations.” From a practical standpoint, this was to be expected; the amount of welcome black missionaries would have received in the early twentieth century in countries populated predominately by white people is truly questionable. That complication aside, the Black Church had for generations sustained a sense of responsibility to Africa for her salvation. Africa and the Caribbean had been the target of black missionary activity from the time of the Baptists George Liele and Lott Carey and the A. M. E. church’s Daniel Coker in the nineteenth century, a posture consistent with the religious and social consciousness of Ethiopianism.26 The Department of Missions was organized under bishops Fisher and Branch in 1918, with tremendous encouragement and support from E. B. Nichols. Although it was part of the church and supported both the general and district convocations at their respective levels, this department had a singular focus and was a prime expression of the church’s outwardness. All other departments were structured in such a way as to support the work of mission, making the Mission Department exceedingly strong. In the early convocations, attention was focused on mission during “Woman’s Day,” which later came to be called “Missionary Day.” Everything that was done on this day lifted the cause of mission before the people. Prayer was offered for missionaries serving on the foreign fields, and for the hearts of others to be touched that they might go forth. Persons were encouraged to work both at home and abroad, and reports were received on the work that was being done. When they were on furlough, returned missionaries were given space to address the gathering. The preaching and the lecturing all centered around this single theme.27 26

Ethopianism is based on the interpretation of Psalm 68:31, “Ethiopia shall stretch forth her hands to God.” This is regarded as a prophecy of black peoples’ embrace of Christianity. This interpretation held that those descendants of Africa who had responded to the gospel in America were responsible for spreading it to other black men and women, both in Africa and in the African Diaspora (see Gayraud S. Wilmore, Black Religion, Black Radicalism: An Examination of the Black Experience in Religion, chap. 5). 27 For an example of Missionary Day Service, see Yearbook, 1918, 9. For the 24th Annual Convocation, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Missionary Day was on

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER

49

Following the firm establishment of the department, this “Missionary Day” which came to be called “Convention” was under the direction of the missionary president. Conventions continued to keep a focus on both home and foreign work. Home work consisted of visiting hospitals, prisons, and homes of the poor and caring for homeless children. Home missionaries prayed with, sheltered, and fed such people. These needy people, who were the targets of missionary work, were regarded as diamonds in the rough. They were the ones in the highways and the hedges who, according to the words of the gospel, were to be “compelled” to follow Christ. Missionaries in the cities testified to a tremendous openness to the gospel among the drunkards, the harlots, and the dispossessed. One worker declared, “she witnessed more conversions amongst this class of people than among the socalled better class of people.”28 As a general rule, the department president gave instruction to the district and local officers concerning their responsibility to the department and for the work of missions. Serving as a teacher, the president requested every missionary to report to the convention with one dollar, every church to have a department, and every department to have a sewing circle. In these circles, items were made for distribution to the poor, for raising funds to turn in to the convention. Tremendous sensitivity and concentrated outreach were shown during times of extreme deprivation, such as the Depression of the 1930s. Time was given to the discussion of these matters, and the resources of the Mission Department were used in alleviating the conditions. One such effort on which a detailed report is available was undertaken in the city of Los Angeles. The missionary president of that district reported that the work had been changed almost entirely to facilitate feeding and other relief work. She claimed that her workers were the first church to begin feeding the unemployed, and that subsequently they were joined by other kind citizens and churches. At the time of the report, she said, as many as 6,000 men had been fed through this operation. The report continued: This work is run by schedule of a ticket system; so as to make no mistake in our counting. Hundreds of these men we have supplied with shoes, clothing, and accommodation for rooms. Also, assisted in getting them Thursday and began with prayer at 9:30 A.M. Activities included talks from missionaries “fresh from the foreign fields,” followed by a lecture on missions. The theme of missions continued through the evening service, during which an urgent appeal was made by the president. 28 This is from the report by Maude Dandrige, a slum missionary worker in Jersey City, N.J., in the 1930s, to the Northern Convocation of 1930 (Yearbook, 1930, 13).

50

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA in the city and country hospitals, when sick. And some we have to bury. People from all parts have visited our work. We praise God for the saints who have encouraged us along the way. Many times we had nothing but coffee and dry bread to feed hundreds who would sit and wait through our service to be fed. We always have someone to give a good message and altar call, and then we feed them. We have saints who have been so faithful to labor in the kitchen, cook and serve.29

Missionary Days and Conventions were settings in which a strong appeal was made for workers to dedicate themselves to the challenges posed by both the home and foreign fields. The appeal for persons to answer the call was made strongly during conventions, and often those who accepted the challenge made their calling known in these great gatherings.30 Educational work likewise reflected the relation of the inner motivation of Holiness to the social consciousness of the church. With respect to the ministry, the need was to compensate for the lack of formal education among the clergy. But a general problem of illiteracy prevailed due to lack of public education for black people. Consistent with the thrust of a sizeable segment of the Black Church in that day, the United Holy Church made its impact on the larger environment in ways that were characterized by racial uplift. In keeping with the long-standing heritage of the Black Church, the United Holy Church kept the poor, who were being denied by some of the more affluent local congregations and denominations, well within her view. The focus on this aspect of the work is apparent in the Articles of Incorporation that state the purpose of the church. Those purposes, which included the establishment and maintenance of “missionary and school work, orphan homes, manual and trade training schools. And other operations auxiliary and incidental thereto,” were altogether consistent with the Standing Recommendations of 1918, 1919, and 1920. These recommendations, submitted by the committed on education read as follows:

29

This was taken from the report of Cornelia Jones Robertson, president of the Pacific Coast District Mission Department, in 1932 (Yearbook, 1932, 91). 30 It was on Missionary Day in the Southern convocation, 1934, that Pearl Teasley of Detroit gave her address on the subject “My Call to Africa,” informing the church of her decision (Yearbook, 1934, 61). The Richardsons shared their sense of calling and surrender before leaving for Africa during the Mission Convention of the Central Western Convention in 1947. In a similar manner, the Reverend and Mrs. Rosa Hargraves of East Orange, N.J., rehearsed her call to the foreign field during the Southern Convocation of 1948 (Yearbook, 1948, 120).

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER

51

That each year the second Sunday in June be known as Children’s Education Day; that all money raised be sent directly to the Secretary of Education immediately. That a percentage of all money for general expense of the Convocation be set aside for educational purposes. That our people in general be encouraged to make annual freewill contributions to this educational fund. That each church have a committee on Education which in cooperation with the pastor will strive to interest the church and congregation in the cause of education. That whatever and whenever practicable, primary schools be established for the benefit of our youth, even if these schools have to be held in the church houses for a while, and that they be taught by teachers in the true Christian faith. That on nomination of the Board of Trustees the Convocation elect an officer for a term of four years to have general oversight of the affairs of Education to be executive officer for the Board of Trustees and Directors. That each pastor strive to raise from his church for education annually at least 50 cents per member. That a high school of liberal arts and techniques be kept in view as ultimate aim of our educational affairs.31

This dream for education was no doubt partially fulfilled through efforts of the United Holy Church and the Christian and Missionary Alliance, in the joint operation of Boydton Institute, in Boydton, Virginia, commencing in 1919. This facility, with over four hundred acres and several buildings, was dedicated for “the colored people” and filled a void that had left black youths so greatly neglected.32

OUTWARD POSTURE One can see in these practical expressions of the church’s outwardness some indication of the overall social consciousness. That consciousness, which in many ways has an affinity with black religion, is nonetheless inseparable from the quest for Holiness and spiritual empowerment. The factor of the prophetic social consciousness distinguished Black Holiness-Pentecostalism from its white Holiness and Pentecostal counterparts. But the factor of intense concern for Holiness distinguished Black Holiness-Pentecostalism from expressions of black religion in general. The United Holy Church was very much conscious of herself as the 31 32

Fisher, Manual, 11; Yearbook, 1919, 3; 1930, 4; 1918, 16. Yearbook, 1919, 24; 1920, 4.

52

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

vanguard of the reformation of the Black Church. In this she was joined by other groups like the Church of God in Christ, the Church of Christ Holiness, and the Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God in the Americas. Due to their teaching on the Trinity, she kept her distance from Apostolics, or Oneness Pentecostals.33 However, this self-consciousness did not bring to an end the relationship with the historic black denominational churches, particularly Methodists and Baptists. After all, the intention was to preserve a spirituality learned among these members of the larger family. In nearly every convocational session held throughout the country, persons were present from numerous historical black denominations. In the 1920s and 1930s the United Holy Church of America was not yet old enough to claim a generation of adult members who were born into the Holy Church. Up to that time, a great percentage of adult members had come into Holiness from other denominations. And, as has been noted, with the ascendancy of come-outism, not all of those who remained in the evangelical denominations were opponents of Holiness. On the contrary, many persons who maintained membership in these denominations and local churches took advantage of every opportunity to be among “Holy People,” and convocation represented the supreme opportunity. Some of these persons had no intention of either embracing Holiness or joining the Holy Church. But they greatly admired the convictions, the dedication, and the joyfulness of “Holy People.” Pastors and members from these denominations were welcomed in these convocations and often were invited to bring words of welcome as the convocation visited different cities. These people included prominent pastors, educators, and members of various professions. Throughout the years, choirs, pastors, and countless guests from these churches addressed convocations and conventions with regularity.34 Several convocational districts appear to have had standing invitations from Methodist churches, which offered the use of their facilities. The 33 The Apostolic teaching is that the name for God is Jesus. Trinitarian doctrine is rejected, and Trinitarian names are said not to be names at all. The formula for baptism from Acts—“in the name of Jesus”—is taken as normative, and the salvation of persons baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is regarded as questionable at best. 34 In Durham, North Carolina, there was an especially close relationship between the Gospel Tabernacle pastored by Bishop H. L. Fisher, and the White Rock Baptist Church and St. Joseph’s A. M. E. Church. The pastors of St. Joseph’s and the prominent professor W. G. Pearson are mentioned with regularity during the outset of the classical phase (see Yearbook, 1919, 15; 1920, 17).

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER

53

Penial Methodist Episcopal Church of Philadelphia was visited regularly by the Northern Convocation, and the pastor during the early thirties, Dr. Goldsboro, acted as though he himself were a member of the convocation.35 In the same district, the doors of St. John’s A. M. E. and Rush Memorial A. M. E. Zion churches in New York, as well as St. John’s Methodist Episcopal Church in Newark, New Jersey, swung on welcoming hinges.36 In the South, the Southern District Convocation enjoyed a similar freedom to use the facilities of St. Joseph’s A. M. E. Church in Durham, North Carolina, and Trinity A. M. E. Zion Church in Greensboro, North Carolina, at will.37 On the West coast, Ward’s Chapel A. M. E. Church of Los Angeles embraced the convocation in that area as its own.38 Perhaps the welcome extended by these Methodist churches is illuminated most clearly through the comment of the Reverend Boyde Patrick, minister of the St. Paul A. M. E. Church in Madison, Wisconsin, which hosted the West Central Convocation of 1946. The Reverend Patrick, in his words of welcome, exclaimed to the delegates during the formal opening of the convocation, “The Gospel you preach is the same Gospel the Methodist Church teaches.”39 The United Holy Church shared with these fellow black denominations and with other Black Holiness-Pentecostal people the openness to embrace all people and the elusive vision of unity by the Spirit in the Body of Christ. The church took seriously the New Testament claim that in his flesh the middle wall of partition had been torn down, and that one race had been fashioned which made no distinctions between Jew and Gentile, bond and free, black and white. At the same time, however, there was every indication of a distinct race consciousness in response to the reality of the times, an identification with an embrace of those persons and institutions in the vanguard of the struggle for racial justice, and a commitment to those causes that supplied such uplift to the race as education, mission, and social relief. But above all else, this manifold expression was a response to the encounter with the Almighty Sovereign God, and an expression of the Church’s understanding of what it means to live holy in this present world. 35 36

Yearbook, 1931, 7; 1932, 15; 1935, 13. The Penial Methodist Church hosted the convocations of 1931, 1932, and 1935. St. John’s A. M. E., Rush Memorial, and St. John’s A. M. E. hosted the convocations of 1930, 1934, 1943, and 1946 (see Yearbook, 1939, 143; 1941, 138; 1943, 216). 37 Yearbook, 1931, p. 89; 1936, p. 190; 1939, p. 89; and 1941, p. 26. 38 Ward’s Chapel A. M. E. Church hosted the convocation in 1939, 1941, and 1943 (see Yearbook, 1939, 143; 1941, 138; 1943, 216). 39 Yearbook, 1946, 107.

54

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

Compared to the most radical criteria of black power–type militancy of the 1960s and after, the United Holy Church of America may not be considered black at all, in which case she would again be in concert with her sister denominations in failing to be in the vanguard of racial social action. But the posture of the United Holy Church with respect to social consciousness contrasts markedly with that of white counterparts that fill the ranks of the Evangelicals, the Fundamentalists, the Holiness, and the Pentecostals. In short, the United Holy Church bears the marks of black religion visibly on her body. While these white brethren embraced racist theology, supported racist causes, advised pious indifference to the struggles of African Americans, the United Holy Church registered its posture in matters pertaining to the race relations of the country. No earth-shaking manifestos were proclaimed, but awareness of the social reality of the time was continually presented to the people. This was reflected in part through the choice of persons who brought greetings to the convocation in various cities. In 1931, for example, Dr. W. H. Moore of Wilmington, North Carolina, enjoined the delegates to preach Christ “until the mayor will come to our side, preach until the judge on his seat will give real justice to all alike, and the Negro will get what is rightfully due him.”40 Such words reflect keen and analytical insight into the social conditions of the time, both within the black community itself and in its interrelation with the larger community. It reflected awareness of the harsh and bitter Jim Crowism, of the injustice prevailing in eastern North Carolina during the 1930s. Moore, and others like him, served as a megaphone in enunciating what the people knew tacitly. Although not articulated by members and leaders of the church, the fact that these words are preserved in the record indicates that the convocation resonated with this thinking. The Yearbook was a public document that circulated throughout the area in which the church had visibility, which meant that anything included in it was both public knowledge and regarded as the position of the church. Had there been any desire not to be associated with such words, they could have easily been stricken from the record rather than printed. We must then regard the tacit affirmation of the convocation as identification with the awareness and consciousness reflected in such statements. Indeed, such words resonated with similar statements made by the leaders of the church themselves. The Fathers were not the type of leader who would go into the forefront of political struggles or become race heroes. But they supported the 40

Yearbook, 1931, 95.

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH ACHIEVES ITS CHARACTER

55

efforts of those who were willing to march in the vanguard and warmly embraced persons known for their leadership in the struggle.41 Numerous statements appear from time to time providing insight into this consciousness. For instance, the Reverend Mrs. Cornelia Jones Robertson, president of the Missionary Department in the Western and Pacific Coast District, followed the National Missionary President during the 1946 Convocation by “extolling Mrs. Mary McLeod Bethune and where God brought her from.”42 Such a statement reflects familiarity with persons of known achievement and shows identification with a noble woman of the race. Identification with the struggles of black people and controversial issues went still further in 1935 when an offering was taken for the Scottsboro Boys.43 An even more explicit expression of this consciousness is seen in the formal embrace by the church of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Persons representing this organization regularly bought greetings to the convocation, but the relationship was made even more formal and official by the attendance of Arthur Poole, president of the church’s Young People’s Holy Association at the NAACP War Emergency Conference in Detroit in 1943. In receiving Poole’s report from that conference, it was remarked for the record: “We are glad that our great church was represented with this organization.” A statement such as this shows explicitly that the sentiments of the church were with the race. In earlier days, persons on the frontier of the struggle were invited to the convocation to address the people. But by the 1940s, members of the church were moving into more direct participation and leadership.44 During the time when the NAACP was being maligned by many within the larger community, it was officially 41

The 1934 convocation recognized with great pride the presence of Mrs. Maude Trotter Stewart, the sister of William Monroe Trotter, former editor of the Boston Guardian. The pride is denoted by the designation of her as a “notable person.” She, in turn, had kind words to say concerning the United Holy Church and its excellent leaders. See Yearbook, 1934, 42. 42 Yearbook, 1946, 124. 43 See Yearbook, 1935, 47. Note may also be made of the frequent occasions on which the Negro National Anthem was sung. Persons were also given permission to publicize literature pertaining to Afro-Americans, such as to Mrs. Vivian Brown, who spoke in favor of the Afro-American World Almanac in the 1944 convocation in Chicago (see Yearbook, 1943, 187; 1944, 11; 1947, 125; 1949, 202; 1951, 177). 44 See Yearbook, 1943, 105, for the record showing the convocation’s response to Poole. Arthur Poole, who served as president of the YPHA, was an energetic young businessman who owned a taxi business in Henderson, N.C. Proud of his association with the NAACP, he counted it as significant for himself personally, and for the church, that he was in attendance. (cont.)

56

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

referred to as an organization with which the church was glad to be aligned. In later years, the church was to purchase lifetime membership in this civil rights organization.45 The most explicit expressions of this consciousness, however, come after the classical phase. Following the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, a committee was appointed as the church’s instrument for speaking out on issues pertaining to racism and segregation.46 Further, during the height of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, members of the United Holy Church were significant participants in the historic events that took place in Greensboro, North Carolina. In Goldsboro, North Carolina, students of the United Holy Church’s school initiated attempts to eat at the counter of the Woolworth store, and the United Christian College became the center from which action emanated in that eastern North Carolina city.47 The United Holy Church thus gave expression to both its inner and outer life. Inwardly, this life was manifested in the development of the organization and structure, the application of discipline, and the commissioning of those who would serve as spokespersons, agents, representatives, and leaders. Outwardly, its life was expressed in the attitudes it held toward other institutions of society: other religious bodies, the media, the educational establishment, the masses of the people, and adversaries. The collective attitude was shaped by the concrete and practical meaning of holiness within the given environment, namely, the setting of Afro-Americans in the early twentieth century. The blackness of the United Holy Church is expressed through its concern for Holiness. The emerging character of this church reveals that blackness is more than a matter of skin color or of a fate determined by the larger society and the controlling powers within the culture. An inherently religious factor was in no small way a determinant of the life of the church.

Much credit is due to this same Arthur Poole for this study. He preserved one of the best collections of Yearbooks and other materials pertaining to the church that can be found. These materials were microfilmed by Sherry DuPree and catalogued in the archives of the Assemblies of God in Springfield, Missouri. 45 Yearbook, 1968, p. 51. 46 Ibid. 47 In Greensboro, the Hayes Memorial Church joined with other churches in that city as the first wave of the sit-in demonstrations received national and international attention. In Goldsboro, students of the United Christian College were carried away to jail to start an action that was later picked up by the community (Interview with Bishop H. W. Fields, December, 1982).

3 PROFILES OF THE FATHERS THE FATHERS AS MINISTRY TYPES We now look at persons in the development of the United Holy Church of America who have come to be regarded as the “Fathers.” They were not the founders, but they were the ones who put the most definitive stamp on the organization in the earliest meetings in Method, North Carolina, and those who organized the first convocation in 1894.1 Without the sparse references from Fisher’s work as the only written account of them, these persons possibly would have slipped into oblivion. In some of the early Yearbooks their names appear on the Ministerial Roll. A prominent reference is made to L. M. Mason in the 1929 Yearbook, where he was listed among those for whom a Memorial Service was held during the session of the Southern District Convocation that year in Norfolk, Virginia.2 However, despite their presence at the inception, and their service in the early days of the Church, the actual founders are virtually forgotten men and women.3 On the contrary, the story is different for Fisher, Branch, Diggs, Houston, Lyons, Nichols, and others who were contemporary to them. They served in a time when records were kept. By virtue of the offices they held, the effectiveness of their articulation, and the stature they achieved, their actions and words came to be regarded as normative. Their sermons became the models for preaching, and their Bible lessons became the source of authority for scriptural interpretation and doctrine. Even their advice and opinions were regarded as having the weight of informal law, establishing a tradition that in many instances paralleled the doctrine and bylaws as factors in shaping the life of the church. These “Fathers” may be considered “classical” in that their teaching, administration, and overall leadership provide insight for understanding the 1 2 3

Henry L. Fisher, History of the United Holy Church of America, Inc., 11. Yearbook, 1929, 19. These include G. A. Mials, Issac Cheshier, H. C. Snipes, D. S. Freeman, G. W. Roberts, L. M. Mason, H. C. Pettiford, Mrs. Emma E. Craig, and Mrs. L. J. Roberts—some find mention in my account, of others nothing is known at all.

57

58

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

collective attitude and practical life of the institution they established.4 Due to their exceptional impact, their work had an edifying and paradigmatic effect on the organization that emerged. Churches and meeting centers are named for them. Persons presently serving as leaders in the church refer to them frequently as their “Fathers in the Gospel.” Their administration and the configuration of the church during their time have been taken as models providing criteria for present evaluations.5 Designating these “Fathers” as classical figures does not mean that they merely reflect the caliber of the average minister in the church during the phase under consideration. Rather, they are singled out precisely for the distinctiveness of their ability and the esteem that allowed them to exert an extraordinary influence. The measure of their stature lies partially in the inability of average ministers to rise to their level of achievement, but it also lies in the Fathers’ ability to persuade their followers that their vision and level of performance were standards all leaders in the church should strive to reach. It is in these respects that we call Henry Lee Fisher, General Johnson Branch, Jefferson Davis Diggs, John W. Houston, E. B. Lyons, and E. B. Nichols “Fathers.” Through their efforts, a multiplicity of convocations were established, making the church more than a local association of “Holy People” in North Carolina. These men inseminated their thought and vision into the body of the United Holy Church. Being among the incorporators who gave legal standing and visibility to the church, they traveled throughout the country and beyond, teaching in convocations and conventions and elaborating the meaning of Holiness as commonly understood by them. They forcefully corrected what they considered misconceptions and compelled detractors to notice their work and dignity. Although they shared a common spirituality with other religious persons of their time, they also shared the particularity of the people they led. There were certainly men and women in the Methodist and Baptist churches with spirituality comparable to that of these Fathers of the United Holy Church, but the consequence of the Fathers’ work was the rise of an institution on which their stamp was placed. 4

The idea of the “classical” is developed quite extensively in Joachim Wach, Types of Religious Experience, 51–53. A similar notion is elaborated by Max Weber in Methodology of the Social Sciences, 92–93. 5 Wach elaborates the structure of the classical in religion by giving four basic features. He says of the classical that it is a relative norm, that through it an effort is made to grasp the essential, that it must be elastic, and that it is characterized by relativity (Types, 51–53).

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

59

In presenting these Fathers as classical figures, each is considered to represent an aspect of the religious charisma Joachim Wach compressed into the leadership type he called “reformer.” More precisely, each of the Fathers may be associated with one or another subtype of this category, which embraces considerable variation within its structure. Although different from the prophet and the founder in the strictest sense, the reformer is like them both. Prophets, founders, and reformers all engaged in considerable preaching and teaching. The primary factor distinguishing the reformer from the founder is that a new religion tends to succeed the founder’s work, accompanied by some measure of veneration and even deification; the primary factor distinguishing the reformer from the prophet is the latter’s singular focus on direct and immediate revelation as the source of authority.6 The subtypes of the reformer constructed for our purposes are: the Man of Compassion and Wisdom, the Holy Man, the Scholar, the Interpreter of Mysteries, the Healer, and the Missionary. In this construct, the objective is to describe and elucidate the meaning of the United Holy Church of America as a Black Holiness-Pentecostal denomination by examining the lives of those who shaped it most significantly. These subtypes are designed to illuminate the personalities so as to reveal more critically the essence of the Unity Holy Church. • The Man of Compassion and Wisdom exhibits a reforming charisma approaching that of a founder. Differing from the founder in that there is no deification or veneration, this Father nevertheless attains a place of honor exceeding what is due him merely by virtue of his office. A relationship is developed with the followers characterized by a rather high degree of dependence on his wisdom, and a correspondingly high degree of responsibility for their general well-being. More than all the other subtypes, the authority of this Father is estab6

Wach says of the reformer:

As we have seen, some of the reformers have geniuses of devotion; some, great scholars or profound thinkers; some, powerful directors of religious fervor and emotion; some, great teachers and preachers. All these elements we find isolated or in some combination with other types of religious personalities. Quantitatively, the reformer is characterized by the extent and degree of his activity; qualitatively, by his creative and constructive power, which, however, will be inferior to that of the founder. Inside and outside of Christianity the history of religion records the work of a great number of outstanding theologians, teachers, interpreters, and leaders in religious life. Less original than the founder, yet more original than the just mentioned bearers of authority, the reformers in all religions represent an epoch in the life and action of their group, and thus a religious charisma of great sociological consequence. (Sociology of Religion, 346)

60

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

lished by the depth of his knowledge of the Scriptures. The Scriptures, regarded as spiritual food, were considered the very substance of life by the people being led. The depth referred to is not the mere holding of content; it is an integration of scriptural and practical knowledge in such a way that sufficient wisdom to speak with authority on any issue is demonstrated. The Man of Compassion and Wisdom gives the impression of doing and saying all things with the authority of the Scriptures, which makes this Father something of an earthly exemplar to whom the people look second only to Jesus. • The Holy Man possesses a reforming charisma of piety and spiritual power that sets him apart as highly favored of God and, consequently, favored with the people. This father may or may not be liked. But his effectiveness in all the things he does is evident, and an attitude akin to fear arises if the thought of withstanding him is entertained for long. The Holy Man openly demonstrates the signs of piety and prominently credits the divine for success. By virtue of this perceived relation with the deity, he inspires a degree of cooperation that otherwise would not be forthcoming. Although not inadequate as a teacher, the Holy Man is nevertheless not significantly known for this ability. But he is nothing less than masterful in directing the devotion and religious fervor of those who follow him. • The Scholar exhibits the reforming charisma that causes the people to participate directly or vicariously in his knowledge. His distinction from the people by virtue of preparation, reflection, and overall achievement is never a matter that comes into question. Yet it does not set this father over against the people. Instead, the Scholar is seen as one who belongs to the people and from whom they gain importance and status by association. Moreover, he challenges his people to excellence and critiques their performance. At the same time, he gives them his spiritual and intellectual possessions and provides the means whereby some may even join the ranks. • The Interpreter of Mysteries exhibits the reforming charisma that supplies a sense of urgency to all that is and must be done. Like the Man of Compassion and Wisdom and the Scholar, he has great knowledge of the Scriptures, but unlike them, there is a distance, a lack of approachability, and sternness to the manner of this Father. His passionate preoccupation with the “deep things” is his trademark. Having something of the prophet’s mystique, the Interpreter appears and disappears, remains relatively aloof, and shows little concern over the pleasure or displeasure evoked by his message, so long as the appropriate awe and urgency are produced. • The Healer exhibits the reforming charisma of demonstrating the power to which preaching and teaching point. An intensely kind, passionate,

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

61

and devout person, he need not show the same formal acumen as the Scholar, the Interpreter, or the Man of Compassion and Wisdom. In piety, this Father resembles the Holy Man, but his accomplishments are limited more to personal ministrations than to those having a corporate or explicitly social dimension. • The Missionary exhibits the reforming charisma characterized by zeal and enthusiasm for outreach and expansion. Less emphasis is placed on patient study and tedious detail than may be the case with others. The consuming passion is movement and action. In some sense, this Father stands as the symbol for the collective commitment, while simultaneously pronouncing collective condemnation when the commitment is insufficiently evidenced in practice. The Missionary is the one who without reservation or certainty of outcome acts in utter dependence on God and on those claiming commitment to him.

FISHER: THE MAN OF COMPASSION AND WISDOM Without a doubt, the single greatest influence on the shape the United Holy Church was to take came from Henry Lee Fisher. Known during his tenure as general president as “Senior Bishop,” “Chief Apostle,” and a “Prince of God,” Bishop Fisher was most fondly referred to by those closest to him as “Dad.”7 On the one hand, Fisher was so kind, gentle, and approachable that no one felt uneasy around him. But on the other hand, he commanded such respect that with the force of his personality he could organize and lead a group of people spread throughout the country and extending to other parts of the world. In the words of his biographer, the late Bishop A. W. Lawson, who succeeded him as pastor in Durham: Wherever he went he carried such a meek, humble and loving spirit until the simplest person would feel at home in his presence. Yet, his demeanor was of such high priestly order that the most noble person would sense his duty and responsibility to his fellow men by observing the common sense traits manifested by Reverend Fisher.8

Fisher was not a part of that first group of people who met in the cottage in Method, North Carolina, under the banner of Holiness in 1886. Indeed, he was not to come in contact with the “Holy People” of North Carolina until some time after his move to the city of Wilmington, North Carolina. He was born in Salisbury, North Carolina, on October 15, 1874, to 7 8

Andrew W. Lawson, “The Life and Times of Henry Fisher: A Biography,” 14. Ibid., 18.

62

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

poor parents who had not long been freed from slavery. Due to their financial status, they could not support the dreams of young Fisher. But he was able to attend Barber-Scotia College in Concord, North Carolina, and subsequent to his study at Concord he moved to Wilmington. There he stayed with relatives and found employment, sending funds back home to aid in the support of his family.9 By upbringing, Fisher was a member of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. Joining the church at an early age, he worked faithfully and became acquainted with its teaching. No doubt it was this background in Methodism that disposed young Fisher to the preaching of Holiness in the city of Wilmington. Throughout the country, Methodists seeking to revive the emphasis on scriptural holiness were the vanguard of the emerging movement. In responding to the teaching of Holiness, Fisher joined many other Methodists, and throughout his tenure as general president of the church he retained strong fellowship with Methodists of all branches, often holding convocations in their churches. In Wilmington, Fisher’s life was transformed by the preaching of Holiness that he heard. Arriving in the city in his early teens, Fisher made quite an impression on all who knew him. One of the persons who met Fisher shortly after his arrival was Mrs. Julia A. Delk, who latter became the national president of the Missionary Department. Based on his conversations with Mother Delk, Lawson described young Fisher as follows: Henry was very mannerly, polite, and particular in his dress and words. He was never satisfied with the status quo. After working there for many years, he became known to the best thinkers of Wilmington by his constant contact and association with both white and colored. When he came of age and desired to help himself and others in the civic life of that day, he voted against the will of his employer and was dismissed. Henry would not let a job hinder him from the courage of his conviction.10

It was to the heart of this mannerly, polite, but courageous young man that the doctrine of Holiness preached by the Reverend Elijah Lowney of Cleveland, Ohio, formerly a Methodist preacher, made an effective appeal, awakening the desire for the deeper life of entire sanctification and Holiness. Not long after committing himself to the way of Holiness, and identifying himself with those who had “come out,” Fisher became a member of the “Holy Band.” He felt a call to preach the gospel in the manner he had heard from the “Holy People.” This preaching consisted of taking a passage from 9 10

Ibid., 1–2. Ibid., 2.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

63

the Bible and rendering an interpretation in keeping with the commonly accepted beliefs among “Holy People.” In summary, these beliefs were: The soon return of the Lord; without holiness no man could see the Lord, that sanctification was the second work of grace, that one had to tarry until the Holy Ghost came upon the sanctified life, that the Holy Ghost was a gift and not a definite work, that the gospel should be preached without money or price, that the members of the church should have all things in common, that the Bible should be accepted as the infallible word of God, and it is the only means by which men could be prepared to meet the Lord in the air.11

Fisher was ordained during a convention held at Saint’s Rest Church in Wilmington in 1900. Out of his great zeal for preaching the gospel, he walked as far as forty miles to preach. One time, he preached for as long as six weeks for 65 cents and a crate of huckleberries as his remuneration. In calling the people to hear the preaching of Holiness, Fisher and the Holy Band reiterated the words of the prophet, inviting the hungry to “come eat without money or price.”12 During his ministry as a traveling evangelist in the early days, Fisher was called to pastor the congregation at Durham Tabernacle. As Fisher stated in his own words: It was in the year of 1904 as I traveled as an evangelist and pastor through the states of North Carolina and Virginia that I was invited to Durham, North Carolina to be present at the dedication of their new church edifice which was called the Durham Tabernacle. We answered the call and filled the engagement to a large and interesting gathering. This was followed by a revival campaign, which lasted a whole month, during which time a goodly number, both men and women were saved. The next year May 1905, while conducting a meeting in Roxboro, North Carolina, I was called to the pastorate of this congregation. After prayerful consideration, I accepted the call as being the call of God, and began my ministry there on the first Sunday in June.13

In answering the call, Fisher began a tenure that lasted over forty years. Apparently during the same year he also accepted the charge as pastor in Henderson, North Carolina, at the Holy Temple Church, for he gave his report to the annual convocation in 1906 as pastor of the two churches.14 Next to embracing Holiness, perhaps no experience had a greater 11 12 13 14

Ibid., 5. Ibid., 6–9. Fisher, History, 25. Lawson, “Life,” 23.

64

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

impact on the life of young Fisher than his election to the position of leader of the Holy Band. This election was the culmination of a sequence of events set in motion with his election as general superintendent of Bible schools of the Holy Church of North Carolina during the sixteenth annual convocation at Providence Holy Church in Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1910. In serving on the board of elders, the board of presbyters, and the board of trustees, while also serving as general superintendent, Fisher demonstrated the qualities of leadership that the “little band of holy followers” were seeking when they met in Oxford, North Carolina, in 1916. In the minds of many at the time, the entire movement was threatened. Some even believed that it would die when their leader of sixteen years, Elder W. H. Fulford, embraced the belief that he would never die. This belief in the teaching of “everlasting life in the flesh, so as to continue to dwell on earth in flesh and blood, immune from death,” led to the disfellowshipping of Fulford in 1918 and drove these “Holy People” to look for a new leader who was both dynamic and stable.15 Fisher said a year later that the office in which he made his greatest mark was one that he did not seek. Addressing the Quadrennial Convention, Fisher stated: In the year 1916, in Oxford, North Carolina in General Convocation, it pleased our Heavenly Father through his people, to thrust upon me the mantle of leadership with Bishop G. J. Branch as my associate. This unexpected responsibility came to us unsought for, therefore, we stood trembling with fear that we might not be equal to the task of uniting a somewhat disorganized group so that they would go forward in a progressive way. Therefore, we sought for wisdom and divine guidance in order that good success might attend to our efforts. It was at this gathering that the New Name for the Church was adopted. “The United Holy Church of America.” Two years later the work was incorporated.16

The record of the twenty-second convocation indeed reflects a sober and prayerful mood among those gathered. J. D. Diggs’s minutes of that session record the moment of election of Fisher and Branch as follows: The house nominated five candidates for president, namely, Reverend Henry L. Fisher, W. C. Carlton, Dr. J. D. Diggs, D. A. Atkinson, and G. J. Branch, with ticket in hand we bowed and Prayed in these words, “Thou Lord who knowest the hearts of all men, show us whether of these has chosen.” When the ballots were cast and counted, the secretary announced the decision as follows: whole number of votes cast 79, necessary to choice, 40, H. L. Fisher 62; W. C. Carlton 6; D. A. Atkinson 2; 15 16

Yearbook, 1918, 11, 12. Yearbook, 1940, 11.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

65

G. J. Branch 8; J. D. Diggs 1. Reverend Fisher was made unanimous by acclamation. Then the candidates for vice president were set forth. Reverend G. J. Branch, Reverend E. B. Nichols, Reverend W. C. Carlton. Whole number of votes cast 82, necessary to choice 42. The votes stood Branch 42; Nichols 20; Carlton 21; Reverend G. J. Branch was declared elected vice president for four years.17

It did not take long at all for Fisher to make the influence of his leadership felt. As early as the convocation of 1918, he had sufficiently established his reputation that he could give counseling and instruction regarding general deportment during the convocation to men and women older then himself.18 Although the report of the boards of elders and presbyters bears the names of L. M. Mason as chairman and D. J. Hatcher as secretary, the influence of President Fisher is certainly present in the resolution banning Fulford’s teaching of “everlasting life in the flesh” as “unscriptural and false.”19 But the thrust of Fisher’s leadership is seen further in his presidential address in 1918. In that address he asserted that the Church was passing through the seventh period of the Church Age and was in need of men “fully prepared, men whose hearts God had touched, … men with right and fixed purposes, ‘Men who have understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to do,’ I Chronicles 12:32.”20 His words were delivered with a tone of urgency. He communicated a zeal for spreading “Bible Holiness” throughout the land and the world in the face of the imminent return of the Lord Jesus. He sought to translate his concern that all people hear the “full gospel of Jesus Christ” into a program characterized by “some definite plan regarding the foreign field.” He further called for a school to train the children of his own people. Comparing the sacrifices required by the job he was outlining to those of people engaged in the World War, he called on his hearers to join him in blushing with shame “when we look and see how little we have done by way of giving for the cause we claim to love so well.21 Evidence that his words did not go unheeded seems apparent in the resolutions of the same session calling for the establishment of primary schools “for the benefit of our youth, even if these schools have to be held in church houses for a while”; to establish a “high school of liberal arts and techniques”; providing a Course of Study of Ministers; and forwarding monies for mission to the Christian and Missionary Alliance. These actions were 17 18 19 20 21

Lawson, “Life,” 24; Yearbook, 1916, 15. Yearbook, 1918, 6. Ibid., 11. Ibid., 11. Ibid.

66

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

followed shortly by the operation of a high school under the auspices of the United Holy Church in Boydton, Virginia, and the sending of United Holy Church missionaries to the foreign field. The Fathers were men greatly endowed with the power to inspire others, and among them Henry Fisher was supreme. Fisher sought to transmit a spirit, or an ethos. He truly believed that Holiness and the Holiness movement were ordained of God as the authentic and legitimate remnant of the Living Church—planted by the ministry of Jesus Christ and given birth on the day of Pentecost. In his words to the New England Convocation of 1932, Fisher put the Holiness movement in this perspective: Martin Luther, through his vision, came forth, with the Protestant Reformation that is Justification by Faith. Protestantism spread, but with much persecution. God wants more martyrs, men who will seal their testimonies with their blood. When Protestantism failed, God sent the Holy Ghost to stir up the nations. As a result, we have the Pentecostal Holiness Movement of today, and this is the last Reformation. The message of today is “Jesus is coming soon!” Lord, give us a new touch, and enlarged vision of God, that we might be on fire for God.22

In his effort to make others burn with the same fire that impelled him to travel throughout the country, and to the islands of the seas, with the message that was aflame in his heart, Fisher visited convocations in all the districts. In fact, very few meetings were held anywhere under the banner of the United Holy Church during Fisher’s lifetime where he was not present as counselor, advisor, encourager, and Father. From the outset of his tenure as president, Bishop Fisher instituted a program of Bible study that encompassed the entire church. All convocations and conventions had a morning hour (generally 11 o’clock) set aside for Bible study. It was a modest compensation for those who had not been privileged to receive formal training. But it was also a mechanism for achieving unity of thought in matters of doctrine and practice throughout the church. This was in keeping with one of Fisher’s stated goals—that members of the United Holy Church should feel comfortable in any local church or meeting they attended. For many years, this study period was conducted by the bishops. When the number of qualified persons increased sufficiently, national lecturers were elected to undertake this work as well.23 The gospel Fisher was so anxious to proclaim was predicated on four cardinal truths, namely: salvation, baptism of the Holy Ghost, divine healing, 22 23

Yearbook, 1932, 20. Yearbook, 1940, 11.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

67

and the coming of Jesus. In this fourfold gospel, God had given the full plan for humankind. These cardinal truths were the foundation of a message that should ring “with no uncertain sound, from coast to coast, from North to South in America, and in the Isles of the Sea.” Proclamation of this gospel, in Fisher’s view, was the only remedy for the Laodicean condition of the present-day Church. It was the only remedy for the sickness of a nation is which murderers, pickpockets, and thugs walked out of the court, the jail, and the penitentiary “with the police being unable to hold them and the law being unable to punish them.”24 Fisher bemoaned the fact that family worship had declined to the extent that it was observed in less than 20 percent of American homes professing to be Christian, whereas the percentage had previously been as high as 70 percent. It pained him that every seventh marriage in the country was ending in divorce. He quoted a study of the Chicago Health Institute in his 1936 address which reported that every fourth person in the country had some sort of social disease. He continued, saying: Neither life nor property is safe anywhere. And worse still, multitudes are plunging to temporal and eternal ruin, with as yet scarcely a protest worthy of the name on the part of the Church. Where is all this to end? A mighty revival would check it in the nation at large. Nothing can go on in sin and escape punishment. “The wages of sin is death.” “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”25

What Fisher longed for was a revival on the order of that which ushered in the Great Awakening.26 He desired to see men and women prevail with God in prayer, even spending whole nights in prayer. He noted that this was done by several members on the night prior to Jonathan Edwards’s preaching of his famous sermon, “Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God.” Then when the sermon was preached, there was such a mighty outpouring of the Holy Ghost that the elders “threw their arms around the pillars of the church and cried, ‘Lord save us, we are slipping into hell!’”27 24 25 26

Yearbook, 1936, 30. Ibid., 29. The First Great Awakening (1720–1740s) is associated with the preaching of Jonathan Edwards and the revivals in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and some early involvement of the Presbyterians in New Jersey and Virginia. The Second Great Awakening (1790s) moved from New England into the middle states and featured prominent leadership from the Methodists and Baptists. The Second Awakening brought the heaviest influx of Africans. This response was often referred to as “Ethiopia stretching forth her hand unto God” (Ps. 68:31). 27 Yearbook, 1936, 29.

68

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

The revival Fisher sought was one in which sinners would be saved and the sick would be healed. Fisher longed for the demonstrations of the Spirit’s power manifested in the early church wherein the lame walked, the blind were given their sight, and other miracles were performed in the name of Jesus. But in order for this to come about, the New Testament standard had to be observed. Accordingly, he called the United Holy Church “back to Pentecost.” He warned that unless the Body of Christ known as the United Holy Church faithfully discharged its duty, it faced the same danger as the Laodicean Church faced—that of being spewed out of the Lord’s mouth. In a real sense, then, his concern for preaching and teaching in the convocations and for having other consecrated men and women do the same was related to his compassion for the world around him and to his desire to see the power of God made manifest in its fullness. This zealous work on the part of Fisher did not by any means meet with an indifferent response. Some who rejected the man and his message outright held that “Holy People” were little better than “trash.” To others, they were just another of the cults that were proliferating in the early twentieth century. Fisher and the leaders had to fight for the good name of the church and against the image of sexual looseness that was projected by a group called the Leuchites. It was their belief that spiritual companionship and sexual relationship went together. This appears to have been a version of the “clean sheet doctrine,” which held that “two clean sheets cannot soil one another,” meaning that if both persons were spiritual, neither could be defiled in sexual relationships. Surely Fisher’s opposition to this doctrine brought resistance.28 But opposition to Fisher and his preaching of Holiness also came from other devoutly religious and well-meaning persons. Many sincere Christians who encountered his preaching of Holiness believed that they were already in possession of the fullness of salvation. To them, this “deeper life of sanctification” was unnecessary and excessive. On one occasion, Fisher was actually evicted when the woman with whom he was staying during an evangelistic campaign learned that he was a Holiness preacher. On this particular day he had gone to conduct a meeting and left his belongings in the woman’s home. Learning of his association with “Holy People,” and his commitment to Holiness, she set his suitcase outdoors and locked him out. Finding his belongings outside upon his return, Fisher retired to an open field for the night and slept with the animals, “counting it for the glory of God to be worthy to suffer for his name’s sake.”29 28 29

Lawson, “Life,” 19–20. Ibid., 8–9.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

69

But to those who did accept the preaching of holiness and cast their lot with the United Holy Church, Fisher came to be viewed as a Father in the gospel and a Prince of God. Following the summary of his message to the Women’s Convention at Zebulon, North Carolina, in 1929, the recorder wrote: “It was indeed wonderful. The Spirit surely did move on the face of the water. He spoke mightily by the power of the Holy Ghost, and did not our hearts burn within us, he spoke with us by the way.”30 During that same year, as he preached in the Northern Convocation on the subject “The Glory of the Church,” he was so effective that “the glory of God filled the place, and overshadowed the waiting congregation.”31 In the “Resolution of Thanks” drafted by the Resolution Committee and read at the close of convocations, Bishop Fisher was thanked for his “fatherly compassion” and applauded as “honorable, worthy, and distinguished.”32 His very words had the power to cheer and encourage the souls of the people “to press on forward to the mark of the higher calling which is in Christ Jesus.”33 Fisher’s leadership was characteristically described as humble, wise, and God-directed.34 With fatherly compassion, he demonstrated patience and unusual ability in handling the business of the sessions. Lawson remarks on Fisher’s unique power of persuasion, citing his acquisition of a $6,000 loan from Mechanics and Farmers Bank without a mortgage. He further notes Fisher’s power to rebuke and reprove without stirring hard feelings that would linger in the future. Lawson says: He would never leave his opponent before he could get a smile on his countenance radiating from the one he carried on his face. He would like to end his statement to the party involved and to his hearers: “He’s alright he understands me” or “I know you still love me because you want to go to heaven.”35

Those who heard Fisher perform as a teacher called him powerful, inspiring, and fatherly. According to their testimony, his lessons thrilled their souls and were stamped indelibly on their hearts and would be exemplified in their lives “throughout the shifting scenes of life.”36 At the same time, Fisher’s teaching was erudite and scholarly. In keeping with the theological 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Yearbook, 1929, 65. Ibid., 83–84. Yearbook, 1930, 121. Yearbook, 1932, 37. Yearbook, 1933, 73; 1937, 31. Lawson, “Life,” 14–16. Yearbook, 1934, 120.

70

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

trends within evangelical circles, Fisher taught healing through the atonement of Jesus, the dispensational theory of salvation, the relationship between Old and New Covenants, and the seven compound names of God which reveal how he meets man’s every need, and shows compassion.37 To his hearers, there were “unsearchable riches” coming from a “Prince of God” and his Chief Apostle to the United Holy Church.”38 His hearers claimed that words were not capable of describing what their hearts felt when he preached and taught.39 Under Fisher’s leadership, the church expanded from a tiny, disorganized band in North Carolina into the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Missouri, California, Oregon, and Arizona; and the District of Columbia, Bermuda, Barbados, and West Africa.40 By the time of his death, the classic structure of the church had been fashioned; and he was also serving as president of the United Holy Church, and as president of the Southern, West Virginia, Western and Pacific Coast, and Bermuda convocational districts.41 H. L. Fisher died on July 14, 1947, during a Missionary Convention in Henderson, North Carolina. It was considered a dark hour in the church when the leader of more than thirty years went “to be with the Lord.”42 Fisher was eulogized as a mighty leader who had fallen in battle. The grief was great and many hearts were saddened when the visible and earthly head died.43 But this fatherly man, so powerful in Scriptures, had left an indelible mark on the institution he led and served as it achieved its classical form.

BRANCH: THE HOLY MAN Standing alongside Fisher at the helm of leadership as the United Holy Church achieved its classical form was General Johnson Branch. The official records contain fewer of his sermons, Bible lectures, and addresses than those of Fisher. He appears nonetheless to have been a powerful figure in his own right. Branch was a lieutenant who was fully capable of holding first 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Yearbook, 1929, 115–17; 1930, 52, 112; 1936, 62. Yearbook, 1936, 82, 47; 1940, 38. Yearbook, 1940, 71. Fisher, History, 12, 13. Yearbook, 1946, 5–7. Yearbook, 1947, 161, 210. Ibid., 69, 122, 147.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

71

rank. Indeed, Branch’s name was entered in nomination at the time of Fisher’s election, and he received the second highest number of votes despite the fact that he was only thirty-five years old. Furthermore, following the death of Fisher, Branch took the reins of leadership with hardly a ripple in the water. Branch was born in 1881, in Duplin County, North Carolina. He attended school in Duplin County and later attended Hampton Institute. At the time of his death, the Goldsboro newspaper reported that he had been involved with the work of the United Holy Church for forty-one years. This means that he joined the “Holy People” around 1908, as a young man; in 1916 he won election as vice president over the older and better known E. B. Nichols, and W. C. Carlton.44 Branch was less noted as a profound Bible teacher than Fisher. He was perhaps better known for his soul-stirring, inspirational preaching and his skill as a manager. G. J. Branch shared the same faith as Fisher in terms of the cardinal truth and is on record as early as 1920 for encouraging remarks on the subject of divine healing and preaching on the charismatic signs that attend belief in Jesus Christ.45 Branch was a preacher who challenged his hearers with the word he preached by focusing on the depravity of the human condition. He portrayed God in his transcendence, man in his falseness, and stressed the jural relationship between God and man. In Branch’s view, man ought to obey and serve God; man ought to give God all that he requires. And when man achieved the proper view of what his state ought to be, as compared to what it was, he would cry out to God for mercy. What Branch’s preaching and teaching lacked in mastery of the interpretations prominent in Evangelical, Holiness, and Pentecostal circles was more than compensated for in fervor, zeal, and practical applications of the Scriptures to everyday life and the life of the United Holy Church. Branch compared the state of the early church to the present state of the church in such a way that listeners felt that they had fallen short of their privileges and must resolve to rise and do more for the Lord.46 In his down-to-earth style Branch would talk to his audience as though the scenes of the text were being reenacted. On one occasion, for example, he spoke to his congregation as though they were the woman at the well encountering Jesus.47 For Branch, the greatness of salvation was beyond comparison. It 44 45 46 47

Goldsboro News-Argus, August 6, 1949; Lawson, “Life,” 24. Yearbook, 1920, 18–19. Yearbook, 1929, 82. Ibid., 137–38.

72

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

brought deliverance and peace on earth and was too great to neglect. Always eager to pose contrasts, he argued that salvation must be great and wonderful because it overcomes sin, which itself is a great power. Because salvation is so great, and sin is so powerful, it is utterly dangerous for sin to enter into the holy place.48 Accordingly, Branch rehearsed and stressed the basic and familiar themes. He preached regularly and powerfully on the new birth and forgiveness of sin. He ridiculed as absolutely ludicrous any attempt to find shortcuts in seeking and doing the will of God or any consideration of compromising the stand that has been taken. Circumscribing this picture of salvation presented by Branch was the transcendent God who holds divine ownership over humankind and the world. Further, in spite of the goodness, mercy, and freedom extended to the creature, a jural relationship exists that must not be overlooked and that cannot be set aside. Hence, Branch would stress the moral peril involved in “grieving the Holy Ghost.” Using the images of the lost coin, the lost sheep, and the lost son, he stressed the divine initiative in every case in which man is found or redeemed.49 In the gains of salvation and accomplishment of humankind in the work of God, a distinction must always be made between what God had wrought through humans and what God has wrought alone,50 for God is omnipotent and omnipresent.51 All man can do is repent, obey, and be a peculiar treasurer. When this is done, refining, purging, and purification take place. One then knows full salvation.52 Branch, the Holy Man, stirred and motivated his hearers through his total involvement in his preaching to the point of being lost in the message. As such, he was considered a “Holy Ghost preacher.” He used this designation in describing his message on “The Holy Spirit and the Church” at the New England Convocation of 1936. Said Branch: “This is a Holy Ghost sermon and directed to the believers. It would pay all of you as such to receive the message for yourselves and not for your brothers.” Of the sermon, the record noted: “How we all rejoiced at the message coming from the lips of this powerful man of God.”53 48 49 50 51 52 53

Ibid., 140. Yearbook, 1931, 155; 1933, 10; 1934, 59. Yearbook, 1934, 88. Yearbook, 1944, 110. Yearbook, 1939, 67; 1935, 13, 38. Yearbook, 1936, 98.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

73

Branch’s enthusiasm was not lost on his listeners. His preaching was acknowledged as coming with the anointing of the Holy Spirit.54 Following his sermon on “Steadfastness” in the Northern District Convocation of 1930, the recorder noted: The anointing of the Spirit was certainly upon the speaker. The word was preached in power. It’s amazing to see how the Lord had taken a new hold on our bishop, and how he has taken a new hold on God. We have taken on greater love for him. His steadfastness had kindled a determination in our hearts to unmovable.55

Again, at the Northern Convocation of 1931, The Word was preached in power. The anointing was upon the speaker in such a marvelous way until there were eyewitnesses that a halo of light was encircling his head as he spoke the Word of God in boldness. We are noticing a continual growth in the bishop’s spiritual life. The sermon will continue to have its effect on hearts throughout the years.56

Branch was called an arduous laborer and a wise counselor.57 His messages and his manner made a deep impression on those whom he reached through his preaching and who followed his leadership.58 The Spirit-filled, “heart-searching Bible lessons,” and the “words of wisdom and spirit of holiness” that exuded from him were in no small measure responsible for his tangible achievements.59 More than any other single person, Branch was responsible for erecting the Tabernacle in Goldsboro, which bears his name, Branch Memorial Tabernacle, as a memorial to his untiring efforts and splendid leadership. Managing the project during times of financial leanness and wartime rationing, his dream suffered setbacks. At one point when the progress had come to a grinding halt following the work of digging the basement, the project came to be known as Branch’s Swimming Hole. But, due in large measure to his ability to manage and his power to persuade the church to support him, he was able to see the completion of that tabernacle in the Jubilee Session of the Southern district in 1944. The main building was described as “A beautiful mammoth structure having an auditorium with a seating capacity of approximately 2,500.”60 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Yearbook, 1979, 13. Yearbook, 1930, 17. Yearbook, 1931, 17. Yearbook, 1930, 62; 1941, 26. Yearbook, 1939, 70. Yearbook, 1936, 48. Yearbook, 1944, 9.

74

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

In the view of the church, G. J. Branch was considered a business executive as well. Indeed, when it came to business, he was the brain of the church. The rest of the bishops would not conduct matters of business unless he was present, and whenever a matter needed to be negotiated, they would defer to him. Branch came into the United Holy Church from the Freewill Baptist Church, which was prominent in the eastern part of North Carolina. In Duplin County and the surrounding area, Branch owned and sold real estate and became a modestly wealthy man. Within and without the church, he was regarded as something of an amateur lawyer.61 He made use of all his talents and abilities in promoting the work of the church he loved. Augmenting Branch’s inspirational qualities was an ability to make his message and program practical. Concerning Christian stewardship, he taught that it was an honor to be faithful in the service of the Lord to the point of losing one’s life. He further taught that God is the supreme, divine owner of man and all things.62 He lectured concerning God’s financial plan and instituted a program of financial contributions to the Tabernacle Project that encompassed the entire church. Like Fisher, Branch was a man who did not remain in one place. Branch appears as the moving figure in the “Get-Together Convention” at Philadelphia in 1920, out of which the Northern District Convocation emerged. He was elected president of the convocation at that time and continued to serve in that capacity until 1949. He also served as president of the New England Convocation, and upon Fisher’s death took responsibility for the Southern, Western and Pacific Coast, and Bermuda Convocations as well. In addition, he pastored in Kinston and Zebulon, North Carolina, while performing his many other duties with the church. Branch was an immensely inspirational figure. His message, his manner, and his commitment were such as to make one ashamed of not doing his or her duty. He was a Holy Man with respect to his piety. But he further embodied the holiness that expresses itself in appropriate action and constitutes a model for others with like aspirations.

DIGGS: THE SCHOLAR Jefferson Davis Diggs was no less a significant figure in the classical configuration of the United Holy Church than were Fisher and Branch. Although he never served as general president or vice president, he nevertheless made his presence felt in a powerful way. As one of the pioneers, he helped to fashion 61 62

Interview with H. W. Fields, Durham, N.C., 1982. Interview with Elder R. K. Diggs, Winston-Salem, 1982.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

75

the character of the young organization; he was present in the group that elected Fisher and Branch to their high offices. In fact, he was one of those nominated for president in 1916.63 He was also chief motivator in the incorporation of the young organization and was the one who actually registered the charter in the state of North Carolina.64 Diggs was born February 14, 1865, in Anson County, North Carolina. He was older than Fisher and considerably older than Branch, but he worked closely with both of them and outlived them both.65 Known already in 1916 as “Dr. Diggs,” he was singled out for his erudition and depth of knowledge. From the beginning of his tenure in the church, he was associated in a prominent way with the work of education. Dr. Diggs was a graduate of Bennett College in Greensboro, North Carolina, a Methodist school which at the turn of the century was coeducational. Beyond that, he was a graduate of the theological school at Livingstone College, an African Methodist Episcopal Zion institution. As a member and minister in the Methodist Episcopal Church, Diggs participated in their system of itinerancy, and wherever he pastored he taught in the public school system as well. In Winston-Salem, he, along with Professor Atkinson, established the Slater Academy in which he served as an instructor. Slater Academy, which was subsequently to be know as Winston-Salem State Teachers College and Winston-Salem State University, continued to have a special relationship with Diggs and the United Holy Church in WinstonSalem. Members of the Diggs family served as faculty members of that institution for decades. At a later point in his career Diggs was honored with the LL.D. degree and affectionately became known as Dr. Diggs.66 Mrs. Bessie Scott, financial secretary of the Southern District Convocation and of the BCS and YPHA Convention in 1936, had the following to say of Diggs in her essay dedicated to the Convention, entitled “Reminiscence”: In 1906, that grand old man, the astute student of the Bible, in the person of Dr. J. D. Diggs of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, was elected general superintendent. It goes without saying that Dr. Diggs looked down the avenue of time and caught a vision. So liken unto that Jew born in Tarsus of Cilica and taught at the feet of that most learned man Gamaliel, he too, prepared himself. He served from 1906 until 1907. The Sunday Schools had increased from fifteen to forty. Dr. Diggs immedi63 64 65 66

Lawson, “Life,” 24. Interview with R. K. Diggs, Winston-Salem, N.C., 1982. Yearbook, 1968, 33. Interview with R. K. Diggs, Winston-Salem, N.C., 1982.

76

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA ately, upon taking up the duties of superintendent, recommended the “Light and Life Quarterly,” which is now being used by almost all, if not all, of the Sunday Schools in this convention. Thanks to the King of Kings, that this lowly Nazarene still lives and his wise counsel is still sought and accepted.67

Although he presided as bishop over the Northwestern and West Virginia districts, Diggs resigned from both offices in his old age to return to what was apparently his first love, teaching; and he served as president of the Bible Training Institute until his retirement from all duties in the church in 1948.68 Serving for a time as compiler of the Convocation Journal prior to 1920, Diggs maintained a prominent role in all things having to do with education. He was the educational secretary from whom aspiring ministers ordered the books they needed to pursue the course of study prescribed by the church. Licentiates were required to pass the first year examination—based on the first-year reading list—in order to be approved for license.69 Further, as secretary-treasurer, Diggs served with Dr. C. S. Morris in the administration of the Boydton Academic and Bible Institute for Colored People, which was under the direction of the Christian and Missionary Alliance and endorsed by the United Holy Church of America, Inc.70 Diggs won for himself throughout the church the reputation of being exceedingly profound in his teaching. The themes stressed most heavily were doctrinal ones that served in large measure to define the particular position of the church. Diggs also emphasized those theological issues which served to affirm that the United Holy Church was securely within the Christian tradition. Diggs did not hesitate in his teaching to plunge into weighty doctrinal matters, such as those concerning the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. In the face of tendencies within Pentecostal circles to limit the Spirit to personal piety and charismatic workings, Diggs insisted that the Spirit is present in the Church and that he has been present continuously since Pentecost. Further, this comprehensive view of the Spirit’s work stressed his role in regeneration and sanctification as well as in baptism and the imparting of gifts. Indeed, the purpose of Pentecost was for the Spirit to remain alive in the Church. Such teaching maintained, for the United Holy Church, soberness in doctrine and beliefs that was lacking among some other 67 68 69 70

Fisher, History, 32. Yearbook, 1948, 8. Yearbook, 1918, 17. Yearbook, 1920. 47.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

77

groups.71 The heritage of Holiness was similarly lifted up in Diggs’s teaching concerning entire sanctification. This teaching aligned the United Holy Church with the Wesleyan view of sanctification, which holds that it is a work of grace subsequent to conversion and that one can be perfectly yielded and know perfect love toward God in this life.72 This position is contrary to the “finished work” position, which holds that the Adamic nature is fully propitiated in regeneration. Rather, it is the teaching that Those who are sanctified holy are saved from all inward sin, from evil thoughts, and evil tempers. No wrong temper, none contrary to love remains in the soul. All their thoughts, words and actions are governed by pure love.Entire sanctification takes place subsequently to justification, and is the work of God, wrought instantaneously upon the consecrated believing soul after a soul is cleaned from all sin, it is then fully prepared to grow in grace.73

Diggs sought to bring soberness and clarity in matters over which Holiness and Pentecostal people were debating. At the same time, however, he stressed traditional doctrines of Christology and ecclesiology. He taught lessons concerning the divinity and preexistence of Christ. Basing his teaching on John 1, he affirmed the logos Christology of the Fourth Gospel, maintaining that although Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem, the Christ of God is the Son begotten of the Father of eternity.74 Also, he affirmed the significance and centrality of the Church in carrying forth the work of Christ. While persons are commissioned, sent, and empowered, the vested authority is with the church. Again, Diggs called to the attention of pastors their duties as shepherds over the flock of God. “How the pastors are exhorted to preach the word; having the oversight of the flock, and to be examples to the flock, not by constraint nor by being lords over God’s heritage, but by love, and to be careful to maintain good works, and to keep themselves unspotted from the world.”75 To the members he stressed the responsibilities of stewardship and discipleship, affirming that the paying of the tithe is God’s financial pro71 72

Yearbook, 1929, 79; 1932, 142. “Yielded” refers to a state of spiritual acquiescence—absence of resistance to the Spirit of God as interpreted by the spiritual director and understood by the seeker. The parallel is Jesus’s teaching that one must be “born again,” or that one must become like a child to enter the kingdom. 73 Lawson, “Life,” 22. 74 Yearbook, 1936, 132. 75 Yearbook, 1931, 9.

78

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

gram under both the old and the new, correcting mistaken notions of free salvation.76 Diggs called the church to a life of dignity as the people of God. As such, he spoke in defiance of the caricature that was projected of Holy People. In the eyes of many, Holiness was equable with foolishness, and only deranged persons could embrace it. However, Diggs and the other Fathers sought to set a different example, and they called their people to follow in like manner. These high aspirations for himself and his people are expressed clearly and forcefully by Diggs in his appeal for a trained ministry in the church. It was his belief that “the untrained and ignorant cannot transmit the true doctrines of Christ to the coming generation neither in the home nor foreign lands.” Diggs further stated: This enlightened day demands intelligent leadership in the Church of the Living God as well as in all other fields of human endeavor. Therefore the ministers who would gain and hold the respect of the worthwhile people of today and maintain the honor of the sacred pulpit must not only be intelligent, but must continue to drink deeply from the fountain of divine knowledge.77

Although some resisted the call for formal education, Diggs was adamant in his insistence that training was an essential ingredient in the consecration required of a minister. He penned these strong words in his Educational Report to the General Convocation of 1932: The preacher, therefore, who refuses to improve his mind and prepare for his calling will involuntarily take his place in Isaiah’s proverbial class of “dumb dogs,” with few or none to hear him bark. Therefore, the Church should stand fast in what our educational department has already attained. Our Bible Training School should not only be maintained but augmented by lengthening terms, additional teachers, and also by reasonable requirements of worthy grades of candidates for the ministry by Presbytery Boards through the bounds of the Church. Too many of our preachers seem to think a higher grade License or Ordination will per se make them mighty. But alas, there is no substitute for knowledge—for “knowledge is power.”78

This zeal for knowledge, however, did not prevent Diggs from being compassionate and humble. Neither did it cause his presentations to be lifeless 76 77 78

Ibid., 10. Yearbook, 1929, 33. Yearbook, 1932, 89.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

79

and stilted. His presentations were instead called “scholarly teaching” and “God-given inspiration.” The people witnessed to the power of the Spirit to stir their souls as he shed “wonderful light” on the Bible and maintained that his sound doctrine “touched high spots of spirituality.” In the opinion of those who loved his presentations, his lectures were inspiring, and his messages were delivered in the “power of the Holy Ghost.”79 Bishop Diggs joined Bishop Fisher and Bishop Branch in meeting with Elder John E. Harris and others in Columbus, Ohio, in 1924 to organize the Northwestern District. Diggs served as president of that district from its inception, and when it was divided so as to establish a West Virginia Convocation, Diggs served as president there as well. During his tenure as district president of West Virginia and the Northwestern District, he also pastored in Winston-Salem, and following the death of Elder Harris, he pastored in Columbus, Ohio. Dr. Diggs, the scholar, reveals as clearly as any other Father the richness and complexity of the United Holy Church. Although Holiness was quite attractive to the masses, who usually were not formally educated, and although Holiness was partially an alternative to what some perceived as stilted, lifeless formalism in worship, the United Holy Church retained tension between the “letter” and the “Spirit.” As a symbol of that tension, Diggs preserved the link with those champions of unity among heart, soul, mind, and strength in loving the Lord, and he gave encouragement to those following him who could not bring themselves to neglect their minds in the effort to nourish their spirit. It is perhaps no exaggeration to claim that only through the work of such scholars do religious institutions ever become more than fledgling movements and engage the world.

HOUSTON: THE INTERPRETER OF MYSTERIES Complementing Dr. Diggs in providing revelation and deep insight for the church was the man who pondered the mysteries. J. W. Houston, the first of the group we are profiling to die, came to the United Holy Church from the Christian and Missionary Alliance, making his mark by virtue of his teaching on “Last Things” and his work in establishing the Central Western District.80 Since there is no mention of Houston’s presence at the pivotal meeting of 1916 in which Fisher and Branch were elected, it would seem he was not a part of the “Southern Inner Circle” in the earliest days when the emerging church took its initial form. Neither is he among the incorporators 79 80

Yearbook, 1960, 62; 1934, 120; 1941, 26. Interview with Bishop W. N. Strobhar, Montclair, N.J., July 1981.

80

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

of 1918.81 But his name appears in the journals of the 1920s and 1930s as a colleague with Branch in providing leadership for the Northern Convocation, and as one of the bishops who supplied official teaching in the Bible study period of the convocation sessions, thereby contributing to the classical form the church assumed. Although his name does not appear in the list of ministers reporting to the convocation at Goldsboro in 1920, J. W. Houston did attend that session. Indeed, he brought the evening message on the sixth day, being introduced by President Fisher as Elder J. W. Houston of Buffalo, New York. Inasmuch as Houston was later to be a member and leader in the Northern Convocation and in the United Holy Church at large, this visit in 1920 may well have been for the purpose of considering the organization. The journal for the meeting reflects that Houston made “quite an impression upon the audience” and apparently the matter of making impressions was mutual.82 Houston was a student of dispensationalism and its premillennial theology that was so characteristic for much of the Holiness and Pentecostal following of that day. Indeed, one of the cardinal truths enunciated by Fisher— the second coming of the Lord—was understood and interpreted from a dispensational point of view. The chief architect of dispensational theology, Dr. C. I. Schofield, was held in high esteem by the Fathers, with the Schofield Reference Bible being commended to the convocation by Dr. Charles S. Morris of Norfolk, Virginia, in 1920.83 Dispensational teaching held that there are seven divisions of time corresponding to God’s dealing with humankind. They are the dispensations of innocence, conscience, human government, promise, law, grace, and kingdom.84 During the present dispensation, the dispensation of grace, the kingdom that will be made manifest in the one-thousand-year reign of Christ on earth is hidden in the Church, and for this period of time Christ must remain crowned as king within the heart of the believer. His present working in the world is a mystery, which is part of the sevenfold mystery made known only to those to whom it is revealed by the Spirit. Although Fisher, Diggs, and others advanced this teaching, J. W. Houston was the chief spokesman for it in the United Holy Church, and it was for his teaching on the subject that he became widely known within the church. Juxtaposing the old and new covenants, Houston sought insight and 81 82 83 84

Fisher, Manual, 11. Yearbook, 1920, 12. Ibid., 9. Yearbook, 1929, 47, 115.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

81

clarity concerning symbols employed in the account of salvation and the triumph of the Lord Jesus. He appears as one who spent hours in meditation and possessed an aura of mystery which he exuded to others. This aura pervaded the atmosphere around him. Indeed, one gets an almost eerie sensation when reading his account of how the revelation came to him concerning Christ’s Second Coming. After speaking of the mysteries of the second touring of our Lord, Brother Houston said he had kept chewing upon the word and the seven seals until God revealed the mysteries to him. In the conclusion the last Titanic struggle will take place when He, Jesus the Son of God comes down from the skies and battles at Armageddon. Christ would take the key and unlock the kingdom and take possession of the title deeds.85

This language of “chewing upon the word” is reminiscent of the Old Testament prophets, preeminently Ezekiel, whose writings are associated with Last Things, and whose personality is shrouded in mystery. Employing a typological method of interpretation, Houston concluded that the pins of the Tabernacle symbolized standing the test and were a type of “Christ the Tested One.”86 The inauguration of Aaron as high priest was likewise a type of Christ. By examining the details of the account in Exodus, he portrayed the reception and inauguration of Christ upon his return to heaven. It is only against the background of this portrait that the meaning of Pentecost can be fully understood.87 Houston held that the hermeneutical key for a full Christian understanding of the Scriptures lay in its mysteries. The primary text for viewing these mysteries was Matthew 13, in which Jesus gives seven parables of the kingdom: the seed sown by the sower, the tares sown among the wheat, the growth of the grain of mustard seed, the working of the leaven in the loaf, the treasure hidden in the field, the merchant searching for pearls, and the net thrown into the sea that brings forth fish of all sorts. These seven parables must be related to God’s choice of Israel as his possession, and his gathering of Israel like dross for melting.88 The key to the mystery is that the hidden treasure is the Jews. God who knows all things knows where they are hidden, and in the sowing, the gathering, and the separating they will be found. All these mysteries are related to the Second Coming of Christ, the rap85 86 87 88

Ibid., 138. Yearbook, 1933, 11. Yearbook, 1935, 124. Exodus 19:5; Psalm 135:4; Ezekiel 22:17–22.

82

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

ture of the Church, and the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ in the earth. Taken together, they comprise the doctrine of last things. On occasion, Houston would be featured as the teacher for the entire week of the convocation, unfolding this doctrine bit by bit each day. His studiousness and attention to the details of eschatology earned him the title from Bishop Fisher of “Dean of the School of the Prophets.”89 Like Diggs, Houston also was not afraid to tackle doctrinal issues that positioned the United Holy Church in the camp of those who upheld traditional Christian orthodoxy. He taught concerning divorce, marriage, and adultery. He elaborated the doctrine of the Holy Spirit considering water as an emblem. But Houston also took on the very difficult and controversial doctrine of the Trinity. Using Matthew 28:19, he expounded on the orthodox concept of the Trinity, distinguishing the United Holy Church from Oneness Pentecostals who disavowed Trinitarian belief.90 Houston was the moving force in the establishment of the Milwaukee and Central Western District. Taking the work in this district to heart, he resigned his pastoral and official duties in the Northern District, and, in 1936 he moved to Chicago, Illinois. Houston died in 1937, the first of these Fathers who shaped the character of the church in the classical years to die.91 In life he was called a scholarly teacher with God-given inspiration; in death he was hailed as a leader and a teacher.92 Houston’s authority and power resided in what his audiences perceived as an ability to see into the depths of the Scriptures and receive profound revelation. Much of his attention was given to the books of Daniel and Revelation. Written in cryptic form, these books were generally not discernible by the casual reader. Houston and the church as a whole believed a combination of training, meditation, and spiritual disclosure were required for the correct interpretation of these texts. Houston’s presentations, which received overwhelming approval from the people, won him respect as a possessor of mystical wisdom. It is in view of this relationship with the people that this Father is called the Interpreter of Mysteries.

LYONS: THE HEALER The belief in healing of the body through immediate divine intervention was taken seriously and literally by the Fathers of the United Holy Church. The 89 90 91 92

Yearbook, 1934, 16. Yearbook, 1932, 49–50. Yearbook, 1937, 10, 86. Yearbook, 1936, 191; 1937, 10.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

83

tenth Article of Faith holds: “We believe in Divine healing of the body through the precious atonement of Jesus, by which sickness and disease are destroyed.”93 This article was not merely words printed on the page; it represented a living faith with practical meaning. Nobody took this faith more literally and more seriously than did E. B. Lyons. Lyons was by no means the only Father who prayed for the sick with subsequent testimonies to miraculous results. All the Fathers exercised this faith, and all ministers were expected to make prayer for the sick a regular part of their ministry. Accounts of the sick being healed were a standard part of the reports made at the convocational sessions in the progress of the church. Lawson records in his biography of Fisher that under Fisher’s ministry, many were healed from various diseases. Indeed, he includes the personal testimony of a Sister Ardonia Pettaway, who claimed healing from blindness in both eyes: I am always happy to give a testimony of the time when man seemed to doubt and did doubt whether I would ever see again. I was sitting in January 1926. Dr. W. P. Hardee, a noted specialist, considered my case and termed it almost hopeless. “The right eye would never be of any use,” he said. But on Thursday night in March, 1926, the Bishop Fisher laid hands on me and prayed, believing there was One who had, and could still open blinded eyes. Faith and faith as it seemed joined hands and reached up to God believing He was a rewarder of those who sought Him. How it was done I’ll never be able to tell. But one thing I do know; there was at the touch of his hand (Bishop’s) a feeling like a misty rain on my head for about a minute, this caused me to look up and when I did I realized I was seeing.94

It was not that Lyons was a rarity, but rather that he appears to have involved himself most completely in this ministry. His teaching in the convocations was given to the theme of healing, even as Houston’s was given to Last Things; and in nearly every meeting where he was present, Lyons conducted the intercessory period, giving rise to the testimony of the people concerning how they were healed and blessed in their souls and bodies. Like Houston, Lyons was not part of that “Southern Inner Circle.” He does not appear on the scene as early as Houston. His name appears listed with the National Board of Bishops in 1932, but even prior to that he had made his presence felt as a teacher and, even more so, as one empowered with a ministry of healing. 93 94

Lawson, “Life,” 22. Ibid., 15.

84

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

Lyons in his teaching stressed the compassion of Jesus for the sick and suffering, and he saw his ministry like that of the Lord. Jesus’s ministry was one of “healing the broken-hearted, preaching deliverance to the captives and casting out the unclean spirits,” Elder Lyons declared as he taught from Luke 4 during the convocation of 1929 in Norfolk. The record of this first convocation outside the state of North Carolina and under the Gospel Tent stated that “after the speaker had finished an altar call was made and many came forward. Afterwards many testified to the healing of their bodies.”95 This scene recurred countless times during the long tenure of E. B. Lyons as a bishop in the United Holy Church. Very regularly, the various convocations in their Resolution of Thanks spoke gratefully of his ministry. The resolution of the Forty-Fifth Convocation at Durham in 1939 read in part: “We shall not fail to give God the praise for the blessings we received in our souls and bodies during the intercession periods conducted by Bishop E. B. Lyons.”96 Lyons moved to the higher levels of leadership with the departure of Bishop Houston from the Northern District. In 1934 he was serving as vice president in the district, and by 1935 he was also serving as Bishop Branch’s assistant in New England as well. Following the death of Bishop Houston, Lyons became president in the West Central District, assuming his duties in 1939.97 Following the death of Bishop Branch in 1949, Bishop Lyons assumed oversight for the Northern and New England districts. He presided over these three districts until 1958, when he yielded in the West Central District to the younger Bishop Stobhar. Lyons remained active even as an old man, making his presence felt in the church until his death in 1962.98 For Lyons, as was the case with the other Fathers, healing was not a commodity to be peddled with the word. It was a benefit of salvation, given to the saints and inseparable from salvation. The atoning blood of Jesus was applied to the body as well as the soul. Healing was not to be offered indiscriminately to those not possessing faith. Neither was it associated with monetary gain. Healing for the unsaved was an invitation to know Jesus as Savior. Indeed, there were those who through their trust in God for healing went to their graves without medicine or physicians. Still, fanaticism with respect to healing was not taught by the Fathers, distinguishing them from some other Pentecostal denominations. Lyons, as the healer, epitomized and 95 96 97 98

Yearbook, 1929, 136. Yearbook, 1939, 90. Ibid., 62. Yearbook, 1962, 57.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

85

embodied the third cardinal truth.

NICHOLS: THE MISSIONARY From very early in its life, the United Holy Church had a bold and ambitious missionary outlook. Such a posture was consistent with the foundational belief that the Spirit was active in a very special way in these Last Days and that the revival of Holiness in the land was in preparation for the imminent coming of the Lord. Epitomizing this zeal for missions was E. B. Nichols. Nichols, unlike Houston and Lyons, was part of the “Southern Inner Circle.” He was present at the pivotal Oxford meeting of 1916, where the mantle of leadership fell upon Fisher and Branch. His name was offered in nomination for vice president of the new organization, and he was the second highest vote-getter. Also, Nichols was one of those who signed the Certificate of Incorporation in 1918 granting legal standing to the organization.99 In the stated purposes for the formation of the association, which constituted the legal basis of the United Holy Church, mission appears in a prominent place. The Third Article reads as follows: The purposes for which this association is formed are to establish and maintain in North Carolina and any other State or States of the United States of America and in the uttermost parts and countries of the world a municipality of Holy convocations, assemblies, conventions, conferences, public worship, missionary and school work, orphan homes, manual and trade training schools and other operations auxiliary and incidental thereto; also religious resorts, with permanent and temporary dwelling for health, rest, Christian work and fellowship and for the spiritual, moral, and mental improvements of men, women, boys and girls.100

This article, focusing clearly on mission, both home and foreign, explicitly authorized the corporation to hold property and to act in other ways as a legal entity to carry out its purposes, thereby laying a firm foundation for mission work. There is little doubt that Nichols, Fisher, and the other Fathers had foreign missions clearly in mind in the drafting of this article. For it was only two years earlier, as Fisher records, that E. B. Nichols’s preaching under a gospel tent in Cleveland, Ohio, was instrumental in infusing zeal for mission into the United Holy Church. Fisher records: It was in convention of the Christian and Missionary Alliance held under a tent in July, 1916, in Cleveland, Ohio with the late Rev. E. B. Nichols, 99 Fisher, 100

Ibid.

Manual, 11.

86

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA formerly of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but then pastor of the Gospel Tabernacle of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, who was the guest speaker of the convention presided over by the late Mrs. M. B. Smoot, pastor of the church, that I caught the vision of “Mission” as never before. I saw a world lost in heathen darkness and we, as a church, were responsible to God to give them the light of the Gospel that they might be saved.101

Fisher then recites the sequence of events that led to the organization of the board of missions, telling how he was chosen president and how the executive officials were called together at the Gospel Tabernacle in WinstonSalem in the same year as the incorporation. Fisher chaired the board of missions, J. D. Diggs served as vice chairman, Julia A. Delk was secretary, and E. B. Nichols was chosen as executive secretary and treasurer. From this official position he spearheaded the work of foreign missions until the time of his death in 1937, in Liberia, West Africa.102 Nichols believed and taught that the only provision whereby the gospel is conveyed and the message of salvation is given to the world is through men and women who will answer the call of missions. The Lord, he said, is depending on us, and we should find our place and do what the Lord has assigned to our hands and laid on our hearts.103 Nichols sincerely believed that the religions of the world that have not heard the gospel are “languishing in darkness.” Those who have the word have “abundant light to shed upon their pathway”: and for those who “dare to venture” in this work, “God will be present as their helper.”104 Men and women cannot hear this message without a preacher. Only the preacher who has been called and sent can stir hearts and be a true instrument of the gospel. So, then, some must answer the call and go. Others must stay at home and help those who are called and led to take the message afar.105 The church that does not answer the call of missions lives under the sentence of divine judgment. It is dangerous to hold back from those who need the word of truth. True salvation causes believers to think of others.106 Indeed, because of the great commission that has been given we have no choice. The Lord, who depends on those whom he has called, has no other provision, and when we answer his call we align ourselves with the true saints who have gone before us. For those who have this faith God opens 101 102 103 104 105 106

Fisher, History, 18. Ibid., 18–19. Yearbook, 1930, 12. Yearbook, 1931, 11. Yearbook, 1929, 83. Yearbook, 1936, 21.

PROFILES OF THE FATHERS

87

the door, performing, “Miracles of Mission.”107 Nichols was a friend of missionaries. He worked diligently and arduously as secretary-treasurer to see that their stipends were paid, that they were furnished with supplies needed in the field and fares for departure, furlough, and returns; and when they were in the States, he carried them to the several convocations and conventions where they had opportunities to preach, give talks, and receive love offerings. He took missionaries into his home and fed them at his table. His life was given to this work. E. B. Nichols was an exceedingly talented man. Although known best for his zeal for missions, he was also an accomplished musician. Older members remember him as pastor of the Gospel Tabernacle in Winston-Salem and tell of how people from all over the city would come on Sunday evenings to hear him play the organ while the saints sang hymns and gospel songs. The convocational record notes that Nichols’s talent furnished beautiful music for the service.108 Likewise, he was a preacher of no mean ability; from the very earliest records of his work in the church he was referred to as “Dr. Nichols.” According to a bishop and former general president of the United Holy Church, Nichols came from the Christian and Missionary Alliance, with which the church maintained close contact in the early days. The esteem for him was so great that Nichols was offered the honor and title of Bishop along with Fisher, Branch, Diggs, and Houston in 1924. For the sake of personal conviction, he declined the title. Still, he is referred to by many who knew him as “Bishop Nichols.”109 After dedicating himself to the cause of missions for many years, Nichols died in the field in Liberia, West Africa.110 He was sent there by the mission board in January 1937 to observe the needs of the stations and to report to the board concerning the status of its properties and work in Africa. After joining in prayer with Fisher, the chairman of the board, at the pier, he set sail. Upon his arrival he was received by the superintendent, brother Isaac Williams, and taken to the New Georgia Station. He traveled in the field and held conferences with the missionaries. Upon his return to New Georgia Station, “He was stricken with pernicious diarrhea, a disease which in nearly every case proves fatal.”111 Fisher records that Dr. Nichols 107 108 109 110 111

Yearbook, 1931, 17, 72; 1932, 75–76. Yearbook, 1929, 13. Interview with Bishop W. N. Strobhar, Montclair, N.J., 1981. Fisher, History, 18–19. Yearbook, 1938, 57–58; 1940, 10.

88

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

battled for eight days and afterward “he laid down his armor to study war no more.” Fisher continued, “Thus he sleeps beside our first missionary that was sent out by us to this foreign land.”112 A missionary at heart, Nichols epitomized the one who stayed behind working at home, keeping the cause of mission before others in a way that could not be ignored, offering fervent prayers, giving challenging messages, and sending material support. But he also epitomized the one who literally laid down his life for the cause. Perhaps no other person influenced the shaping of the United Holy Church as a mission-oriented church more than E. B. Nichols.

SUMMARY The influence of leadership greatly shaped the consciousness of the people and of the institution that emerged. The preaching, teaching, example, and labor of these unusual men provided the most crucial factor in the people’s conceptual life and self-understanding. The Fathers taught them how to give an account of themselves, how to identify with and distinguish themselves from others, how to embrace or disavow the currents of social and cultural life, and how to be of overall consequence in the world. The Fathers were black men who were well established and quite prominent in their respective communities. They taught their people to study and develop themselves in every way possible, to carry themselves with dignity and respect, always to act with a sense of urgency, and to believe sincerely that nothing was too good for them as “God’s Holy People.” The Fathers further taught that blessings increased responsibility to others and were to be shared. At this level, the blackness of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism can be understood as a collective attitude relating the “Holy People” to the communities where they lived in such a manner that these communities truly became a force in shaping them.

112

Yearbook, 1938, 58.

4 HOLY CONVOCATION CONVOCATION AS GATHERING Convocation was an unsurpassed gathering for “Holy People”; they came from the East, West, North, and South for a period of joyful celebration and unbroken fellowship. Not only members of the church made the pilgrimage. Convocation also drew many who remained within other evangelical churches, but who also had an affinity for Holiness or who enjoyed the joyfulness of the saints. In those cities where it was held with regularity, convocation easily became the chief religious event of the year. Convocation contributed an occasion for rejoicing, instruction, and consecration. As such, the opening moment was like a threshold. It stood at the junction between profane time, measured by the calendar and the clock, and real time, which gave life its meaning. The saints came to the convocation handsomely dressed. Most members kept or bought special outfits to wear on this occasion. The men wore the customary suit and tie. Women dressed in “modest apparel,” as they were noted for their plainness, lack of makeup, and avoidance of superfluity in dress. Almost without exception, the saints carried their Bibles and had a look of piety firmly stamped upon their faces.1 A time of preparation preceded this great event, wherein the ordinary mode of life was left behind. For some, preparation meant working in the fields so that grass would not overtake the crops, or it could mean providing for animals so that they would not be neglected. But all of this was done with zest, joy, and great expectation. Indeed, these preparations enhanced the meaning of the time that would be spent in convocation. Arriving at the appointed place, these pilgrims entered into another sphere, another world, and as the appropriate response to their joy, they prayed and offered voluminous praise. This was done early in the morning on the first day and on the succeeding days as well. But this early prayer and 1 Pictures show these to have been stylish, well-dressed people, negative stereotypes not withstanding.

89

90

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

praise constituted also a gesture away from the living space being left behind, and the ritual act indicating that these devoted ones had arrived at their destination. Although no elaborate treatises were written to set forth the meaning and purpose of convocation, the saints knew well what they were doing, journeying the required distance to be with others of like mind. There was great anticipation that in prayer, supplication, and waiting before the Lord, tired and anxious spirits would be refreshed. An opportunity would be afforded to share with others who fully understood the meaning of the labor, the demand of the sacrifice, and the perils of the commitment that had been made. For this reason there was no difficulty in getting these delegates to attend early morning prayer on the first day, which often began as early as four or five o’clock in the morning. This exemplary act of reconsecration and rededication was the collective sign repeated each year which announced that the ensuing days were not merely segments of the clock or calendar.2 Rather, they were moments susceptible of being transformed into some manifestation of the sacred.3 At 9:00 A.M., Bible Church School convened, an acknowledgement of the importance of this aspect of the church’s life. The purpose was the instruction of members in Scriptures. A high premium was placed on knowing the content of the Bible. Many persons committed long passages to memory, and nearly everyone remembered those texts that were highlighted in the doctrines and teachings of the church. At 11:00 A.M., the presiding officer took charge and the morning worship began. The opening of the convocation was like a pageant filled with 2 Bishop J. T. Bowens, general president of the United Holy Church, says of the opening of convocation: “Something dynamic took place in those opening sessions. Before morning, before daybreak, we had prayer—at four and five in the morning, we prayed till nine in the morning; and when we got up from there we became aware that we had not had breakfast. We were not aware that we hadn’t eaten, and we would come back and hear a gospel message taught about a Supernatural Christ—a different kind of Christ” (interview, August 1983; see also Yearbook, 1932, 61, which records an early morning prayer meeting at 4:30 A.M., and 1935, 63, for a 5:00 A.M. meeting. 3 The format for convocation can be seen in almost any set of minutes, referred to as the “Proceedings.” The Proceedings on which this discussion is focused come from the Southern convocation of 1936 (Yearbook, 1936, 170ff.). For the meaning of convocation, Bishop H. L. Fisher’s “Message to the Quadrennial Convocation” of the same year is insightful, as the concept of “ingathering” is set forth (ibid., 29).

HOLY CONVOCATION

91

dignity and grace. It was not unusual to have a well-trained choir under the direction of a competent musician. Although “free-singing” and “making a joyful noise” formed a large part of the convocation, attention was also given to order, dignity, and worship as a majestic, holy act.4 Throughout the opening service, and all other services, much time was given to prayer and praise. Both acts, being central to the meeting, emphasized utter dependence on God. The primary request during these opening moments, however, was for divine guidance throughout the session. The underlying understanding and awareness was that anything worthwhile must be accomplished by the hand of God. In order for the bishops to conduct the session in a way that pleased the Lord, they must first be in God’s hand.5 A prominent place was also ascribed to praise. This collective activity took various forms of expression. In some cases, praise was calm and subdued. Or it could be manifest in the shedding of tears. Then again, praise would be loud, boisterous, and accompanied by intense physical activity. To one not involved or enraptured in these acts, they were like sheer bedlam or pandemonium in some instances. “High praise,” such as dancing or speaking with tongues, could break out during singing, preaching, or praying. These acts of praise had their “ritual place” during “devotion”— moments set aside specifically for praise—which opened nearly every service. These “devotions” consisted of prayer, reading of Scripture, lively singing, and testifying. Devotional services, more than any others, provided the opportunity for broad participation. Individuals could sound personal notes of praise or give their own witness to what God had done. Of utmost significance in the convocation was the daily period of Bible study, focusing on the specific doctrines and teachings of the church. To many of the participants, this became the chief feature of convocation. Throughout the classical period, the Bible study was held almost every day by one of the bishops, usually at 11:00 A.M. This period was conceived by Bishop Fisher at the outset of his tenure as a means for supplementing the inadequate preparation of most ministers. But more than that, it was a way of promoting unity in doctrine and practice through the church. This Bible study was an effort to shape the character of the people and the young orga4

During the 1936 convocation, the music for the 11:00 A.M. service and the opening day was placed in the hands of Mr. John Gattis. Gattis, an accomplished musician, served as the instructor in music at Hillside High School in Durham, N.C., for many years and was the organist at the White Rock Baptist Church in the same city. 5 In the 1936 convocation, this prayer was offered following the opening music by the choir (Yearbook, 170).

92

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

nization through the dissemination of teaching. A day in the convocation was a combination of business and worship. The business preserved the structural integrity of the organization; the worship maintained the sacredness of the time and the place. Taken together, these two interpenetrating aspects, which kept the tension between structure and anti-structure, preserved that boundary on which the heirophany occurred.6 For the participants, this blend was supremely a testimony to what it meant to be God’s “Holy People,” and convocation was a sure sign of this status and divine approval.

TIME AND SPACE Convocation represented a milestone for “Holy People.” It marked the beginning and the end of the “sacred year.” Since pastors worked from one convocation to the next, the beginning of a convocation signaled that another year was beginning. It was an interlude. The days of convocation, unlike regular days, contained moments filled with meaning and with the potential for opening into eternity. Each moment of convocation held the distinct possibility of containing an experience of Ultimate Reality that would charge one with life, vigor, and vitality sufficient for another year of service. On the one hand, convocation was an interlude, a break, and interruption of the life the people knew from day to day. In the early twentieth century, “life” meant a very definite and concrete form of degradation for black people embracing Holiness. The fact of their blackness meant that they suffered the deprivation of second-class citizenship in the Jim Crow South. But, in addition, a great reproach accompanied Holiness in those days. Persons adhering to this faith were sometimes denied jobs, positions, and consideration. They were subject to public ridicule, threat, arrest, and imprisonment for preaching in the streets. Their children were censured for non-participation in school activities, and “Holy People” were slandered and maligned by those who misrepresented them as “Holy Rollers”—as persons whose practices were characterized by illicit and immoral behavior. Some gave up jobs and suffered personal loss for refusing to have dealings with alcohol and tobacco products, which were tied to staple industries in the South. Daily 6 Mircea Eliade says of the hierophany that it “expresses in some way some modality of the sacred and some moment in its history: that is to say, some one of the many kinds of experiences of the sacred man has had.” Of the hierophantic aspect of time, he shows that it increases and intensifies the differences in the experience of time that can be witnessed in general (Patterns in Comparative Religion, 2, 389).

HOLY CONVOCATION

93

responsibilities for those who were totally committed to the ministry involved preaching with little or no remuneration, traveling from one place to another under conditions of extreme privation, conducting revivals in places where they were not welcome, and generally being misunderstood. But from the standpoint of convocation, the difficulties of daily life were the real interruptions, breaks, and interludes. These were the “battlefields” from which they came for a time of rejoicing. The ordeals flowed between convocations and other moments of victory as a different stream of experience. The time of rejoicing, the moment of victory, and the periods of blessing portended their own continuity, to which the battlefields were parallel at best. These ordeals and battles had to be suffered until they ran their course. But their meaning consisted entirely in their contradictions. They had been overcome, and the convocation was the extraordinary sign of this abolition.7 The contingencies of daily life caused many members to feel small, forsaken, and helpless. But in convocation they were made to feel great, for they joined with a great host. The experience of convocation was a reminder to each member that she was part of something greater, grander, and mightier than what met the eye on a daily basis. Convocations were indeed spiritual retreats where refinement and refurbishing takes place inside of us … and our brain becomes enlivened for the Lord. Moses’ bush didn’t burn all day. It burned to get his attention, to get him to be a changed man … and then Moses was taken up with another revelation—that he was standing on Holy Ground. If there was strain between husband and wife, the estrangement left. They stayed at that meeting: and when they went home they were saying, “Honey, we can make it,” because of the messages they heard. Sick bodies were healed and other unaccountable recoveries occurred all over the audience just like in Peter’s day …. It was an inner refreshing, a total obliteration of those things that blind, and breathing was easier.… Seemingly the Holy Spirit who watches over all of us was dealing with every man according to his faith.8 7 Eliade discusses the detachment between sacred time and profane succession through a focus on the Christian symbol of the Mass. He shows a continuity of sacred time connecting the initial moment of transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ with all celebrations of the Mass, and he depicts the profane succession between Masses as detached space like that which separates the present and the future. He says: “The profane succession … which flows between two Masses … cannot have any connection with the hierophantic time of the rite; it runs parallel, so to speak to sacred time” (Patterns, 391). 8 Interview with Bishop J. T. Bowens, General President of the United Holy Church of America, Inc., Durham, August 1983.

94

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

At the outset, the pageant of convocation was repeated only in the South. This Southern Convocation, called the parent body, gave rise to all others. But this pageant was repeated wherever the church spread; hence the establishment of convocation was the chief act in promoting growth. Holding convocations had more purpose than reproducing structure. It was also for the purpose of inseminating members with the same ethos, spirit, commitment, and vision that possessed others before them. Presence and involvement in convocation deepened sensitivity to an awareness of what it meant to be “Holy People” as no amount of instruction could. The “proceedings” of convocation were not optional.9 They did not vary in any significant way year to year. Neither did they include elements regarded as arbitrary. Once they received their place in the format, they were repeated. By this means, convocation achieved a pattern. These elements gave convocation an integrity that made it and the church what they were. These features comprised the ritual ingredients that had power to vest the time of convocation with meaning not normally associated with or affixed to daily life. The experience of convocation contradicts the way in which time is conceptualized in the modern world. In the modern conceptualization, time is read from the clock. As such, it has become spatialized. Hours, minutes, and seconds are correlated to equivalent units of space. For example, each minute equals a given section on the clock and all minutes are equal to one another. Such conceptualization sets time over against individuals and communities as an independent entity. In the experience of time, in contrast, segments have meaning, and thus they lose their equivalence. The way one experiences time is not separable from moods of joy, pleasure, fulfillment, or ecstasy. In like manner, pain, sadness, grief, and misery cannot be separated from the time segment in which they are experienced. Taken together, the segment and the experience which vests it with meaning constitutes a moment, with each moment having its unique value.10 Moments, having their own value by virtue of the way they are experienced, may parallel any period of duration. They may last for only a brief minute, or they may extend for a day, a week, a month, or a season. This is 9 “Proceedings” is the designation given to the official record of Annual Convocation. 10 Geradus van der Leeuw calls the homogeneous time comprising equal segments “duration” or “profane succession.” This time, he says, has been removed from the field of pure consciousness through spatialization (see Religion in Essence and Manifestation, 384–85, for further discussion).

HOLY CONVOCATION

95

the character of a holiday or a period of celebration. Even the calendar, which shows the spatialization of time, distinguishes those moments, which make a section or define a “tempus.”11 The tempus, marked out by celebration, shows the characteristic of sacred time. It reveals the potential in every segment of duration to be invested with power and hierological meaning; it is an opening to eternity, of which it is a fragment.12 The tempus, unlike other segments of duration, does not recede into or remain in the past. Giving rise to celebration as it does, it can be summoned by the appropriate ritual to infuse the present with meaning. Imitation, repetition, gesture, and storytelling keep the tempus present in that which gave rise to it. Convocation was a series of tempuses, and, taken together, the tempuses comprising convocation constituted hierophantic time. Early morning prayer, periods of praise, words of welcome, statements of purpose, and other acts that characterized convocation were the repetition of what had been done by others for many years. Things could not be done in just any way; they had to be done in the manner that was distinctly appropriate for convocation. Following the set pattern resulted in the hierophanizing of time—the interpenetration of segments of duration and tempuses.13 Like the first convocation, each convocation had a fixed time and place.14 The first convocation designated as such was held in Durham in 1894. But Fisher presents it as a “repetition” of the meeting held eight years earlier in Method.15 However, this first meeting of “Holy People” in the South was itself regarded as a repeat of the Day of Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out, giving birth to the Church.16 The meaning of convocation as repetition was far-reaching. It was understood as a response to the very call that established God’s “Holy Peo11 Van der Leeuw defines a tempus as “the section within the course of time … never the figure upon the clock; it indicates the critical point which, marked out by celebration, clearly reveals the potency of duration” (ibid.). 12 The meaning of the hierological as the religious explanation is discussed in chap. 5 below. 13 See Eliade, Patterns, 2, 389. 14 In fact, each convocation had a “Time and Place” Committee that was responsible for publishing these times well in advance. The list of convocations showing their time and place literally set forth “another calendar” for those who made it their business to attend these meetings. 15 Henry L. Fisher, History of the United Holy Church of America, Inc., 11. 16 This very clear connection is made in Andrew W. Lawson’s Doctrine of the United Holy Church, ix, as a statement of history. The connection is made again in the historical statements that preface Henry L. Fisher’s Manual.

96

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

ple” under both the old and the new covenants. Indeed, this is the call to be Holy in the first place, and it is to every generation of God’s people.17 Beyond that, the law of the Old Testament designated the Holy Convocation as a Feast of the Lord, along with decreeing its duration. The institution of convocation required its observance with feasting and no laborious work.18 The “Ingathering” of convocation was a repeat of the return of God’s scattered people who came from the East, the West, the North, and the South to Zion.19 The very name given to the session is bound with its manifold meaning; for the name “convocation” was deliberately chosen instead of other names such as conference, convention, general assembly, camp meeting. These mother and fathers, being simplistic in their approach to God and the Scriptures, saw where the Israelites were instructed, “Ye shall have a holy convocation.” Work normally associated with conferences and conventions was incorporated, but not in such a way that the focus on prayer, praise, preaching, and refreshing would be lost.20

Convocation is Looking back to prior moments, looking forward to the next event, and being intensely enriched for the moment to be carried to the next time. Israel did it; God didn’t just start this thing with us. She had her feast days, and her feast days were what she looked forward to from one feast day to another. And the Ultimate Day, the Great Day of the Feast, Jesus appeared, and this time his brothers didn’t even believe on him. But this was convocation to them. Needless to mention, prior to Jesus’ time— way back there to the prophet Samuel. … Shiloh was the meeting ground of Israel. There were plenty of places to grow wheat and produce. But you know as well as I do that Shiloh was the place were they made their way to, and Shiloh was nothing … was a heap of hills, stones, and old racked buildings until the time they came. The pup tents came with the people, and Shiloh was a community of people. Old man Eli and Samuel and many others were around.… But the main point is that the mountaintops of Shiloh became populated as far as the eye could see. The Jews came from everywhere to put up their

17 18 19

Exodus 19:6ff.; 1 Peter 2:10ff. Leviticus 23:4–8. Bishop Fisher made this the meaning of his Message to the 1936 Quadrennial Convocation by quoting from Zephaniah 2:1 and Psalm 50:5: “Gather yourselves together, yea gather O nation not desired. Gather my saints together unto Me; those who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice!” (Yearbook, 1936, 29). 20 Interview with J. T. Bowens, Durham, August 1983.

HOLY CONVOCATION

97

tents. It wasn’t a matter of what street you lived on it was what tribe you were in. This gathering with all the expectation and all the enthusiasm literally transformed the space: the ground became holy. It wasn’t that way all the time. … It was when they gathered. … So the difference with the Holy Spirit in the Church for the last two thousand years. … He governs us, and he enlivens us. He diffuses us from the hustle and bustle of the mules and the hogs, and we forget about the fields. If we are businessmen we forget about typewriters.… If you were just an ordinary hoodlum in the gutter … forget about that when you come to convocation. … We come with or without. And in that convocation God supernaturally visits. We believe it; we perceive it; and if the next door man doesn’t know it we know it and we tell him “man, it’s true, He’s here right now in this convocation.”21

Even more, convocation was the repetition of the many revivals that had come to awaken the church. According to Fisher, the church grew cold through the years, and God stirred it again through the Reformation. When the Reformation under Luther waned, he revived it again under the Wesleys. At approximately the same time there was a revival under Jonathan Edwards called the Great Awakening. But this revival waned also, and God sent the Holiness-Pentecostal Reformation, which was the last one. It was the task of this revival to bring the church into a state of readiness for the close of the age.22 Convocation was the repetition of these momentous acts that established the people of God and their hope. The series of convocations in a given year and in successive years comprised a sacred history parallel with, yet over against, the course of everyday life. But the nature of this sacred history is that the instances are not shut off from one another, as are the past, the present, and the future. No boundary is fixed between them, as is the case with secular time. Rather, there is fluidity between these two moments. Access is provided through certain gestures, ritual acts, and repetition bringing them into what might be called an “eternal present.” Every ritual, then, becomes a fragment of original time by means of mediation from scared to profane time, establishing fluidity between the instances of calling out a “Holy People,” restoring a remnant, gathering the scattered ones, and establishing and reviving the Church. Convocation was the means par excellence for translating the manifes21 22

Ibid. Fisher depicted the United Holy Church in the line of these great revivals, and he established the relationship with Great Awakening through his reference to Edwards’s famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” (Yearbook, 1932, 30; 1936, 31).

98

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

tations of the sacred that gave rise and distinction to the “Holy People” into the sphere of time and history. All of the rich meaning of the tradition of Holiness converged on the place designated for convocation. Otherwise, the meaning of convocation would be only a story that was told or an idea that was held. There could be no convocation. On the other hand, without the sense of rich meaning, no succeeding convocations could ever fully capture the meaning and significance of the first one. Yet, without the repetition, the meaning would be lost to both the present and the future generations. The story of the mothers and fathers and the meaning of being “Holy People” could never become a consciousness-shaping reality apart from the place, the environment, and the influences that came together in the session. Convocation provided the means whereby persons in attendance could be inspired with the first love and original zeal. The people were encouraged to suffer the consequences and pay the price of Holiness, and the mood of convocation was sufficient to promote that end. Convocation, then, consisted of acts to preserve, through repetition and reinforcement, what was done in calling the “Holy People” into being. There was no attempt to be novel or imaginative. Instead, the deliberate effort was to preserve and maintain what had previously been given. To those who longed for convocation, it was like holy ground. It was a sacred zone or a “Center” that was to be reached at all cost.23 Everything involved in preparation resembled making a pilgrimage and demonstrated a yearning for this place that had been set apart. Such longing pulled from the very core of these religious persons, for religious experience, which is the experience of Ultimate Reality, is intense and productive of an inclination toward the sacred.24 This Center, or sacred zone, was considered to be the place, beyond all others, in which contact could be made with God, for by virtue of the original consecration and all successive ones, it became preeminently the habitation of the divine. The pilgrimage to this “Center” was not by any means without its impediments. Indeed, the ordeal of life was related directly to the valoriza23

The Center “is pre-eminently the zone of the sacred.” It is not located in Historical Time, but “in illo tempore,” the locus of Absolute Reality, and one need only reach this Center to achieve consecration (Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, 17, 21; Patterns, 79, 382). 24 Joachim Wach gives considerable attention to this dynamic in his four criteria for religious experience—namely, that it is the experience of Ultimate Reality; that it is the most intense experience that is possible; that it is continuous rather than a single thrill; and that it is productive of some action. Inclining to the Center or making pilgrimage is one appropriate act (The Comparative Study of Religion, 30–36).

HOLY CONVOCATION

99

tion of the Center. Any impediment that threatened to prevent or increase the difficulty of the pilgrimage made the arrival sweeter. The more arduous the journey, the greater the joy in reaching the destination. Convocation as the center stood over against the battlefield. It gave a measure of concreteness in the deepest longings for an alternative to the world of trials. Arriving at the Center was itself a measure of consecration, in response to which other ritual acts of consecration were appropriate. Any place was potentially the site for convocation. All that mattered was that it be “singled out.” But for the time of convocation, the building gave up its regular identity. Church buildings bearing a given name, such as Gospel Tabernacle, Union Mission, Peniel, or Varick Memorial, were said to be the host, or were said to entertain the convocation. But for so long as the convocation lasted, this ordinary identity was overshadowed. For this interlude, the building became the “Center” into which it had been transformed.

COMMUNITAS In convocation, which was understood more than anything else as the “ingathering” of God’s people from all areas and walks of life, we find unity of the high and the low, the officers and the members, the leaders and the followers in a way that was characterized by mutual openness. On the one hand, each person had their place. But again, no one had a place that was not dependent on another in his or her place. Without those who stepped forward to lead, there would be no organization; without those who followed, there would be no people to lead. Underlying the gathering called “convocation” is a level of relationship, the meaning of which cannot be fully exhausted in terms of structure, society, or community. A dialectical relationship exists between what is structured and what cannot be structured. Insofar as structure is concerned, there were bishops, boards, and departments. But in terms of what could not be structured, there was a mood, an atmosphere, which was equally crucial to the reality of convocation. Taken together, these two poles created the character of communitas.25 In a strictly theological sense, it can be argued that power and authority for leadership in the convocation came directly from God. Further, the sense of urgency individuals had for the ministry and their determination to continue against great odds reflected inner motivation and strength. But dia25

The Latin term communitas is used by Victor Turner to distinguish the modality of social relationships characterized by spontaneity and a low degree of structure (The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, 42).

100

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

lectic was also present: unless leadership was accepted, it was not leadership in any practical sense. With respect to convocation, power was vested in the strong by those who were weak. A ritual potency inhered in those who were subordinate by rank and office. The same bishop who had power to appoint and censure was himself elected to his office.26 This potency was manifest in an even more forceful sense: without the support of the pastors and the people, there could be no effective organization or program. Since the convocation did not hold title to local church property, it had no legal recourse for enforcing compliance. Convocation officials were dependent on pastors to encourage members to attend the convocation and make their reports, and while a pastor could be reprimanded or removed for failure to comply, in the event he rejected such discipline and his people supported him, no recourse was left to the bishop and the convocation. This is amply attested in the number of persons who chose to exit rather than to submit to the convocation’s authority. The principle was at work even within the hierarchy and structure of the convocation. The bishop, as the head of the convocation, was dependent on the pastors to receive and exercise his office. But their appointments were only in his hand for so long, as they remained a part of the church. In return for faithfulness in their support, they could expect to be appointed to powerful boards that in concert with the bishops wielded the power and authority of the convocation. But the unity went further. A shared consciousness had to be intentionally forged in order for the convocation to be an experience of communitas, and unless this state of communitas was achieved, there was no true convocation. Communitas was achieved at the point where the lines of rank and division yielded to a common mind and a common understanding. This is the point at which the identity of no member was complete without the sense of being part of the United Holy Church. Only when the identity of every constituent element receded in favor of the larger identity was this state achieved. In the achievement of this state, the officers and those in authority were no longer over against the people. Rather, they epitomized and spoke for the people. With the achievement of this state, the leader could regulate the life of the people and establish order among them without rebuttal and disaffection; to the extent that this was not possible, the state of communitas was not achieved.27 In the achievement of communitas there was no constant appeal for board action concerning bishop appointment, 26 Election was not to the office of bishop, but to the office of convocation president.

HOLY CONVOCATION

101

for their authority was accepted. Without communitas, there could be no joyful celebration. In short, there could be no convocation. The modality of communitas, without which there could be no convocation, comes into being within a gathering of equals wherein individuality has been deemphasized in favor of group life and where there is submission to the authority of those who for a time are entrusted to rule. This unstructured potential is always present as the antithesis to the highly organized, well-structured arrangement. Indeed, in a real sense there cannot be the highly structured order without the antithesis against which it is contrasted. In reality, these two modalities interpenetrate. The highly structured grouping is infused with fragments of the more spontaneous unstructured modality, and the unstructured is infused with elements of structure. Pastors in this liminal state did not have the same authority and power as they did with the members of their congregations; conversely, members were elevated in their relationships to pastors, deacons, and elders.28 The distinctions which different churches had with regard to size, location, and perceived status were eliminated as communitas broke forth. What’s more, for the duration of the convocation, the status and esteem of each delegate was determined by participation in the convocation, rather than by position and place within some other structure or walk of life. Esteem derived from vigor and enthusiasm exhibited in singing, testifying, and praising God in the manifold forms of expression. Or it came from honoring and giving support to the bishop, elders, and other officials. Pastors of small churches were as much honored as pastors of larger ones.The liminality, which gave rise to communitas and made convocation possible, was the embodiment of the truth and knowledge that without what is regarded as low in status there could not be what is considered high. Below the structures that gave rise to distinction and status were a generic bond, an open consciousness, and a 27

Turner develops this concept of communitas through a close examination of an African pattern. According to Turner, the power of the Kanongesha, or paramount chief of the Ndembu people, is conferred through the investiture of the Kafwana, or headman of the Mbewla. The ritual powers of the Kanongesha were both limited and invested by the representative of the Mbwela people who had been conquered. With the Kanongesha is vested fertility and freedom from drought, famine, disease, and insect plagues. Here the subdued ones are ritually potent (ibid., 98– 100). 28 Turner coined the term “liminal” from the Latin word limen, which signifies “threshold.” The liminal state is the in-between detachment from as earlier fixed point in the social structure on the one hand, and the reincorporation into either the former or a new stable state (ibid., 94–95).

102

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

collective mind. Convocation provided the experience of alternative participation in structured and unstructured states of relationship. This spontaneous and immediate dynamic was the very essence of the interrelationships which gave convocation its possibility and character.29 The low degree of structure that created the climate of convocation was consistent with the general desire of most members of the United Holy Church. When they left the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, they felt they were coming out of churches that suppressed their free expression in response to the Spirit. Many despised hierarchies and systematic leadership altogether; what they wanted was a looser fellowship without rigid leadership, freedom in the Spirit, and local control of property. Hence, oversight and direction of the convocation had to do with moral matters more than with legal ones, and the primary foci of convocation could remain fellowship, refreshing, and spiritual empowerment.30 This unity of high and low, the very foundation for communitas, is evidenced with the frequent request for prayer for the leaders, even as they were held in high esteem. Prayer to the Lord for direction on behalf of the leaders as well as each worker was requested by the leaders themselves. The leaders were not greater than others by virtue of some permanent dispensation. The leaders could fall and be defrocked; no divine right accompanied the office.31 All potency was derived from consecration, and the greatest insurance for the Holiness of the leader, as well as for the prosperous meeting, was the offering of prayers. The belief was that without the prayers of the saints, which constituted a kind of shield or guard, the leader remained within range of Satan’s attack. After the prayer had been offered, however, the actions of the leaders were interpreted as the unfolding will of God for 29 This was what Martin Buber called the “I–Thou” relationship. For him this is true community. But this is precisely what Turner nominates as communitas (Ritual Process, 127). This quality, which Buber called the true community, Zwischenmenschliche, might well be represented by “emptiness at the center, which is nevertheless indispensable to the functioning of the structure of the wheel.” Here he is describing communitas with respect to the chariot wheel that has spokes coming into the nave, which is in reality a hole or gap. But without this empty center around which spokes are attached there could be no mobility through the rolling, turning motion (ibid., 126–27). 30 Interview with J. T. Bowens, August 1983. 31 In this regard, leaders of the United Holy Church differed from leaders of other groups that are sometimes listed alongside this church in the taxonomy of sects or cults. There was no manna, potency, or god-image associated with the persons of the Fathers themselves.

HOLY CONVOCATION

103

the session and the church. The people took great pride in the ability of the leaders to represent them well and lead them effectively. Even though many of those attending the convocations were illiterate or nearly so, they wanted leaders who could mix with the “best” in society without shaming them. However, at the same time, they wanted the assurance that these leaders were truly representative of them and, in some degree, dependent on and responsible to them. Such a relationship enabled the people to share in the leaders’ dignity and stature.

PRAYER, PRAISE, AND ECSTASY Much of the worshipping time in convocation was spent in prayer, which was the supreme sign that those present considered themselves in need. Indeed, convocation as a “Center” was a place of power. But, in order to receive greater power, any power already held had to be surrendered. Acknowledgment of weakness and helplessness was required for the reception of this additional power, and prayer was such an acknowledgement.32 The prominence of prayer in the convocation was a witness of the highest order that the people were laying down whatever power could be considered theirs in favor of the power of the One on whom they called. Prayer, the supreme act of surrender in earnest expectation of greater empowerment, was required of all. It was customary for prayers to begin with acknowledgement of the deity as eternal, all-wise, and all-powerful. This was followed by the acknowledgement of weakness, helplessness, and inability to perform even the most basic activities of life without divine assistance. Indeed, this attitude was expressed with respect to the convocation itself, for one of the first prayers to be offered was for divine guidance throughout the session. Then there was prayer for the sick, the bereaved, and those who were in need. Beyond that, there was just “prayer.” Prayer was accompanied by an expectation of manifestations, which would leave no doubt in the minds of any that the deity was present. Once divine presence was apperceived, then prayer was the activity that sought to maintain the mood and abide in this presence. For the most part, this prayer was verbal. With uplifted voices, the people prayed together. Altogether one person officially took the lead, but one particular person could hardly be distinguished from the many others who prayed. With persistent petitions and passionate pleas, the people continued in prayer until communion with the Lord could be felt. Such praying was not 32

Van der Leeuw, Religion, 422–49.

104

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

the mere saying of words, but involvement of the spirit, the mind, and the body. Prayers were rarely rehearsed, for written prayers were thought not to be motivated by the Spirit. To be the sort of prayer that would “move the heart of God,” the very soul of the one who prayed had to go forth in making the address. Seasons of prayer had to do with a continual mode, a prayerful attitude more so than verbalization and articulation of God. It was not informing Him of something He did not know. Rather, the season of prayer would have to do with that phase of continual prayer in a group. As one is led to pray verbally, others praise the Lord, and when the end of that person’s inspiration ceases another takes over. It can go on all night long or it can be shorter than that.33

Other acts of worship fell into the category of praise, which was a crucial ingredient in making and keeping convocation what it was. It was the deep and abiding belief of the “Holy People” that giving praise to God was their duty and requirement. Taking the words pertaining to praise from the Psalms as a definite command, they believed they were transgressing the will of God if they did not make a “joyful noise”—that is, give praise with a loud noise, with clapping of hands, the loud-sounding instruments, the dance, and any other mode of expression that was available to them. Praise was as much a part of the convocation as the reading of the Scriptures and preaching. Indeed, for “Holy People” praise was much like a sacramental act: voluminous praise was interpreted as a sign that God’s favor was on the meeting: When you get masses together the praise is indeed sweet, glorious, and melodious. I do believe it is the kind of praise that took place in Isaiah’s day. … He said he went to the House of the Lord and there he experienced a vision where he beheld angels, some standing in mid-air, and some standing around the shoulders of the Father; and he heard them saying, “Holy, Holy.” … Even the doorpost of the temple shook and vibrated with their praise. So praises are comely for the upright.34

On occasion, persons acted as “praise leaders.” Such leadership in praise was expected of those assigned to lead devotional services, but in other more spontaneous moments persons bringing greeting, presiding, or introducing the speaker, or acting in some other formal capacity, would sing praise songs or ask for some form of collective witness such as “lifting the 33 34

Interview with J. T. Bowens, August 1983. Ibid.

HOLY CONVOCATION

105

hands if they were saved” or giving the Lord a “wave offering.”35 This collective praise usually yielded tumultuous outbursts extending to lengthy moments in which the whole congregation would be enraptured. The metaphor used to describe the most tumultuous praise was that of “falling fire.” In the falling of the fire, people would shout at the top of their voices, weep, dance, and speak with unknown tongues or other lallations. Such an experience and manifestation is referred to in a statement such as, “There were many beautiful testimonies and the fire fell as the saints did rejoice, one received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. There was a mighty shout of victory.”36 Unlike prayer, which is “an assumption of a position before the divine will on the part of man’s will,” praise is a “confirmation of divine power.” Like prayer, praise is addressed to God. But the praiser is seeking nothing. This does not mean that nothing is desired; on the contrary, it means that all is desired. In praise, however, one identifies totally and fully with the will of the divine. The focus is not on one’s surroundings—contingencies, the exigencies, and the bane of life. In the act of praise, one literally turns away from the world of these concerns. Yet one is not ignoring this world. Praise is given in spite of and as testimony against the world God has willed. It is an endorsement of the “Eternal.”37 Accordingly, the praise that went forth in convocation was full of zeal and vitality. for “Holy People” believed, as a matter of principle and commitment, that they should make their deepest feeling known to one another and to the world, for what God had done on their behalf was no secret. “It was not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26). A positive value was placed on vocal, physical, outward, intense expression; indeed this sort of expression became the trademark of “Holy People.” One of the earliest associations was called “Big Kahara” because the people were so joyful. Churches in which the “Holy People” met were referred to on occasion as “band rooms” because of the loud noise.38 Manifestation of emotions was not a matter of indifference among the 35

See, for example, the minutes of the 1931 convocation in New England, which records Elder A. W. Scott coming forward to sing “I’m Saved” and then asking all who knew they were saved to lift their hands (Yearbook, 1930, 3). 36 Ibid., 57. 37 Van der Leeuw, Religion. See his discussion of praise in chap. 63, “Praise, Lallation, and Silence,” 430–34. 38 The Big Kahara Association in Sampson County was one of the four constituent groups making up the Durham Convention of 1900. See chap. 1 above. The term “band room” was used to designate the Holy Temple Church of Wilmington.

106

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

“Holy People”; the quiet, calm mood of piety was not ascribed the same value as the boisterous expression. Genuine encounters with the Almighty by the Holy Spirit were believed to be so powerful that they necessarily produced the tangible effect. Thus a person who never showed any emotion or the effect of being moved by the Spirit was held in suspicion with respect to the genuineness of salvation and, more specifically, as regards the fullness of the blessing. Praise was not merely an intellectual disposition or a passive mood. It involved the entire person. Indeed, a hierarchy of values was assigned to the manifold physical expressions, which corresponded to spiritual rank. All were expected to sing without regard to level of spiritual attainment. The same was so for the clapping of hands. A testimony to salvation was not even required for these acts of praise. But those who were considered, or who considered themselves, to be “strong in the Lord” were expected to manifest their attainment even more vigorously. The chief means for establishing this rank was “testimony,” a verbal, coherent, and rational expression of personal praise. In a typical testimony, praise was given to God for both material and spiritual blessings. As a rule, the material and spiritual were kept in balance and proportion. These testimonies focused on even minute aspects of life and lifted them up as instances of divine intervention and help. The aim of the testimony was to give glory to God for what Jesus has done for that individual. But in addition to that there is something called a “word of wisdom.” A word of wisdom in a testimony can range from exhortation to glorification. If it is exhortation it can be for edification, then it could be a personal testimony of what God has done for the individual. It is not intended to give a short discourse, but rather telling what God has done. … Convocation, then, consisted of acts to preserve through repetition and re-enforcement.39

Testifying was considered a great privilege; one could give individual expression. Some would testify in a dull and lifeless way that touched no one. Others could do it with personal conviction that affected others deeply. Now one fellow can testify and he can stand there and tell you what God has done for him quoting time and places, and he just set your soul on fire. Another fellow may only take up your good time with his expression that has no real feeling or depth. If he gets anything out of it, it evidently

39

Interview with J. T. Bowens, August 1983.

HOLY CONVOCATION

107

must be so minimized until it doesn’t get to the point of a physical demonstration indicating that he has been blessed a lot.40

In testimony, ordinary matters, like waking in the morning, having food to eat, having a right mind, and so on, were lifted beyond the mundane realm. The congregation was reminded that these blessings were not to be taken for granted, for they came directly from God; and at the very moment they were being enjoyed by those at convocation, others knew no such blessing. In some instances, the divine intervention to which the testimony bore witness was so pointed and clear that it was placed in the category of “miracle.” Along with everything else it represented, testimony consisted of a declaration that one had attained salvation in its fullness. Bona fide saints were expected to be saved, sanctified, baptized, and filled with the Holy Ghost and to be living according to the standards of the church.41 If this was indeed the spiritual attainment, one was expected to say so in each testimony. Failing to include this formulaic content was tantamount to an admission of spiritual deficiency, either through lack of attainment or through backsliding. Persons would judge individuals by the way they testified. If they stuttered it was a sign that the devil had entered somewhere along the line or it was something the person had done. Some persons could come through like whistling Dixie. But other persons who stuttered might have somebody look them in the face and sing “How Can You Get to Heaven Without Your Sins Forgiven?” This was a complete putdown of the person who had testified before.42

The same was true with regard to certain acts of praise. While singing and hand-clapping were permitted to all, dancing and other forms of ecstasy were reserved for those with a certain degree of spiritual attainment. These were signs of fullness of the Spirit, or Spirit possession. But since it was believed and taught at least in its popular version that one could not have the Holy Ghost without first being saved and sanctified, those who were not living up to the church’s standards were regarded as hypocrites for giving these signs. Such persons were either disregarded by those who “knew them” 40 41

Ibid. In the formal doctrinal sense, the standards covered the three steps to salvation discussed in detail in chap. 5 below. But, practically speaking, it included a much broader segment of the tradition: proper marital status and dress, freedom from indulgences and habits, no membership in secret organizations, etc. 42 Interview with Bishop Elroy Lewis, Durham, North Carolina, August 1983.

108

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

when they began to manifest demonstrations such as dancing or speaking in tongues, or they were stopped by singing or direct confrontation.43 Those who testified to the fullness of salvation without signs of the same were held in a similar sort of suspicion. Everyone who was filled with the Holy Ghost was expected to give at least occasional signs that they were under divine control, rather than their own. Quiet, calm, nonemotional manners that never gave way to some outburst were believed to be incompatible with fullness of the Spirit. Further, such persons were believed to be in direct disobedience to the summons that called for a “joyful noise” and “praise upon the loud-sounding instruments.” Such sedateness was further believed to be disobedient to the New Testament admonitions to sing palms, hymns, and spiritual songs.44 The highest point in praise was ecstasy. This was the point at which all acts of praise found their fulfillment, for at this point the worshipper was no longer herself. Now if it is called, “Prayer Meeting Praise” … where spiritual ecstasy overflows, we find ourselves so overjoyed until our feet are employed and we call it dance—without a partner of course. This is highly practiced among us as Pentecostals, and we are the richer for doing so. … I understand my dancing as giving glory to God.45

At the point of ecstasy, possession by the deity had taken place. The act of worship and praise was no longer to be attributed to the individual: through the Spirit, God had made a visitation and was present for the bestowal of blessings. Those who reached this state were literally mediums through which benefits and blessings could be given to others. This state was attainable in any act of worship or praise—by the preacher during the course of his delivery, by one giving a testimony, during the course of singing. This state could even interrupt an otherwise calm and quiet person who was in a mood rendering him or her susceptible to such an invasion. In any event, no service was regarded as complete without such an invasion and manifestation. Now, a physical demonstration of what a person feels on the inside could be called a spontaneous interruption. … If he is saying, for exam43 The direct confrontation could come from a Mother, prophet, or some other “strong saint” who would go directly to the person or who would stand and give an open rebuke. 44 These criteria were based on passages such as Psalms 100 and 150, and Colossians 3. 45 Interview with J. T. Bowens, August 1983.

HOLY CONVOCATION

109

ple, … “a bill was due and I didn’t have the money to pay the bill … and in talking about it I prayed to God ‘Lord make a way somehow.’ When I arrived at church I met a sister, and when I shook her hand, she said, ‘The Lord told me to do this for you.’ She was nowhere around when I asked God for the money for my bill.” Now, that fellow might interrupt by saying “Amen” or he may go into a dance. So the, the physical evidence could be how I respond to what happened to my experience. … It is a spontaneous interruption … communicable and understood by those standing around, but there is no understanding as to its instant origination within the soul. We see the physical evidence, or hear the physical evidence that something is happening inside. He’s happy!46

The two chief forms of this expression are dancing and lallation. In both forms, the human faculties were considered to be moved by a superhuman power. On occasion, there was wild and unrestrained motion, and in other instances people “went out” in the Spirit.47 But in most past cases, ecstasy expressed in bodily motion was in the form of a rhythmic and smooth dance. “Holy People” were well known for this dancing, which to them was known as “shouting.” In lallation, the expression was vocal—unrestrained profusion of sounds, sometimes mixed with weeping or laughing. Lallation, which streamed forth in a manner that defied cessation, often consisted of familiar ejaculations of praise in words such as “hallelujah, thank you, Jesus,” and so on. Or, there could be tones not familiar to the hearer at all. In cases in which the sounds approximated syllables, foreign words, or languages with structure and pattern, it was known as speaking in tongues.48 The specific feature of lallation is that the speaker evidences no power over his own speech; it is compulsive and uncontrolled. Whether or not there was a direct desire to speak could not be determined. In any case, the speaker was like a machine through which a voice uttered sounds. Where lallations consisted of familiar ejaculations, the speaker presumably knew what was being said but could not discontinue without vigorous effort. In case of glossolalia, the speaker presumably did not know what was being uttered at all; the words were understood as the words of another person. In any event, 46 47

Ibid. Going out in the Spirit is like being in a state of trance or semiconsciousness. There is hardly any movement in the body, and the only way life can be confirmed is through the beating of the pulse. 48 The technical term for speaking in tongues is glossolalia, on which there is an abundance of literature (see van der Leeuw, Religion, 432).

110

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

power was experienced through personal impotence and yielding to a superior power. The state of ecstasy in which a higher and more potent life infused the believer was sought as the highest experience of worship among “Holy People,” and this state was marked by some sign.49 When you go out of one state into another there is a sign. Without a sign you may be way over in Alabama and not know it, for there is nothing but an imaginary line on the ground. … When you are in the air and you are going across the imaginary line toward Wake Island and Guam, the day changes while you are in the air. There is nothing to tell you that you have left Tuesday and entered Wednesday. But it is an historical fact that a few minutes ago you were in Tuesday and in a few moments you are in Wednesday.50

Ecstasy, with the primary signs of dancing and lallation, was the apex, or the peak of the moment of convocation. Entrance into the state of ecstasy was characterized by physical manifestations which were sometimes quite violent and which affected the entire person. During the moments of ecstasy it was as though another ego were in control.51 Normal hindrances disappeared and were replaced by superhuman strength and endurance. In some cases this was manifested in healing. In other cases it was manifested in the adept movement of those who were otherwise slow and decrepit. In Bermuda I preached and I saw an old gentleman get up and begin to dance and praise his God. … And while I was in Florida I saw an elderly lady with a cane slid under her chair. She could not walk without leaning on someone and holding onto the walker. That’s the way she moved. But when the Spirit hit her she began to dance without anyone holding her. It is a spontaneous infusion of new life by the Holy Ghost for the moment that can cause a cripple person to stand and praise God.52

A serene calmness and happiness followed the experience of ecstasy; the person experienced extraordinary physical energy and expanded mental capacity. People in a state of ecstasy are able to achieve what was far beyond their usual ability, as though for the moment they had acquired new souls and bodies.53 49 50 51

Interview with J. T. Bowens, August 1983. Ibid. This phenomenon is discussed under religious and other categories. For example, see Shelia Walker, Ceremonial Spirit Possession in Africa and Afro-America. 52 Interview with J. T. Bowens, August 1983. 53 See van der Leeuw, Religion, 488.

HOLY CONVOCATION

111

The event of spiritual empowerment par excellence lay at the very heart of the church’s life. The dynamics of this event, which bear close resemblance to historic Afro-American and African traditional religion, point to the reality and realization of resources for vital life that are not bound to the structures of the larger society and culture. Indeed, this event, which is a gesture away from history, demonstrates the capacity of black religion to fortify devoted ones for surviving in, prospering in, resisting, rebelling against, adjusting to, and changing the world without the loss of hope and integrity.

5 THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL THE QUESTION OF BLACKNESS The thesis underlying this work is that Black Holiness-Pentecostalism is a structural component of the Black Church. Accordingly, exception is taken to the view which holds that the Black Church includes only the denominations that separated from white evangelicals during the antebellum period as the invisible institution in the South and the black independents in the North. This view holds that independent black Methodists and Baptists are sectarian, and due to their racial distinction they can never hope to be more. Holiness and Pentecostal groups, who separated from the sectarians, in their quest for spiritual power are to be classified as cults and included in the taxonomy of those who seek an alternative to Christian faith and venerate their leader.1 In contrast to this view, a perspective is offered here in which I regard the Black Church as including what Leonard Lovett calls the five original Black Holiness-Pentecostal and Apostolic bodies along with black denominational churches; black churches who retain their identity though formally remaining within a larger “integrated” structure; and independent churches that are not part of a denominational group.2 It is to this category that most Black Holiness-Pentecostal people belong. The common denominator unifying them all is blackness, a perspective ethos manifest in practices and 1 Exception is not being taken to the distinction between the “Negro Church” and the “Black Church,” as set forth by C. Eric Lincoln in The Black Church since Frazier. The objection is to Joseph R. Washington’s implication that groups must be traceable to white Protestant denominations in order to be considered within the fold of the church. This is the argument made by Joseph Washington in Black Religion and advanced in his Black Sects and Cults. 2 Lovett lists the five original Holiness-Pentecostal Apostolic groups as The United Holy Church of America, The Church of Christ Holiness, The Church of God in Christ, The Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God in the Americas, and the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. (See further discussion below.)

113

114

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

forms of expression, creating a bond deeper than denomination affiliation.3 This ethos is constituted of a shared attitude toward life, and shared identity rooted in shared experience. The attitude is manifested in a sense of expectation, longing, and openness to acts of power affirming human life that are not derived from or limited to the rational structure of culture. Any object, place, or person can be the instrument for such intervention; even ordinary experiences can be interpreted as instances in which such transcendent operation occurs. This attitude of openness is accompanied by a selfconscious identification with the experience of suffering and struggle shared by people of African decent, deliberate strategies for countering the oppressive features of culture, and the cultivation of explicit and tacit dimensions of emotional life for overcoming the tendency to frustration and despair. This ethos binding the constituents of the Black Church is “blackness.” Adherence to the doctrinal teachings and ritual practices of the Christian tradition distinguishes this composite group as the Black Church from other expressions of black religion, which make no similar identification and hold no such commitment. Objective structures, such as polity and theological emphases, create the distinction corresponding to the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Holiness, Pentecostal, and so on. But such connections and influences do not obliterate the characteristics of blackness identified above. Rather, the datum is the experience of God as the only One who can be trusted to extend compassion and give liberty. Again, Black Holiness-Pentecostalism is connected internally with the larger Black Church by virtue of its character as a reformation. That is, the mothers and fathers of this movement saw themselves as reformers seeking to preserve the integrity of the faith that their brothers and sisters were allowing to be lost. Black Holiness-Pentecostalism thus restored emphases and revalorized elements of black religion that were becoming despised or being discarded by those who believed such elements belonged to a day that had passed. In particular, this was the emphasis on Holiness, spiritual empowerment, and prophetic social consciousness. In the thinking of some members of the Black Church during the period from Post-Reconstruction to the early twentieth century, Afro-Americans had outgrown earlier stages of development. The time had come, they 3

The above definition of blackness is consistent with Gayraud Wilmore’s concept of radicalism, which he defines as “the pervasive feeling about the hierophantic nature of historical experience related to the African past” fused with “programmatic secularity related to the realities of slavery and oppression” (Black Religion Black Radicalism, 14).

THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL

115

believed, for enlightenment, education, and proof of worthiness in the eyes of the larger community. This necessarily meant pruning the Black Church of “backward” ways and “primitive” religion. The reformers who led the way in establishing Black Holiness-Pentecostalism questioned this “progress,” believing that it amounted to the corruption of “pure religion” by removing features that characterized the true faith of the fathers. In the view of these reforming fathers, the older denominations had apostasized. They had failed to do what God had mandated from their beginning. More than that, they caused many who needed the benefits of the saving gospel and the church’s ministry to feel neglected, forsaken, and cast aside. In most instances, those who voluntarily left or felt pushed out of the better-established churches had no quarrel with the formal position of the traditions they left behind. Indeed, they typically established new institutions with the same basic structures. In some cases, the new structures were even more rigid than those they left. The aim was purification and restoration. In a sense, the exodus of many individuals from the extant Black Church, which led to these reformations, was a repeat of what had taken place a century earlier in the initial establishment of the Black Church. Or, to put it another way, it can be argued that the Holiness-Pentecostal movement within the Black Church was on the order of a reform to keep the Black Church black and holy. Accordingly, we confront many of the same issues in considering Black Holiness-Pentecostalism as in the discussion of black religion in general. These issues, which crystallize around the question of whether or not there is a distinguishable phenomenon that may properly be called black religion, persist among those who seriously examine the data. On one side of the argument is the enduring presence of black religious institutions, which continue to draw support from black people and continue to be a significant part of black life, and of religious persons who insist on maintaining these institutions, refusing absorption into larger structures. Even when black people are part of the larger structures, a strand of identity remains, which prevents total obliteration. On the other side of the argument is the analytical approach, which holds that an account of American religion is complete without the distinction of blackness. What is called “black religion” is merely the appropriation of a common faith and common practices on the part of a people with different skin color. Those who take this approach focus on doctrine and structure. Analysis from this perspective reveals no substantial differences between African Methodists and other Methodists, and the same findings

116

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

abound where Baptist, Pentecostals, and others are concerned. Almost every discussion of this issue appeals to the position advanced by either E. Franklin Frazier or Melville J. Herskovits in the well-known “Frazier–Herskovits debate.” Frazier, the sociologist, took the position that everything distinctively African was lost in the journey across the Atlantic Ocean. He held that a majority of the slaves brought to the New World were young men below the age of initiation, and since this group was the poorest bearer of culture, there was almost no chance that African culture would be transmitted. Beyond that, the slaves who were brought to North America were not allowed to speak their language, play their drums, or engage in their dances. They were effectively denied any means for the expression of their culture and religion. Instead, they were offered the religion of their European captors, and conversion was both the moment and the sign of the adaptation. In conversion, these Africans and their descendants found a new fixed point around which to orient themselves in the world and a new character around which to order their lives. Those features cited as evidence of continuity between the religion of Africans and Afro-Americans should properly be understood as adaptations of the culture and religion of the white evangelicals who came to the blacks as missionaries.4 Herskovits, on the other hand, argued for continuity between African and Afro-American culture. Based on data from his fieldwork in Africa, South America, the Caribbean, and North America, he demonstrated strong cultural persistence clearly manifest in those areas where a great degree of freedom was allowed to slaves, and a less pronounced carryover where the degree of freedom was low.5 The pattern of persistence was readily observable in the Caribbean and South America.6 Herkovits argued that in the southern colonies, where the Cavaliers and the Huguenots were in control, and were more tolerant than the Puritans, slaves had a degree of freedom that allowed for reinterpretation of the master’s religion against their African background. New forms taken from Protestant Evangelicalism became the vehicles for expressing traditional meanings that emerged from the African view of the world. Although people might quite readily adopt new forms, 4

See Frazier, The Negro Church in America, for his position. See also the outline of the debate in Albert J. Raboteau, Slave Religion: The Invisible Institution in the Antebellum South, chap. 1. 5 Melville J. Herskovits, The Myth of the Negro Past. 6 In Brazil, for example, there are cults that have maintained African traditional religion in the minutest details of mythology and ritual practices. See Roger Bastide, The African Religions of Brazil: Towards a Sociology of the Interpenetration of Civilization.

THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL

117

they assign to them old meanings, thus maintaining their traditional system of values and the emotional satisfactions derived from earlier days in spite of the more advantageous new forms.7 Neither side of the argument is conclusive; neither theory can be proved or disproved absolutely. At a very minimum, however, there was interpenetration between the civilizations of Europe and Africa. To maintain otherwise is to accept the thesis that those Africans whom the Europeans encountered and enslaved were not human. Without some measure of culture, there could not have been even the adaptation that took place according to Frazier’s model. That is, truly clean slates could not have received even the content of the preaching that was offered by the evangelicals. A discernible difference in manner remained between Africans and Europeans, however, even after the conversion of the former to Christianity. A “black factor” that is difficult to explicate refused to go away. While on the one hand it was denied that these Africans had civilization and culture, on the other hand constant efforts were made to prevent the exercise of their “heathen practices” and to prevent the contamination of Euro-American culture. In fact, the statements of derision and the acts of proscription against vestiges of its expression conceded by default an African religious consciousness and spirituality. In coming to terms with blackness, then, we must not look solely at skin color or race. There is no gain in seeking a civilization or culture preserved in all its dimensions. Neither is there any gain in arguing for uniqueness of all the elements of culture that can be identified. So to argue would be to posit an ontological distinction that makes one race or culture superior or inferior to others. To say that Africans are so distinct that there could be no European counterpart to their practices would be to imply that a common humanity is not shared. More specifically, to say that black religion contains traits that are also observable in evangelical Protestantism does not vitiate an interpretation of those traits from the standpoint of African religion and culture.

AFRO-CHRISTIAN CONSCIOUSNESS The blackness of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism must be understood in terms of the religious consciousness reflected in the ethos that pervades black religion. This ethos, which goes even deeper than the distinction between Christian and non-Christian expressions of black religion, is rooted 7 Leonard Lovett, “Black Holiness-Pentecostalism: Implications for Social Transformation,” 13.

118

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

in an African worldview. When the religious consciousness is wedded to Christian symbols and doctrines in the Black Church, of which Black Holiness-Pentecostalism is a constituent, it is particularized as Afro-Christian. Religious consciousness is the a priori structure within the human subject that allows for the experience of Ultimate Reality.8 It is the capacity to know and respond to the Wholly Other. This consciousness is not possessed by selected humans only; it is the common possession of all. While social, mental, emotional, and other dimensions of life find their unity in this consciousness, it cannot be reduced to any one of these dimensions. Religious consciousness, rather than causing arrogance in the face of the Wholly Other, forces recognition of that power and gives birth to humility.9 As opposed to an evolutionary product of civilization or an indication of advancement within the species, it is a capacity men and women of all ages hold in common “beneath the fluctuating details of life,” moments of fear, admiration, and wonder.10 In its objective expression, this religious consciousness gives rise to worship, prayer, praise, reflection, communities within which to share and preserve the cherished experiences, and an overall view of the world that places a discernible stamp on culture. As such, it is rooted in the pre-reflective latent structures of meaning that are bound within the human subject. That is, objective expressions of religion arise out of this consciousness as well as promote it and give meaning to it. Afro-Christian consciousness reflects an African worldview in that, like African traditional religion, a tremendous emphasis is placed on the reality of the spiritual world. God is the creator and sustainer of the world who has 8

Understanding the a prior structure of religious consciousness is the fundamental alternative to the theoretical explanations which hold that religion is a disease of language, the childish and incorrect belief of primitive people, the superego of society, an excrescence of culture, or the projection of the subconscious. Charles Long shows that Rudolf Otto was the first to identify this irreducible structure of human consciousness, which he modeled after the Kantian a priori in his classic study The Idea of the Holy. See Long, “The Meaning of Religion in the Contemporary Study of the History of Religions.” For a summary of the leading theories on the origin of religion, see Mircea Eliade, “The History of Religions in Retrospect: 1912 and After,” in The Quest, 12–36. 9 R. R. Marett discusses the birth of humility as the first moment of this religious consciousness. It is interesting to note the striking contrast between the first moment of self-consciousness, which is described by Marett as humility, and Hegel’s first moment of self-consciousness, which is aggressive and violent, like a dog gobbling its prey. (The Threshold of Religion, 176ff.; F. G. Weiss, Hegel: The Essential Writings, 8. 10 Marett, Threshold of Religion, 10.

THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL

119

not left man alone. In African traditional religion the high god, who was this creator, maintained contact with men and women on a regular basis through the intermediacy of lesser deities who could be summoned and petitioned. Their names and power were manifest in the minutest details of life. There was absolutely no sphere of life that was off limits to the deity. As such, there was no separation between the secular and the sacred. Above all, the manifestation of the deity’s presence in the world was for the preservation of its harmony and order. This order, which was mirrored in social institutions, cultural patterns, mythology, and ritual practices, was given primordially in the establishment of a particular people. What it meant to be Yoruba, Fon, or Bantu could not be comprehended or apprehended apart from this integrated complex. Or, to put it another way, there was no conceptual possibility within traditional African culture of abstracting the religious from the rest of life. Life was a joyful celebration highlighted by ceremonies, which featured singing, drumming, dancing, and visitations of deity, all for the affirmation of human life.11 In the Afro-Christian worldview as well, God was the creator and sustainer of life. He was present in every phase of life in the person of Jesus, who became a lowly, suffering man. No spheres of life, including those filled with sorrows, problems, and burdens, were beyond God’s reach through the Spirit. Rather than acknowledging a multitude of deities, Afro-Christian religion longed intensely for the Holy Ghost, who through his visitations gave rapture to the receiving soul. Religion, then, was the celebration of life. It made accessible the deeper meaning of this life and the life of the world to come. It was intense, emotional, and joyful. The highlight was the descent of the deity in the person of the Holy Ghost, in response to which the worshippers shouted, wept, fell out under the power, spoke ecstatically, and danced. This visitation, which came during preaching, singing, praying, or any one of the worshipping acts, was the high point for which there was always longing and expectation.12 In the teaching of the masters and the preachers they endorsed, God was said to have ordained Africans to be slaves. According to their claims, Africans were inferior to white men by the creator’s design. Africans were told that their lot was just punishment for the sins of their foreparents, that 11

For further treatments of African traditional religion, see John S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy; E. Bolaji Idowu, African Religion: A Definition. 12 For further discussion of the structure and content of Afro-Christian faith see Wilmore, “The Religion of the Slave,” in Black Religion, chap. 1; Raboteau, Slave Religion.

120

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

they were not to look for pleasure, joy, or happiness in this world. Rather, in this world they were to seek salvation for their souls that they might know joy and happiness in Heaven. However, what emerged in the Black Church was teaching that affirmed their place in the world as persons whom God created in his image, cared for, and loved. This faith held forth the expectation of freedom and liberty in this world by divine working and human struggle, in addition to rewards and happiness in the other world. Life was still celebration in spite of slavery and oppression, which were not willed of God and were passing away. In addition, divine judgment was upon those who promoted this false god and advanced this false faith. As such, religion became a protest against the world of slavery and an announcement that the world of the slave owner was not ordained of God.

A MODEL FOR BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTALISM Three interdependent dynamics of Afro-Christian consciousness are preserved in Black Holiness-Pentecostalism in a manner that permits an interpretation of its blackness. Theses dynamics are Holiness, spiritual empowerment, and prophetic social consciousness. On the one hand, the interdependence of these dynamics distinguishes Black Holiness-Pentecostalism from white Pentecostals and demonstrates continuity with the Black Church. On the other hand, this interdependence demonstrates the distinctiveness of this particular expression of Christianity from the Black Church in a general fashion and argues its character as a reformation. Holiness, spiritual empowerment, and prophetic social consciousness must be understood as three dynamics in the Afro-Christian consciousness. The mutual relationship among them is such that none exists independently. Functioning as independent elements, each dynamic would become deformed. Holiness, for example, may then be equatable with evangelical piety obsessed with salvation as retreat or escape from the world. Prophetic social consciousness is lost and, shorn of spiritual empowerment, it lapses into legalism. Spiritual empowerment as an independent element obsesses over power in a way that disregards the need for inner transformation, verifiable by ethical evidence. Moreover, such empowerment is sought as an attempt to disregard the institutions of society and culture, which comprise the objective world. Prophetic social consciousness as an independent element has no God-centeredness. Instead, it is a programmatic secularity that relies solely on human analysis, ingenuity, and power. Within the United Holy Church of America, a representative Black Holiness-Pentecostal denomination, one sees an example of attempts to balance these dynamics. The result is a series of tensions in which the entirety

THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL

121

of the church’s life as a denomination within the Black Church can be understood. Each dynamic is in tension with the other, giving rise to the richness in the existential meaning of doctrine, practice, tradition. The character of these tensions brings into focus the manner in which the United Holy Church of America sought to live up to her promise of reforming the Black Church. But what also becomes apparent is the strong tendency of each dynamic to become a separate element. Hence, the examination of these tensions reveals deformation of the very sort her life and teachings sought to correct. The blackness of the United Holy Church must be seen, then, in the sincere struggle growing out of these tensions and, most of all, in the measure to which this life was rooted within black life. Perhaps the most prominent and distinctive tension of all was that between Holiness and spiritual empowerment. Holiness was understood as both the state into which the believer is brought by the inworking of the Holy Spirit and the precondition for the full reception of the Spirit. Hence, there was within the United Holy Church a passionate defense of three distinct stages in salvation and absolute refusal to let the distinction of sanctification, which imparts Holiness, be lost. Without Holiness, spiritual power was feigned and Christian life was a mere ritual. Although in the final analysis salvation was regarded as a mystery known fully only to God, the people were not left on their own to determine how they should proceed. The way of salvation was elaborated in a detailed and precise manner. Those who would have the full empowerment of the Spirit were admonished not to be satisfied until they were justified, sanctified, and baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire. Such attainment indicated both a full commitment to the Lord and a fullness of blessing in the believer’s life. These stages were to be kept in the believer’s consciousness continually. When attainment had been achieved, thanksgiving was to be offered in prayer and praise; and where such attainment had not been achieved, it was to be earnestly sought in prayer.13 This sequence was bound with the cardinal truths of the church’s teaching. Sanctification, which imparted Holiness, was the second work of grace that followed justification. When this work had been accomplished, the baptism of the Holy Ghost would automatically follow as a “gift of power.” Indeed, one need only “tarry” (wait) for this gift of power.14 13

See Bishop Fisher’s lesson on “Prevailing Prayer” to the New England convocation in Yearbook, 1932, 29–30. 14 See Lawson, “Life,” 5. For an outline of the teaching of the Holy Band, and Fisher, Manual, 23.

122

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

A heavenly work was wrought in the believer in justification, also referred to as the “new birth” or “being saved.” What took place in that work was by supernatural power and was applied to the very nature of the believer. It was as much a mystery as the growing of a plant from the seed sown into soil. Through moral and ethical evidences engendered from this work, it was not to be equated with or confused with mere reform. Nor was it sufficient in and of itself to produce Holiness in its fullest measure. For this, the subsequent work of sanctification was required.15 Whereas in justification one was forgiven of all sin that had been committed, sanctification was an operation upon the nature at the deepest level. It began in the moment of regeneration and continued until one was glorified in the presence of the Lord. But it was held by the Fathers that there is a distinct moment in spiritual growth wherein the believer is freed from all desires to displease the Lord that are inherent in the lower nature and receives instead holy dispositions. In this moment of entire sanctification, all struggles between the human will and the divine will cease and there is complete yielding to the Holy Spirit.16 Sanctification is not easily explained and expressed as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Sanctification was a matter of some kind of emotional movement … at which a person felt that he was no longer swayed in any way by the devil. All of a sudden there was no tension between these two poles. Normally when that took place it was in the midst of an emotional experience. But it was not a high point like conversion or Spirit baptism. It was more subdued work of grace. … It was generally associated with the overcoming of habit. The emphasis was on cleanness. People would say, “I sanctified myself.” One had to do all he could to make sure there was nothing separating him from his God, no habits, no thoughts, and no imaginations. The classical statement with regard to sanctification was … “when you are regenerated you are taken out of the world. When you are sanctified the world is taken out of you. …” The mothers and fathers considered it to be impossible to be filled with the Holy Spirit while still possessing a habit such as smoking.17

Holiness was the condition for receiving spiritual power, and the attainment was likened to waking from sleep and putting on strength. It only comes to those who willingly submit to the refining fire of the altar. The attitude is contrasted to that of the “heifer who backslid” and the “ox who butted.” 15 16 17

See G. J. Branch, “New Birth” in Yearbook, 1948, 71; Lawson, Doctrine, 36ff. See ibid., 38ff.; J. D. Diggs, “Entire Sanctification,” in Yearbook, 1930, 52. Interview with Bishop Elroy Lewis, August 1983.

THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL

123

Rather, it is likened to the attitude of the lamb who “crawled upon the altar and lay there docilely.”18 All was to be sacrificed for the attainment of this spiritual power imparted supremely in the moment of Spirit baptism. In this crowning moment of the Christian experience, supernatural power that left a definite witness was imparted. The older members of the church would accept sanctification on the night after one was saved. But now if you got the Holy Spirit the next night they would question whether or not you got it that quickly: they felt that the Holy Spirit would come at a later time. Many got filled with the Spirit in the field: plowing a mule, shucking corn, digging potatoes, working in the tobacco field (though they were somewhat reluctant to talk about the tobacco). With the experience designated as Spirit baptism came not only ecstasy by also the imparting of one or more gifts: preaching, teaching, wisdom, etc. This was one of the features distinguishing the United Holy Church from others of Pentecostal persuasion. They did not regard speaking with tongues as the singular evidence of Spirit baptism.19

Spirit baptism was accompanied in every instance by some sign that marked the intersection of two realms. The human subject, being the point of this convergence, could not remain indifferent or unaffected. Some appropriate response to this numinous reality, which could include dancing, weeping, shouting, and ecstatic speech, was welcomed and cherished by the Holy People as their mothers and fathers in Africa had done before them.20 The Holiness that characterized the new life, and the power brought to the believer, were bound inextricably in the mystery of the Spirit. The Spirit was the source of life and power from above. What he gave could not be received from the world, nor could it be taken by the world. In the face of this life and power, the world was impotent. Accordingly, the Spirit’s reality, though not questioned, could not be accounted for fully in positive discursive language. Rather, the language of symbols or “emblems” was employed.21 18 See G. J. Branch, “Refining Fire in the Church,” in Yearbook, 1935, 13; “Wakefulness,” in Yearbook, 1939, 137. 19 Interview with Elroy Lewis, August 1983. 20 In the traditional cult of the Fon of Dahomey, West Africa, for example, the ego of the initiates (tovodunis) is literally displaced when they are possessed by the deities (vodun) to whom they are devoted in dancing. All who are present at the ceremony benefit from such visitation (Melville J. Herskovits, Dahomey: an Ancient West African Kingdom, 210–25. 21 Henry L. Fisher list the emblems as water, oil, fire, the dove, rain, seal, wind, and dew, in Yearbook, 1932. 41.

124

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

It was a highly developed sense of this tension between Holiness and spiritual empowerment that produced the Fathers’ self-awareness as reformers of the Black Church. They saw themselves standing in the line of Luther, Wesley, and other reformers and martyrs who sought to keep the vision bright, as it tended to grow dim. The vision was of a Church on fire for God, and the motivation occasioned by that vision was sufficient to produce “zeal for suffering persecution and sealing the testimony with one’s life’s blood.” To these Fathers, Protestantism had failed, and the Holiness they preached was the “last reformation that would make the church ready for the Lord’s coming.”22 In the reforming Fathers’ view, the Black Church was swiftly being caught with the rest of the Church into the seventh phase, known as the “Laodicean period.” Already the Church had passed through its first period of original zeal and intensity, a second period of threat and persecution, a third period of repentance and revival, a fourth period of entanglement with the world, a fifth period of reformation, and a sixth period of strength. Now she was departing from the faith and being seduced by the doctrines of devils. Hence, the Fathers cried loudly for the perfecting of Holiness and spiritual empowerment to overcome the threat.23 Such empowerment from above enabled one to stand over against the world. In this view of the world, spiritual reality is taken seriously. Despite calamity, suffering, and hostile culture, there is access to power from this spiritual realm, which provides toughness, resilience, inner fortitude, and endurance to defy odds of every sort. This sense of interpenetration between the spiritual and the objective realms provided for a posture in which life, destiny, and fortunes were not dictated finally by the surrounding culture.24 A view of the world is reflected here in which the Enlightenment notion of a fixed barrier conformable to the laws of positive science standing at the boundary of reality is rejected. The Afro-Christian worldview appropriated by the Fathers of the United Holy Church honored instead a perforation of the boundary between the phenomenal and the noumenal 22 See Henry L. Fisher, “Keeping His Vision,” in Yearbook, 1932, 30. Bishop J. T. Bowens, general president of the United Holy Church, along this same line, holds that there is little significant difference between the doctrine of the United Holy Church and that of the Methodists. He says: “We received doctrine from the Methodists. … Our greater and more informed experts and exponents of holiness were Methodist men” (Interview with J. T. Bowens, August 1983). 23 Henry L. Fisher, “Seventh Period of the Church Age,” in Yearbook, 1939, 128; 1943, 204. 24 Cornel West discusses this motif as the “core of the prophetic Christian gospel” in Prophesy Deliverance! An Afro-American Revolutionary Christianity, 16.

THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL

125

world. The deity could penetrate at will to make himself part of human life. Any moment, any place, any person is a potential hierophany where the convergence can take place. Life is not complete without the welcomed presence of the deity. Moreover, this presence is not subject to the criterion of positive knowledge in the sense that it can be disproved through the arguments and constructions of those who refuse to believe.25 Counter to Enlightenment notions, the reality of the Holy Ghost was taken at face value, as was the reality of the deities in traditional Africa. This predisposition to “numinous reality” was considered a requirement with respect to the Holy Ghost even more so than with God the Creator, whose works are manifest in the natural world, or God the Son, who was revealed under the conditions of humanity. In matters pertaining to the Spirit, a religious consciousness that resists the skepticism of positive science was required for openness to this dimension of reality as a matter of fact and practical daily consequence. This we see clearly in Black Holiness-Pentecostalism’s emphasis on the Spirit, manifested in the tension between Holiness and spiritual empowerment. Spiritual empowerment and Holiness exerted a tension against one another as independent elements that would otherwise deteriorate into deformation. On the one hand, Holiness was the means to spiritual empowerment, and spiritual empowerment was the means for attaining true Holiness. But Holiness was also the criterion for true spiritual empowerment: it was the means for bringing the criterion of the Christian faith to bear on all quests for spiritual empowerment and claims to it. As such, Holiness prevented spiritual empowerment from lapsing into the unrestrained quests that attempted to ignore or defy structures of economics, power, and law. But as a restraint against Holiness in its deformation, spiritual empowerment prevented its lapse into legalism. This tension can be seen in the Fathers’ dogmatic insistence on Bible study. In their view, knowledge of the Scriptures was the only hedge against being swept away by wild emotions and questionable teaching. In the Scriptures, a standard was given, and in the study of the Scriptures, the mind and the spirit were made subject to the discipline of Holiness.26 The factor of restraint was also evident in instances where pastors, elders, or bishops acted to oversee and control the spiritual tide in a service, 25

We see here an instance of Wilmore’s notion of the “hierophantic nature of historical experience” that characterized black religion (Black Religion, 4, 37). 26 Henry L. Fisher, “The Scripture Cannot be Broken,” in Yearbook, 1933, 17; 1943, 214; also G. J. Branch, “Study,” in Yearbook, 1936, 69.

126

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

indicating when the proper time for one aspect ended and the time for the other began.27 Every convocation and convention kept the Bible study hour inviolate. Holiness constituted the criterion for the power and authority of leaders. Positions were not by divine appointment, which was fixed and irrevocable. The only claim that bishops, pastors, elders, and other leaders had to their position was personal Holiness. It was for this reason that boards of elders exercised such close oversight and supervision over ministers. Officers held their position by election. In most instances, persons could remain in their office so long as their life was holy and worthy. But they possessed no form of human or personal spiritual endowment. For this reason, the people were admonished to pray continually for their leaders during the convocation and otherwise. Holiness even took precedence in emphasis over training. If a man led a clean, holy, and righteous life and exhibited neatness, humaneness, and warmth, he stood a better chance of being elevated to the office of bishop than other men with more training and greater ability. Even after being elevated to the office, one still was required to exhibit these evidences of piety to be promoted within the ranks of the administration or to be appointed to serve as the head of a district. Overall, it was “holiness that commended a man more so than any other factor.”28 The refusal of the United Holy Church to accept the classical Pentecostal view of speaking in tongues is likewise a consequence of this tension. Unlike most other denominations with a similar regard for Spirit baptism and empowerment, the United Holy Chur did not formally promote or adopt speaking in tongues as the necessary or sufficient evidence of Spirit baptism. Though speaking in tongues was, under most circumstances, a welcome part of the service and a highly valued aspect of the believer’s spiritual life, the ethical criteria of Holiness were regarded as far more valuable and trustworthy as real evidence of the Spirit’s full working and presence in the believer.29 27

The Rev. Robert White Wilmington, for example, could say to the people when the time for preaching came: “Children, come on now. It is time for the word” (Interview with Ms. Fannie P. White, December 1982). 28 Interview with Elroy Lewis, August 1983. 29 Vinson Synan erroneously refers to the adoption of a resolution that would establish speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism for the United Holy Church. But no such amendment appears either in the source he cites or in any other formal document of the church. In fact, no definitive position appears in the records on the question of initial evidence as such. There is no teaching or tradition against tongues, and the frequency of their occurrence varies from one place to another (see The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States, 167, for the error).

THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL

127

Tremendous pressure was exerted by other Pentecostal groups and from elements within the United Holy Church to accept tongues-doctrine; for speaking in tongues was held by its proponents to be the clear, Godgiven evidence. The gift of the Holy Ghost in baptism was likened to a shoe in such phrases as, “When you get the shoe the tongue comes with it.”30 The Fathers were persuaded on the one hand that each believer received his or her own baptism in a way that was clear and unmistakable. But they were aware of any number of persons with the fruit and the power desirable for the Spirit-filled life who had not spoken with tongues. Hence, the saying arose, “When he comes he will speak for himself.” This left room for the person who did speak as well as for those who were inwardly satisfied by a deep emotional experience.31 Although the invasion of the deity in the impartation of power affected the emotions in a specific way, spiritual empowerment was distinguished from raw emotions or feelings. A balance was required to establish and maintain a hedge against foolishness. It was held that when the balance is lost through a denial of the appropriate place for emotions, affections, and ecstasy, the spiritual realm is also being denied its proper place. But when power is confused with feelings and emotions, no legitimate test can be applied. Even in preaching, ministers were warned against hand-clapping, mourning, and excessive noise as a substitute for sound biblical exposition.32 Although there were countless admonitions for preachers to upgrade themselves, many still disdained education and equated emotionalism with empowerment. Some would take a text and proceed to treat anything that came to mind; others would take a word and discuss its several appearances without regard to context. Still others advanced their own opinions while lifting scriptures from wherever they could be found for support. Consequently, the struggles and efforts on the part of leaders to make preaching informative and relevant were well within the tensional life of the church.33 The criterion of Holiness kept high the insistence that true spiritual empowerment is evidenced in the production of an ethical and social fruit. The Holy Spirit, present within the individual and the church, manifests power through spiritual gifts that the world might believe, Holiness through ethical and social actions that the character of God might be revealed, and 30 31 32

Interview with Elroy Lewis, August 1983. Interview with J. T. Bowens, August 1983. G. J. Branch, “Power,” in Yearbook, 1948, 3; Henry L. Fisher’s instruction to ministers and workers in Yearbook, 1947, 163. 33 Interview with Elroy Lewis, August 1983.

128

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

unity and fellowship within the body of Christ that estranged ones might be reconciled to God and to one another.34 The insistence on a strict code of personal conduct accompanied by service to others as evidence of salvation was by no means without resistance. Persons could often be heard testifying that since they were saved, they would “run on to see what the end would be.” By the end they meant Heaven and the reward that was promised. For them, salvation was to be enjoyed. It was to minimize their contact with the world and to elevate them above others. This attitude produced real tension within the church when it was challenged by those who believed that sharing bread with the hungry and living responsibly with the neighbor were to be esteemed as highly as the heavenly reward.35 The tension between prophetic social consciousness and Holiness forced the church to notice the world in which it lived. Accordingly, there was a discernible sense of responsibility on the part of the church leaders for the world around them. They felt that the conditions of their time were an indictment against them if they did not do their part in bringing about amelioration. More than anything else, the ways of Holiness provided the means for fighting the evil. Preaching the full gospel was the primary remedy for quelling the “great conflagration that rages and is breaking forth to the ends of the earth.”36 Accordingly, the people were called on to sacrifice their time, their finances, and all their resources, even as soldiers sacrifice to fight in war, that the gospel might be spread, schools put into operation, and the world helped. This extension of Holiness in the direction of the world’s needs was the requirement to keep the church from becoming stagnant. With the enemy present in the world and seeking to destroy it, the church would become like a polluted reservoir if her waters were not allowed to run.37 Here we find prophetic social consciousness exercising restraint on Holiness to keep it from the deformation of a piety that withdraws from the world. Instead, the conditions of the time were seen as indicators of the church’s privileges. These privileges, which came through the Spirit rather than through the structures of culture and society, granted license to speak, to work, and to go beyond the point where formal permission was granted. 34

J. D. Diggs, “The Presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church since Pentecost,” in Yearbook, 1929, 79. 35 Interview with Elroy Lewis, August 1983. 36 This sense of responsibility is expressed in Fraternal Greetings to the Evangelical Holiness and Missionary Association in Yearbook, 1918, 12. 37 Henry L. Fisher, Presidential Message to the convocation of 1918, Yearbook, 1918, 11–12.

THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL

129

The presence of the multitudes, the teeming masses, and the suffering generations were afforded the privilege of being and doing like the Master himself.38 In the face of conditions prevailing in the black community, talk was regarded as cheap; and although work did not produce Holiness, true Holiness produced genuine works. It was in light of this understanding that missionaries were sent to the fields in Africa and the Caribbean. On the home front, missionaries were sent to preach in the streets and to visit hospitals, prisons, and homes for the poor. These “Holy People” went to the aid of homeless children and friendless girls. They prayed for, sheltered, and fed many during the Depression and under the impact of slum living.39 A serious vacuum would have developed in the Black Church without Black Holiness-Pentecostals, because this group would have been left out. Just think about what group they appeal to: many Baptist churches don’t appeal to them, and the same is so with many Methodists. They preserved a very important area in the black community in that the poor can always come to the church.40 The genuine warmth of “Holy People” was most evident in the context of revivals and altar services. In those settings there were persons wrestling with habits, plagued with ambivalence over whether to change or not to change, or attempting to get rid of demonic influences. Ministers, deacons, mothers, and other church members would stand over them and hold them until they were delivered. These workers would say to them: “(I)t won’t be like that always. … You can get rid of it. … The Lord loves you. … You can be free,” as a way of giving encouragement.41

The practical expressions of Holiness can be seen in the deformation resulting from the broken tension as well as in the tension with prophetic social consciousness. In its deformation, the overemphasis on petty morality stole attention from larger issues such as racism and segregation. Obsession with card-playing, theatre-going, dancing, drinking, and gambling could easily become the beginning and end of Holiness—which too often was the case. The linkage established between condemned practices and moral deca-

38

See G. J. Branch, “State of the Church,” in Yearbook, 1929, 183. See also Cornel West’s discussion of the Afro-Christian point of view as a source for confronting the tragic character of human history, Prophecy Deliverance! 19. 39 Yearbook, 1930, 13; 1932, 91. 40 Interview with Elroy Lewis, August 1983. 41 Ibid. Lewis pointed out the close similarity between Pentecostal practices and those of modern psychologists and psychiatrists.

130

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

dence was predicated on the notion that one act inevitably led to the other.42 However, when seen in tension with a prophetic social consciousness rather than the deformation caused by the breaking of this tension, a positive value follows even the strictness that otherwise appears to be disengagement from the world. Card-playing, theatre-going, dancing, and so on were forbidden by the terms of Holiness. But for the mothers and fathers, these indulgences were not unrelated to their social consciousness. Such transgressions threatened judgment from God and the withholding of his protecting grace. Holiness was absolutely essential for protection by God in the face of the Ku Klux Klan, the lynch mob, the sheriff, the policeman, and so on. In a practical sense, the legalism of Holiness was directly related to those things that caused the greatest problems for the black community: drinking, smoking, dancing, partying, gambling, and sexual promiscuity. Indulging in these activities threatened contact and conflict with the law, which in almost every case meant disaster of one form or another during this period of American history.43 The tension between prophetic social consciousness and spiritual empowerment indicates a sense of responsibility for the needs of others, accompanied by an awareness of insufficiency to supply the required power out of human resources. In this situation, those who had the prophetic social consciousness had discernment of the times and knowledge of what needed to be done. But the program dictated by this consciousness flowed against institutions of culture and power. Standing against these staggering forces, the one that was empowered spiritually refused to give up on God or humans despite the appearance of overwhelming odds. Here, spiritual empowerment was a restraint on a prophetic social consciousness that in its deformation leads to despair. It reveals the alternative to desperate acts such as suicide, homicide, fratricide, and uncalculated rebellion among those who have reached the end of human capability. Spiritual empowerment makes available an additional source of personal strength 42 Bishop Lewis shows how the Exodus test, where the children make the golden calf, was exegeted: “At first they took off their things and put them in the fire, then they made a golden calf, and after that they began to eat, drink, dance, and take off their clothes. In a similar manner sin would take hold of an individual, by degree, with one thing leading to another” (Interview with Elroy Lewis, August 1983). 43 This is a counterinterpretation to Frazier’s notion that the ethics of Holiness were primarily a rejection of what he called “secularization.” The issue was not whether the Church would resist the world. Rather it was whether or not God would be central in black life (Negro Church, 56).

THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL

131

and endurance. In addition, though, it shows, with empirical results, the effect of such power on objective reality.44 A major objective of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism was the attacking of problems elucidated by the prophetic social consciousness, without being set back by every limitation. Indeed, power was understood as the ability to go beyond the limits. This is the sense in which it was contrasted to emotion and cheap talk.45 This too is the point at which convocation and other moments of fellowship became so crucial. In them, there was respite from the battlefields. Those who had worked under conditions of frustration and exhaustion could share their experiences and be uplifted at the “Center” of power. Much of the healing ministry of the church arose out of this tension, for during a time of considerable poverty many could not afford the necessary medical attention. Healing services became prominent as acts of compassion. In many instances, the pastors served as the healer, with the rest of the church supporting in prayer. This portion of the “full gospel” was extended to the needy without money or price. There was no singling out, no embarrassment, no mind-reading, no reading of dollar bill numbers, or any such sensational practices to get the attention of the people. This free benefit was an overflow and demonstration of the Spirit’s presence.46 But in order for this aspect of the church’s ministry to be undertaken, requisite power was needed. This led to the continual emphasis on fasting and prayer, which in turn reinforced spiritual empowerment. Another consequence of this tension was the emphasis on education. The leaders observed keenly that no effective appeal could be made to critical minds without training for ministers. Accordingly, study was viewed and advanced as an act of consecration. It was needful to avoid godless chatter and empty noise in the pulpit. But it was also the key for relating the provision of the faith to the needs of the world. A consequence of this emphasis was increased power in preaching and teaching. Without this tension, preaching, teaching, and other religious acts could have been regarded as empty or irrelevant.47 Those who availed themselves of this improvement 44

The attitude to the world growing out of this tension corresponds to West’s distinction between the prophetic Afro-Christian posture as compared with Marxism. Unlike Marxism, this prophetic Christian posture refuses to collapse human nature onto human practice or history. A dialectical relationship is maintained between them along with an openness for divine intervention (Prophesy Deliverance! 19). 45 Branch, “Power,” in Yearbook, 1948, 3. 46 Interview with J. T. Bowens, August 1983. 47 Branch, “Study,” in Yearbook, 1936, 39.

132

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

were enabled to deliver messages that remained with their hearers long after the excitement and ecstasy of the moment had passed.48 Spiritual empowerment and prophetic social consciousness were further related in a way that influenced choices in social matters. In this regard, prophetic social consciousness prevented the deformation of spiritual empowerment as an end in itself or as a neutral social factor. Social evils were included in the same category with other acts of immorality and regarded as sin. By virtue of this tension, the power of the Pentecostal blessing achieved a discernible focus. It was argued that this power is fraudulently applied when it is used to promote division rather than unity. Nothing is more decidedly against this gift of power than the arrogance that causes a brother or sister in Christ to refuse to hear, to help, or to fellowship with the other. Rather, this power breaks individuals’ wills and opens insulated selves in a manner that effects miraculous unity. It fills the Church with one spirit, removing every occasion for spiritual or racial pride and prejudice.49 Breaking the tension between spiritual empowerment and prophetic consciousness proved devastating in preventing the United Holy Church from achieving her promise. By not seeing and striving for the unity that could have been achieved, the collective strength remained unrealized. Hesitation in supporting full-time ministers prevented the development of professionals who could have built a stronger church with greater social viability. The result was that ministers continued to work secular jobs, did not serve the membership as they might have, and did not plan adequately for the future. Beyond that, local autonomy maintained over property caused churches to struggle in building and improvement programs, when the aggregate strength of the district or general church would have made the job easier. In many cases, the people preferred to remain in small churches where they could have freedom, rather than merge into larger churches. The result was that many of the dreams for institution-building remained unfulfilled. Hence, one of the chief causes for attempting reform became in turn a retardant of growth, expansion, and development.50 The preservation of the tension between spiritual empowerment and 48 Bishop Elroy Lewis further comments that the difference between the substantive message and the emotional one is like the difference between food that “sticks to your ribs” and food you get from the fast food restaurants. 49 Vinson Synan, The Old-Timer Power: A History of the Pentecostal Holiness Church, 178–79. 50 Interview with J. T. Bowens, August 1983.

THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL

133

social prophetic consciousness, the Fathers asserted, would allow for the realization of the dormant power lying within the people. That power was likened to what one possesses during sleep. Following the moment of awakening, the same body is possessed as during the last moment of sleep. The same one, who upon waking performs in magnificent ways, was absolutely impotent prior to awakening. In such instances, the will is engaged in providing for the necessary suffering, giving, serving, and sacrifice to conduct a program that manifests the will of God or his world. This will is for men to be free and to have abundant life.51 A result of the tension can be seen in the courage of Dr. Diggs, who defied the sheriff when he improperly padlocked the door to the church in Martinsville, Virginia. Here, the legal authorities had acted presumptuously against innocent black people who did not know how to fight for their rights. In showing them how to stand their ground, Diggs was able to win the favor of the community. The leaders of the United Holy Church brought dignity to people who were regarded as trash and scum by applying spiritual empowerment toward a social end. They challenged the notion that being a Christian necessarily demanded cowardice. These “Holy People”: gained a reputation for befriending those who were downcast and of being effective with those nobody else dared, desired, or seemed able to help. Drunkards, prostitutes, and rough ones were transformed into persons of dignity, self-respect, and responsibility.52 This tension between spiritual empowerment and prophetic social consciousness supplied the principle that governed the United Holy Church’s position on issues that explicitly involved race. Even where it appeared quiescent rather than radical, the causes that were supported, the approbation that was cherished in the larger religious community, and the fellowship that was preserved identified the church with a clearly defined “side” on social issues. The social posture growing out of this tension became manifest in the attitude that supported and uplifted black people rather than accepting the larger society’s verdict on their position. It is this collective attitude that prompted a donation for the Scottsboro Boys rather than condemnation of them. This attitude led to the embrace of the NAACP rather than its censure. It led to the commendation of Mary McCleod Bethune. The people sang the Negro National Anthem and invited persons who were prominent in the civil rights struggle. Moreover, the consciousness reflected in this tension is indicated 51 52

G. J. Branch, “A Spirit of Willingness,” Yearbook, 1935, 120. J. D. Diggs, “Dignity and Hope of the Christian,” Yearbook, 1931, 39.

134

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

clearly in the rejection of racist ideology that was explicitly pronounced by some white counterparts in the Pentecostal movements.53 It becomes visible in the comparison between the Black United Holy Church and the white Pentecostal churches concentrated in the same area of the country. At the same time that the United Holy Church was supporting the NAACP and the Scottsboro Boys, these churches were harboring Ku Klux Klansmen within their ranks, retaining them within their membership, and debating over whether or not to continue them on the ministerial rolls.54 Last, the tension between Holiness and prophetic social consciousness gave passion to the outward thrust. What was done was undertaken as a mission and as the will of God. It was not to be taken lightly, but it was a matter of utter urgency. Consequently, the Fathers were irrevocably committed to lifting their standard high in the world. It was a standard that could not be compromised even if some persons had to be left behind. It must be remembered that these “come-outers” were willing to count everything as loss for the gospel from the beginning. This tension produced a restraint against the prophetic social consciousness that prevented a utilitarian understanding of work and ministry. Maintaining a sense of all work and programs as belonging to God kept a hedge against favoritism, slothfulness, and discouragement. There was a sense of God’s nearness and of his power to multiply feeble efforts and ultimately to understand what was done with a sincere heart. Only in this way did he receive glory.55 Each member was encouraged to have some personal way of expressing Holiness, for some talent had been given to each person; and, in turn, each individual was responsible for the exercise of this ministry gift. In this respect, Holiness was different from separation for its own sake. It was consecration. An endowment for some particular work mandated outreach and extension. These people had something to offer the world that it lacked, and strict ethical and moral requirements were needed to prevent any reproach that would compromise their stature.56 This Holiness enabled the most 53

Most noted among these is Charles Fox Parham, who is credited with being the doctrinal father of the Pentecostal movement. An avowed racist and Klansman, he advanced the notion of separate creations. Only the Adamic race, or Anglo-Saxons, were heirs to the promise of salvation. The great sin beyond all others, for which the world would be destroyed, was the mixing of the races (Everlasting Gospel). See Diggs, “Dignity and Hope.” 54 Synan, Old-Timer Power, 178–79. 55 G. J. Branch, “Service and Greater Service,” in Yearbook, 1933, 15. 56 J. D. Diggs, “Consecration,” Yearbook, 1944, 162.

THE BLACKNESS OF BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL

135

menial task to be done with cheerfulness and joy, for in essence holiness was obedience of the heart that produced concord at the deepest level with the will and work of God.57 This obedience included giving in order that God’s work might be done and the ministry of the church extended. But everything had to be done God’s way, or his Spirit would be driven from the church. Hence, gifts of tithes and offerings were likewise an expression of Holiness.58 More than all, the life of Holiness provided assurance of God’s presence with “His Holy Ones.” The one who lived holy had the assurance that God was above, the sovereign who is in charge despite the apparent power of men and the seeming stability of their failing schemes. God was around like an army that defends in time of trouble. As one who was behind, God spoke to correct the steps and show the way to those who strayed from the course and consequently suffered affliction and adversity. God was beneath, like the everlasting arms, and with “His Holy Ones” to the end of the age. Most of all, the Spirit dwelt within, and this could not be taken away.59 This certain knowledge of what the Lord does for “His Holy Ones” was for their personal benefit. But beyond that, it was to be shared with the heathens of a raging world who imagined vain things and destroyed themselves for not knowing and having the saving gifts in times of weakness, suffering and distress.60 The tensions arising out of the relationship among Holiness, spiritual empowerment, and prophetic social consciousness lie like a grid over the entire life of the United Holy Church of America and reveal its blackness. Each aspect is interrelated with the others, and the overall life is related to the social, cultural, economic, and political dimensions of life. Blackness is not some abstract construction set over against the concrete expressions of the life and experiences of black people as inimical to and in judgment of that reality. Rather, blackness is inherent in the concrete reality as that which constitutes integrity and essence. The meaning of blackness must not be determined first and then applied as the measure of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism. Rather, the meaning of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism must be brought to light before the fullest meaning of blackness can be elucidated. Radical empiricism and thick description of particular religious forms 57 58 59 60

G. J. Branch, “Blessings of Obedience,” Yearbook, 1941, 68. Henry L. Fisher, “Grace of Giving,” Yearbook, 1936, 71, 199; 1946, 21. G. J. Branch, “Where Is Thy God,” Yearbook, 1936, 100. J. D. Diggs, “Why Does the Heathen Rage?” Yearbook, 1936, 199.

136

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

remain necessary before the true historical meaning of religion in America can be expounded adequately. The meaning of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism must, therefore, be explicated before the meaning of either black religion or Pentecostalism is given in a plenary version. Holiness, spiritual empowerment, and prophetic social consciousness, preserved in mutual tension, hold hermeneutical and self-critical principles for making that meaning explicit. The United Holy Church of America is one sample.

6 HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES This study has sought to examine Holiness-Pentecostalism as an expression of Christianity by focusing on the United Holy Church of America, Inc., a representative body of black American Christians. This expression of Christianity, which emerged out of evangelical denominations, continued to grow and flourish alongside them. Its appeal is exceedingly significant among black Americans. Indeed, at the time of their study (1933), Mays and Nicholson reported that adherents to Holiness registered the second highest number of churches among black denominations in the five Northern cities they considered.1 The need for such a study becomes abundantly clear when the works on the subject are examined. Despite its more than one-hundred-year history, the United Holy Church of America receives sparing treatment at best in the literature on Pentecostalism. Indeed, few scholars who treat the Pentecostal tradition even mention this church. Such omission is not atypical for the treatment of Black Pentecostals as a whole. Reference is made to W. J. Seymour, a black Holiness preacher who led the Pentecostal Revival in Los Angeles, and the name of C. H. Mason appears alongside the Church of God in Christ he founded.2 Otherwise an obscurity prevails that practically keeps Black Holiness-Pentecostalism invisible. Scant reference is to be expected in studies that expressly focus on white denominational churches. But even works that purport to be general 1 2

Benjamin E. Mays and Joseph Nicholson, The Negro’s Church, 214. Until the work of D. J. Nelson in 1981, Seymour, who more than any other single person is responsible for launching the modern Pentecostalism movement, remained shrouded in mystery and under the cloud of the pejorative representations of detractors who were less than favorable, to say the least. Nelson gives an excellent review of the literature on Pentecostalism, showing the racist bias against Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival. Nelson also shows that the prevailing image of Seymour is perpetuated by those who in later years have drawn on these tainted sources (“For Such a Time as This: The Story of Bishop William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival; A Search for Pentecostal/Charismatic Roots”).

137

138

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

studies of Pentecostalism fail or refuse to give attention to the presence, the influence, and the significance of Pentecostalism among black Americans. On the basis of the literature in the field, one could reach the conclusion that Pentecostalism appeals almost exclusively to white Christians, though this is quite contrary to the truth. Where studies of black Pentecostalism have been undertaken, they have in most cases been the work of social scientists who viewed the phenomenon as an aberration within the black subculture rather than as an institutional expression of Christianity. In such studies, Holiness and Pentecostal people are included in the taxonomy with the multitude of sects and cults. Understanding and explanation are pursued with theories of anomie, social dislocation, marginality, and disinheritedness. Arthur Huff Fauset, for example, includes the Mount Sinai Holy Church and its founder, Bishop Ida Robinson, alongside other groups such as the Moorish Science Temple and its founder, Noble Drew Ali. Whereas both groups appealed to the same general class of people and addressed similar social and spiritual needs, the Moorish Science Temple represented a clear disavowal of the Christian tradition and openly embraced an alternative. Mount Sinai Holy Church and its leader, on the other hand, retained an equally clear and vocal identification with the tradition of Protestant Christianity. With respect to formal confession and practices, they laid claim to the heritage of evangelical piety that assumed a posture of protest and separation in expressing and embodying reform. The reform expressed within Mount Sinai, like that of the United Holy Church and other Black Holiness-Pentecostal groups, cannot be properly understood apart from its Christian heritage. But in a study like Fauset’s this connection remains obscure, despite all the validity it may otherwise have.3 Another example of how the scholarship treating Black Holiness-Pentecostalism tends to obscure the phenomenon can be seen in Elmer T. Clark’s Small Sects in America. Unlike Fauset’s study, Clark focused mainly on groups that are clearly within the tradition of Christianity and that, for the most part, are Protestant. But his work discussed these sects in such a manner that little insight is afforded into the character and nature of the black groups. The descriptive and analytical material draws almost exclusively on data produced by white denominational groups. Where mention is made of black groups it is very brief, with the clear inference that they are insignificant. Specifically, he says of the United Holy Church: “There is nothing distinctive about this sect.”4 3 4

Arthur H. Fauset, Black Gods of the Metropolis, 13–21. Elmer T. Clark, The Small Sects in America, 119; Henry L. Fisher, The History of the United Holy Church of America, Inc., 11.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

139

Clark quoted directly from H. L. Fisher’s History of the United Holy Church, although no citation is given. No examination of practices for the relationship of this group to any other groups within evangelical Protestantism is provided. There is simply a listing of certain beliefs and practices characteristic of nearly all Holiness and Pentecostal people, such as justification, sanctification, Spirit baptism, the gift of tongues, divine healing, a literal hell, a ban on secret societes, disapproval of superfluity in dress, and so on. It appears the assumption at work is that there can be nothing of distinction in a black group. The further assumption that one cannot understand a black religious phenomenon by means of its own expression seems to operate as well. These assumptions seem implicit when analysis of white religious groups is judged sufficient for understanding the black counterpart. Perhaps the most striking exception to this pattern is Vinson Synan’s Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States. Synan’s work, which includes a chapter titled “Negro Pentecostals,” is his interpretation of events in American Christianity that gave rise to the major Pentecostal denominations in the United States. He contends that, for the most part, the Holiness-Pentecostal movement emerged out of the mainline Protestant denominations, primarily the Methodist Episcopal Church. Those persons responsible for the outgrowth were part of a movement which sought renewal as the remedy for the cold, formal religion that had taken the place of the fervent, enthusiastic religion of the Great Awakening and the revivals on the American frontier. The pursuit of this kind of religion and the emphasis on the second work of grace, called sanctification, precipitated tension within the structures, especially those of Methodism, leading to schism. In the wake of this schism, Pentecostalism emerged. Synan’s thesis is that a definite and necessary connection obtains between the Reformation led by Luther, the Holiness movement rooted in the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification, and the Pentecostal Revival that reached its watershed at Azusa Street in Los Angeles, California.5 But in his great effort to show that all Pentecostalism flows from Azusa Street, he 5

The Azusa Street Revival, led by W. J. Seymour, a black Holiness preacher, brought Pentecostalism to the attention of the world. Lasting approximately three years, this meeting drew people of all races from all over the world. Perhaps its most outstanding feature is the specific insistence on speaking with tongues as the evidence of Spirit baptism that was upheld and highlighted. Emphasis was also placed on healing and other miracles, and interracial fellowship within the body of Christ as signs of the Spirit’s presence and free working (Synan, Holiness-Pentecostal Movement, chap. 3; Nelson, “For Such a Time as This.”

140

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

missed much of the richness, spontaneity, and manifold nature of this religious phenomenon. The treatment of Pentecostalism present in Synan’s work, however, was perhaps the fairest toward black Americans that had been written to that time. In arguing that Pentecostalism flowed from Azusa Street in Los Angeles throughout the world, Synan implied that enormous credit was due to William J. Seymour, the black Holiness preacher who served as primary leader of the revival. Synan did not hesitate to recount how white men from the South and others from around the world received their baptism at the hands of this “Black Apostle.” G. B. Cashwell, the man primarily responsible for the establishment of Synan’s denomination, the Pentecostal Holiness Church, was forced to subdue his prejudice as a Southerner from North Carolina as Seymour ministered to him. Cashwell returned from Los Angeles and preached the Pentecostal doctrine throughout the South, winning converts among other Southern white Holiness leaders, including J .H. King of the Fire Baptized Holiness Church and A. J. Tomlinson of the Church of God.6 Synan further gave credit to C. H. Mason of the Church of God in Christ, pointing out that by being incorporated at a time when other Pentecostal denominations were not, Mason issued credentials to many of the white preachers. Among those whom Mason licensed were several of the founders of the Assemblies of God. Again, Synan portrayed the emergence of the white United Pentecostal Church as an outgrowth of the racially mixed Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, placing the blame for this severance on racism, as white Pentecostals succumbed to the social and cultural mores of the South. Nevertheless, Synan’s work is not adequate to demonstrate institutional development among blacks. Apart from general knowledge of C. H. Mason and familiarity with a few other prominent black Holiness-Pentecostalism leaders such as H. L. Fisher, C. P. Jones, and W. E. Fuller, he said little concerning the significance of Pentecostalism for African Americans as an authentic mode for the expression of Christian faith. From his work one still gets the impression that black participation amounted to little more than replicating a movement that was essentially white. In fact, by relying on insufficient data, erroneous data, and his own historicism, Synan made statements that are glaringly incorrect. Relying on the sources available to him, he depicted W. J. Seymour as totally dependent on Charles Fox Parham for his theology. This was not the case, for the two had sharp theological disagree6

Synan, Holiness-Pentecostal Movement.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

141

ments.7 Also, he asserts a dependence of the black United Holy Church of America on the white Pentecostal Holiness Church, citing a source that in no way supports his assertion.8 In the absence of evidence, Synan interpolated between fragments of data by means of a historicism tainted with the presupposition that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it can be assumed that blacks followed the leadership of whites. He is more generous regarding black American contribution and participation than most scholars in the field, but in the absence of studies that bring the life and activity of black Pentecostal denominations to light, little more than cursory treatment can be expected. Synan’s work is somewhat weak on religious meaning and on other aspects of theological interpretation as well. This is due primarily to the fact that it is historical and he is concerned mostly with holding together his chronicle. Considerably less attention was given to probing for the meaning and essence of religious phenomena than to how the events fit into a clear and smooth progression. Hence, practices that define and characterize Pentecostalism do not receive the close scrutiny and examination that an explicitly religious methodology affords. For example, despite the significance of tongues and the emergence of tongues doctrine, the phenomenon receives little treatment in religious terms. But such is the nature of the historical project. Another study, far less helpful than Synan’s, is Klaude Kendrick’s The Promise Fulfilled. In essence it is a statement for the Assemblies of God. Beginning with some general material on the background of the HolinessPentecostal movement, Kendrick discussed how Pentecostalism fits into the spectrum of church and sect types in American religion. In large measure this work is a biographical statement of Charles Fox Parham, recognized by most scholars in the field as the doctrinal founder of Pentecostalism. The 7

Nelson devotes a major portion of his dissertation to their divergent views and shows that Seymour’s contact with Parham was brief at best (“For Such a Time as This,” chap. 5, pp. 150–59 in particular. 8 Synan asserts as fact that the United Holy Church of America, Inc., following the leadership of G. B. Cashwell of the Pentecostal Holiness Church, amended its formal statement of faith to embrace tongues doctrine in 1906, following a revival in Falcon, North Carolina. But the source he cites namely, Fisher’s History, refers to no such relationship, no such revival, and no such amendment. Of course this is an effort to show a connection with Azusa Street, which cannot be done in this case. The United Holy Church was thriving as the Holy Church of North Carolina and later as the Holy Church of Carolina and Virginia long before 1906, and before the organization of the Pentecostal Holiness Church, for that matter.

142

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

thrust of Kendrick’s statement is that Parham is the founder of the Assemblies of God. Through a focus on the revivals of Parham and the numerous spontaneous outbreaks having Pentecostal-type manifestations, Kendrick downplays the significance of the Azusa Street Revival. Accordingly, a distinct counterpoint to Synan’s thesis is offered. Kendrick wanted to portray the revival that gave birth to Pentecostalism as being consistent with, if not a product of, this spirit of religious freedom that is characteristic of the American Republic. In his treatment of Pentecostal denominations other than the Assemblies of God, Kendrick included a section on the Church of God in Christ, thereby implying that it is “the” significant group among blacks; and by representing Mason and the Church of God in Christ in a somewhat condescending light, he further implied that even less favor is to be accorded to other black groups.9 Kendrick inadvertently raised some questions concerning the validity of his thesis through his acknowledgment of the role that C. H. Mason and the Church of God in Christ played during the early days of Pentecostalism. For although he holds that the Assemblies of God stood as the true heir to the original Pentecostal revival, he actually records that some of the ministers who were prominent in organizing the Assemblies of God were first licensed by C. H. Mason, and that the call for organizing the Assemblies of God went to ministers in the Church of God in Christ. Kendrick’s study does not take us even as far as Synan’s in viewing the institutional structures 9 The doctrine linking speaking in tongues with Spirit baptism as the “initial evidence” is credited to Charles F. Parham and his Bible school in Topeka, Kansas. There was a parting of the ways among Holiness people when the doctrine was taught and accepted by those who came to be know as “Classical Pentecostals” that there must be “initial physical evidence” of Spirit baptism. Parham taught that this initial evidence is speaking with tongues. According to this teaching, “tongues as evidence” is not to be confused with tongues as a charismatic gift. All may not have the gift of tongues. But all who are baptized in the Spirit speak to give evidence. Some within the Holiness movement rejected not only tongues doctrine; they rejected all speaking with tongues for the present dispensation. This extraordinary gift was reserved for the early church era. The United Holy Church did not reject speaking with tongues, but there was no official embrace of tongues doctrine. For more on this, see J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective; and Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism, ed. Gary B. McGee. The revival in Los Angeles at the Azusa Street Mission was the chief event in the popularization of the doctrine (Klaude Kendrick, The Promise Fulfilled: A History of the Modern Pentecostal Movement; Charles F. Parham, The Everlasting Gospel).

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

143

of Black Pentecostalism or in grasping the essence of the religious phenomenon. Robert Anderson in Vision of the Disinherited took an approach to analyzing Pentecostalism in which the social, political, and economic dimensions are the significant factors. Drawing almost exclusively on the Marxist method for his interpretation, Anderson’s work employed the disinherited theory, arguing that the religion of Pentecostals can be explained in terms of their marginal status in society. Being the outcasts and the marginal of the social order, they find in religion the substitute for what is not available to them in the real world of economics and politics. This theory regards enthusiastic religion as compensation for what is not had, rather than the affirmation of what is had. Religion of this sort is seen as a substitute for the deficiencies of those who subscribe to it.10 Anderson attempted to show that all the whites who figured prominently in the outbreak and establishment of Pentecostalism were failures of one sort or another in the communions from which they came. The deficiency of blacks was obvious—their color and race. Indeed, he holds that the two apostles of the modern Pentecostal movement were a black man named Seymour and a man who “fell into an awful sin” named Parham.11 Augmenting his theory of disinheritedness was his interpretation of the place of premillennial teaching. Anderson says that those who could not face the world projected their failure into a theory of its destruction, and their religious movement was a sure sign. In this regard, Pentecostalism is no different from other millennarian and atavistic movements throughout the world, such as cargo cults and the Ghost Dance: it is an assertion of the inertia within a culture, which resists the change modern development brings.12 Important as African Americans were in the emergence of the Holiness-Pentecostal movement, one barely gets that hint from the preponderant figures in the literature. The problem found with studies of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism was no different than the problematic in studies of the Black Church: the categories of interpretation were forged before attention was given to the phenomenon of the Black Church. The consequence was that where the movement had been considered historically, great effort had to be expended to make it fit the pattern. With the study of Pentecostalism, the rigid categories of Evangelicalism, Holiness, and Pentecostalism 10

Robert M. Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, 8, 15, 19ff. 11 Ibid., 140. 12 Ibid., chap. 11.

144

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

were set in place, causing the data of the Black Church to appear contradictory. Or (and far worse), allusions to the Black Church were selected for their value as illustrations of the historicist themes that were already in place prior to Black Church data. The Church of God in Christ was taken as an illustration of how tongues doctrine divided black believers just as it does whites. Another take on the same data could have explored the experience of the Church of God in Christ as urban Christianity, or as a blend of Baptist and Methodist themes with a distinctly black flavor. A work that is helpful for identifying the construction of ethnology upon which to interpret Black Holiness-Pentecostalism is Melvin Williams’s Community in a Black Pentecostal Church. His approach is anthropological. Detailed description is given of gesture, symbols, testimonies, and other forms that manifest the community’s life in order to explore the meaning shared by the members. Williams describes how social and cultural dynamics shape the community and are reflected in its own life. However, little religious meaning is disclosed. It is not made explicit how these expressions of the community’s life represent the relationship of the people to Ultimate Reality in a way that potentially opposes culture and shapes the empirical reality. Williams’s work is quite valuable for presenting the group in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, even though he does not show how their roots are connected with the larger Pentecostal traditions or give much insight into how this group contributes to the institutional development of Pentecostalism.13 Otho Cobbins’s The Church of Christ (Holiness) is a collection of sermons and writings of the founder, Charles Price Jones, along with historical and biographical statements centered on him. It includes biographical sketches of people in the movement and brief histories of some of the outstanding churches. Although not a critical scholarly study, Cobbins’s work does show Holiness as growing from the womb of the Black Church. Jones is portrayed as a devout Baptist preacher seeking the deeper spiritual experience that was so much a part of his heritage.14 But Cobbins explored the continuity between the spirituality Jones sought and the spirituality of the Black Church only superficially. Similarly, relatively little attention was given to the continuity between the reform Jones led and the larger Holiness-Pentecostal 13

Study.

14

Melvin Williams, Community in a Black Pentecostal Church: An Anthropological

O. B. Cobbins, Church of Christ (Holiness) USA 1965–1985, 25. A treatment of the United Holy Church that is similar to what one finds in Cobbins’s work is Chester W. Gregory, The History of the United Holy Church of America, Inc., 1886–1986. From this work one can gain considerable detail regarding leading figures and personal biographies that expands the seminal work done by Henry Fisher.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

145

movement of his time. For example, the schism between C. P. Jones and C. H. Mason is given cursory treatment, when in fact it was a particular instance of monumental upheaval within the Holiness-Pentecostal movement. Through Mason, an associate of Jones, the revival from Azusa Street flowed back into the Holiness movement from which both Mason and Jones emerged, and they took opposing sides on the critical issue of tongues doctrine. Although one can obtain considerable insight into the Church of Christ Holiness from Cobbins’s work, it does not provide a sense of this group’s relation to the many others. For example, in resisting tongues doctrine, this group stands along with many other Holiness people. But the study does not inform the reader of these facts.15 However, it does afford some insight into Black Holiness-Pentecostalism as an institutional expression of Christianity in describing the development and structure of this particular body. Lovett’s very helpful doctoral dissertation, entitled “Black Holiness Pentecostalism: Implications for Ethics and Social Transformation,” examines what he calls the five original Black Holiness-Pentecostal bodies. His thesis is that all the black local congregations and denominations of Holiness-Pentecostals have emerged from the five he lists.16 He then proceeds to examine Black Holiness-Pentecostalism within the larger dimensions of the Black Church, analyzing its spirituality for ethical and social action potential and comparing this spirituality with black theology.17 He looks for the specific contribution this spirituality can make to black theology. As part of his study, Lovett gives biographical sketches of the early figures who were founders of the five groups he identifies as the United Holy Church of America, the Church of Christ Holiness, the Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God in America, the Church of God in Christ, and the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. Being more familiar with the Church of God in Christ, Lovett gives considerably more attention to C. H. Mason. But where information was available, he does not overlook others whose roles were significant. The method of Lovett’s study is, according to him, historical-theological. He attempted to show that Black Holiness-Pentecostalism exists as a particular, authentic expression of black religion while simultaneously attempting to compare the spirituality of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism 15 16

Cobbins, Church of Christ (Holiness), 86. Leonard Lovett, “Black Holiness-Pentecostalism: Implications for Ethics and Social Transformation,” 10. 17 Ibid., chap. 2.

146

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

with black theology. Given the limited data available to him, he does an admirable job. For example, his primary sources for examining the United Holy Church of America were Fisher’s History and the Manual of the church. Fisher’s History, although good for the purpose it serves, is little more than memoirs and recollections. The manual is a general statement of history, organization, and bylaws. Beyond these documents, the paucity of material is supplemented by interviews with Lovett’s acquaintances. A similar problem is present in Lovett’s attempt to examine the Church of Christ Holiness. O. B. Cobbins’s treatment of this group is a bit more extensive, but it relies on the same sort of material as is found in Fisher’s History, and Lovett gives a similar treatment. For examining the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Lovett had access to the work of G. T. Haywood, which contains far more material. But these works do not supply a sufficient hermeneutical basis for the critical projects he sought to undertake.18 To be sure, this is not so much a flaw of Lovett’s work as a commentary on the state of scholarship in the field.

THE METHOD By contrast, this investigation in an effort to describe, establish order, and offer categories and nomenclature in a relatively uncharted field. The attempt is to offer a religious, or “hierological,” explanation of the complex reality that is known experientially by the black Americans who have been nurtured within the fold of Holiness-Pentecostal faith.19 For those who live the reality in question, there is a culture shared by the community: an orientation to the world, a network of meaning, and a set of patterns and gestures. This description and analysis is essentially a process of interpretation that does not divest the manifold religious expressions of their own integrity but

18

This writer is nevertheless indebted to Lovett for the term “Black HolinessPentecostal.” I agree with Lovett that the many groups falling under this heading move in the same general direction and that the unity among them is “not derived from any specific or formal plan but rather developed quite spontaneously among black religious leaders from established black nineteenth-century Protestant denominations seeking the ‘deeper life of entire sanctification’ (Lovett, “Black HolinessPentecostalism,” 5. 19 The term “hierological” is used to designate the specifically religious quality that is to be distinguished from qualities that are psychological, intellectual, or even sociological. In addition to searching for these other reasons for religious behavior, religious (“hierological”) reasons can be explored as well. See R. R. Marrettt, Threshold of Religion, 80, 186.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

147

presents them in such a way that they can be related to other levels of reality without being reduced to them.20 The method of the study is sociology of religion. Here, sociology of religion is not merely, or primarily, the application of sociological method in the study of religion in the commonly understood sense. Rather, in this study sociology of religion has reference to a branch of the scientific study of religion, Religionssoziologie.21 While studying the institutional manifestation, there was also the constant effort to grasp the specifically religious (“hierological”) element. Accordingly, an attempt was made to view the phenomenon at a sufficient number of levels to show its significance as an authentic expression of the Christian faith among black Americans and as a significant social phenomenon. Both the terms Religionswissenschaft and Religionssoziologie are technical German terms referring to the scientific study of religion. Although having English counterparts, namely, history of religions and sociology of religion respectively, it is necessary that the discussion of method begin with the technical meaning of the terms. The more general term Religionswissenchaft is approximated by the English term “history of religions,” which is the most commonly used English term for the general science of religion. This German term varies only slightly in meaning from other commonly used terms such as comparative religion: and phenomenology of religion.22 The German term is used by English-speaking people only for technical purposes on account of general unfamiliarity with that language. The term “science of religion” is avoided because of its length, awkwardness, and the extent to which the meaning of the word “science” is tied to the methodology of the natural sciences. Hence, the consensus of scholars in the field is to use the English designation “history of religions” as the acceptable version for the more technical term Religionswissenchaft.23 However, the most crucial distinction to be made by the use of this term is the difference between the normative and the descriptive disciplines treating the study of religion. The normative disciplines of philosophy and theology are concerned with truth in more than an empirical sense. Their task is to measure, evaluate, and eliminate on the basis of fixed criteria. The20

Put in more technical terms, this is the task of hermeneutics—schematizing a relatively obscure reality so that it can be understood. 21 Credit for coining the term Religionssoziologie for the social analysis approach to religion belongs to Max Weber; credit for being the first to conceive a systematic sociology of religion also belongs to him. 22 See Joachim Wach, Sociology of Religion, 2; Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion, x. 23 Ibid.

148

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

ology, the most limiting of the disciplines treating religion, is always related to how reality ought to be or what it is in the process of becoming.24 Similarly, philosophy is concerned with unity, truth, correlation, and coherence, though not necessarily confined to a particular religion. Unlike the empirical disciplines, it is concerned with value, and its objective is to interpret with respect to norms.25 Religionswissenschaft, by contrast, does not endorse a particular religious system; neither does it endorse a universal synthetic religion. It does not seek to show the superiority or inferiority of one religion with respect to another; neither does it seek to measure the veracity or cogency of any given religion’s account of Ultimate Reality, truth, or salvation. Its quest is for sympathetic understanding: insight into the manner in which the content of historical religions sheds light on the meaning of religion as a universal human phenomenon, and knowledge of how a given religion orients a people in the world.26 Sociology of religion, Religionssoziologie, must be understood in the further division of Religionswissenschaft into historical and systematic headings. In this division, sociological, along with phenomenological, comparative, and psychological, studies of religion are regarded as systematic and analytical disciplines, as distinguished from histories of specific religions. The aspect of religion studied by the specific discipline in question contributes to the analytic content of Religionswissenschaft. But Religionswissenschaft supplies the perspective by which the subject matter is studied as something religious.27 Sociology of religion may refer to either a subdivision of sociology or a subdivision of Religionswissenschaft, namely, Religionssoziologie. As a subdivision of sociology, the focus is on the expressions of religion that are consistent with the objectives of sociology. Religion is viewed as one form of cultural expression, based on the fundamental assumption that the conduct of the individual and the nature of the social order are to be understood as a product of group life. As a subdivision of Religionswissenschaft, religion is viewed in terms of its unique and irreducible element, namely, the element of the sacred. Here, religious expressions, although manifested in cultural forms, are not understood solely or even primarily as products of group life. The data are viewed religio-scientifically; they are examined as response to Ulti24

Wach, Sociology of Religion, 1; Emile Durkheim, Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, 2. 25 Edgar S. Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion, 20–22. 26 Kitagawa, “The History of Religions in America,” 15–16. 27 Ibid., 20–21.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

149

mate Reality.28 It is the latter understanding of sociology of religion (Religionssoziologie) to which we refer in identifying the method employed in this study. The focus has been on the mutual influence between religion and group life as manifested in Black Holiness-Pentecostalism, and more specifically in the United Holy Church of America, Inc. While I am primarily concerned with how group life affects the shape of the social reality, I have made an effort to keep at least as much concern for how specifically religious factors affect group life.29 The approach to religion used in this study does not adhere to the rigid distinction often made between the sociological as a narrow focus on society, the anthropological as an explicit focus on culture, and the psychological as a focus on the individual. Rather, “sociological” refers to the manifold expression for human society. Or, more specifically, sociology of religion considers the expressions of religious life in their entirety: thought, action, and fellowship. Included therein are the manifold societal configurations, myriad cultural forms, and countless individual testimonies to the vibrancy of the human spirit.30 The expressions given through the structures of culture provide the only possible access to religious life. As such, they comprise the outer pole of religion, which is connected dialectically with the inner pole that consists of the experience of Ultimate Reality.31 The response to this most intense experience gives rise to expressions that have wholeness and integrity. On the one hand, this wholeness and integrity must be probed, penetrated, dissected, and compared in order to be understood—a process which lays bare the thickness of the phenomenon. But on the other hand, the wholeness and integrity must not be violated if the vitality of the living, real phenomenon is to be brought into view. The move by which this quality is kept intact is referred to as the preservation of firstness. By means of the designated method, an effort is made both to explore the “thickness” and preserve the “firstness” of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism. 28 29

Ibid. Weber sought to determine whether and to what extent religious forces have taken part in the qualitative formation and expansion of culture, specifically with respect to modern culture among Protestant nations (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 90–91). 30 See J. Milton Yinger, Religion, Society, and the Individual: An Introduction to the Sociology of Religion, 212. 31 See Joachim Wach, Comparative Study of Religion, 27–59. Essentially he quotes Otto in his concept of religion as the “experience of the Holy.” See also Wach, Sociology of Religion, 13.

150

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

Members of every social group or community have an ability to relate to one another and to share meaning at a level and in a manner that is tacit rather than explicit. The strategies for relating within a community become so familiar that the members are practically oblivious to them. These strategies and structures of meaning are combined with otherwise simple acts, gestures, signs, and symbols. For example, bringing the hands together so as to make a sound can be an act to gain attention, an act of frustration, or an attempt to kill an insect. But within the worshipping Pentecostal community, this is an act of praise: clapping. Exploring the thickness of the United Holy Church, then, is primary reflection that attempts to unconceal the community’s familiarity with its strategies and meanings. As part of the descriptive process, this exploration reveals the manner in which these strategies and meanings operate continually within the community. The United Holy Church is thereby rendered accessible and set within a hermeneutical scheme that allows the thickness to be explained and understood without the prerequisites of membership or prescribed experiences. Such an exploration presents the community’s selfunderstanding in the church, projecting a version of the account the adherents might give of themselves. It probes below even reflective thinking to reveal the commonly shared meaning of which the participants themselves may have only implicit knowledge. The rules that operate at this level are not recited and can be described only through tedious labor and study. Nevertheless, they give rise to acts that spring forth as the spontaneous life of the United Holy Church of America.32 The spontaneous life that must not be excised occurs at the level that can be designated by the term “firstness.”33 As a social “phenomenon,” this spontaneous life cannot be reduced to objective factors by comparison, classification, and categorization. Nevertheless, at the level of firstness this spontaneous life can be experienced in the pure, undifferentiated sense as “phaneron.” The phaneron meets the senses without elimination or evaluation prior to reflection. The immediacy of the phaneron incorporates the raw, wild, untamed quality that is never expunged or eliminated entirely.34 At 32

For a more detailed discussion of the concept of “thickness,” see Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, chap. 1. 33 For a fuller discussion of “firstness,” see Charles Sanders Pierce, Collected Papers, 1:141ff. 34 Pierce uses the term “phaneron” to designate that which is present to consciousness with a sui generis quality that cannot be compromised. He says of the phaneron that to ask when it appeared, to whose mind, etc., is to violate and destroy it (ibid.).

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

151

the level of firstness, Black Holiness-Pentecostalism corresponds to the impact a Pentecostal service has on those who are present. In such a setting, sights, sounds, impressions, and emotions produce sensations having a quality that defies exhaustive analysis. The religious factor is located partially in this pre-reflective unity. Attention to firstness in Black Holiness-Pentecostalism is an effort to apprehend the total reality in such a way that no aspect of the religious factor is lost. There are ways in which the United Holy Church is like other Holiness and Pentecostal groups, and there are ways in which Pentecostalism is like other religious phenomena. But the United Holy Church is also unique to some degree, and there is veracity in the portion of the description not given by orthodox positions or other suppositions of what is normative. Black Holiness-Pentecostalism has often not been taken seriously as a religious phenomenon or as an expression of Christianity. Those who know its reality most intimately have not been given to the discipline of scholarly inquiry, reflection, and interpretation. Those who have attempted a scholarly presentation have either had an insufficient knowledge of the reality, or they have been ill equipped to make religious interpretations. The result has been a dreadfully deficient account that for the most part has remained unchallenged. The factor of blackness must be taken seriously in order for the interpretation to be adequate. Because of the sparse scholarly contributions by and about black Pentecostals, their number and influence have appeared to be negligible when in fact Pentecostalism has an exceedingly large following among black Americans. And it must not be regarded as insignificant that, as is the case with religion in America generally, the communions remain separated along lines of race. The meaning being sought is not given in a chronicle of events or the listing of names and places. Nor can it be found in the resolution of the phenomenon into the social, cultural, economic, and political factors present at the time of its emergence and during it existence. The meaning sought here likewise is not given in the unfolding of history or in some divine plan that becomes clear only in retrospect, and it is not to be found in the mere outlining or detailing of organizations and structure. The validity for incorporating them is an effort to grasp and account for the vitality of the religious reality itself.

AN INSIDE VIEW What this study attempts is interpretation from which more complete histories of the African American Church can be written. This would include synthetic histories, as well as denominational histories. It is an attempt by one raised in the Black Holiness-Pentecostal world to speak from within and to

152

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

give hermeneutical keys for the meaning of the patterns, gestures, formulaic speech, and so on to those who may never guess the meaning of these matters on their own. In part, the motivation for such disclosure comes in response to efforts of external analyses that tend to miss critical factors in the self-understanding of the people. This is not to discount what can be learned by an outside observer; it is to acknowledge the limited character of every perspective and the importance of self-definition in a sufficiently empirical presentation. The way people understand themselves is also data. For instance, no one would hint at presuming knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church without giving some attention to what Roman Catholics say about their beliefs and practices.35 Scholarly studies of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism remain rather few in number. Even the largest of these groups (the Church of God in Christ) has not provided the quantity of publication one would expect from a church body with its distinction. Older works, like the one by Paterson, Ross, and Atkins, chronicle the church from its early days.36 This neglect in scholarship is due primarily to the relatively small number of persons within this body who take scholarship as a desirable field of ministry. The publication by Ithiel Clemmons on C. H. Mason is exceedingly important in this regard. So is Cheryl Sanders’s study of the Church of God Anderson.37 One of the reasons for the relative obscurity of the United Holy Church is that published materials generated within the denominational church received limited circulation outside the body. Although the people spoke with great pride concerning the founders and held themselves in high esteem, little was done to project the church into the public sphere of religious life. Perhaps the best-known preacher to come from the United Holy Church is James A. Forbes, Jr., pastor of Riverside Church in New York. The son of a bishop in the United Holy Church of America, Forbes stands in a long line of impressive preachers. In fact, the comment often heard among UHCAns38 is that most persons who rave about the preaching of Forbes 35 36

Peter Kreeft, Catholic Christianity: A Complete Catechism of Catholic Beliefs. History and Formative Years of the Church of God in Christ: Excerpts and Commentary from the Life and Works of Bishop C. H. Mason, ed. J. O. Patterson, German Ross, and Julia Atkins. 37 Ithiel C. Clemmons, Bishop C. H. Mason and the Roots of the Church of God in Christ; Cheryl J. Sanders, Saints in Exile: The Holiness-Pentecostal Experience in African American Religion and Culture. 38 These letters are sometimes used in a shorthand way for the United Holy Church of America—in much the same way as A. M. E. is used for the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

153

(Jr.) never heard the preaching of Forbes Sr. The point is not to diminish the prodigious pulpit grace of Dr. Forbes; it is to indicate how he is a signification on American culture, and the American church. He stands on the shoulders of great, if unknown, preachers and bards of the black church. Without a doubt, Forbes is the most distinguished in the lot, yet in some ways he is representative of a tradition of the learned clergy not commonly associated with Black Holiness-Pentecostal bodies. As chapter 3 above attempts to show, there was from the start a clear tendency within this branch of the Holiness Movement to honor as leaders those who could call the people to a high level of knowledge. High standards in Bible knowledge were regarded as integral to true Holiness.

INSIDE SOURCES From the very early days of the church, Proceedings of the Annual Convocation were printed and circulated throughout the membership. These documents go back to the very early years of the twentieth century, as citations in Lawson’s biography of Henry Fisher show. As convocations were established throughout various regions of the country, the Proceedings of these meetings were included in the Yearbook. One can see that in a real way this is the most heavily relied-on source for this study. Contrary to many prevailing opinions regarding African Americans and Holiness-Pentecostal people, the quality of these volumes is remarkably high. In some ways, the quality exceeds the work of succeeding generations in the care given to the collection and recording of statistics, the insightful comments made to summarize presentations, and interpretations of the services of worship. Annuals from as early as 1918 offer priceless insight into the character of the emerging church, without which this study would not be possible. Another source of insight into the life of Henry Fisher is his own diaries. It is impossible to know precisely when he began to keep them, but from as early as 1918 these volumes contain daily entries. These diaries record the various aspects of Fisher’s personal life, ranging from daily devotions and fast days, to working the garden, to traveling from one part of the country to another to preach and build up the connectional work. Another type of literature produced is the Holiness Union, a newspaper circulated monthly.39 As with other denominational churches, this organ provides a means of facilitating communication throughout the connection, and it is available for anyone desiring to subscribe. 39

More or less.

154

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

In similar manner, the YPHA Quarterly (published every three months) reaches the membership but does not receive wide circulation outside the denominational church. Offering a program of instruction for the Young People’s Holy Association, this publication gives a more or less official theological statement amplifying the doctrine of the church and setting forth the church’s teaching on the specific issues the membership confronts.40 While the inside witness is surely not the only one, the value of this perspective must be stressed. Otherwise, groups like the United Holy Church remain obscure, due in large measure to the nature of the scholarship. What remains is the lag in interpretation that the earlier wave of scholarship on the Black Church sought to overcome. Following the lead of American sociology, these groups tended to be treated as sects and cults. Without access to the literature being produced internally, there was little in the body of scholarship to contradict this notion and the accompanying nomenclature. Even the emergence of black theology actually took attention away from HolinessPentecostal groups that were considerably more conservative than the praxis of black theology allowed. Again, groups like the United Holy Church suffer from the same biases in scholarship that obscure or skew the interpretation of groups who do not follow wholesale Enlightenment epistemology. While there are both similarities and divergences between Black Holiness-Pentecostal groups and Fundamentalism, there is a common posture that modernity is not the sole arbiter of truth and knowledge. This struggle figures prominently in the emergence of Pentecostalism (as was the case with Fundamentalism). Robert Anderson is clear in arguing for the reactionary character of Pentecostalism against the currents of emerging modern culture.41 The same theme is the backdrop for Campbell’s study of the Pentecostal Holiness Church.42 When the Bible is taken seriously, without the biases of Western culture, Christian religion has much in common with other religions. Clothed thoroughly in mystery, it takes seriously the nature, work, and presence of the Spirit. Christianity looks Pentecostal. There is a real sense in which the theology of Pentecostalism becomes a signifier to differentiate between itself and modern forms that are not adequate to bear the content they claim, 40 These materials are currently available on microfilm as a result of the painstaking work of Sherry DuPree, a librarian at Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida. 41 Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited. 42 Joseph E. Campbell, The Pentecostal Holiness Church, 1898–1948: Its Background and History.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

155

namely, religion. Or, to put the matter another way, Pentecostalism picks up the religion that the modern version of Christianity despised and set aside. Indeed, this was the claim of many who came out in the early days. The tragedy is that many Pentecostals were so tightly tied to the intellectual forms that were strangling them that they were hard pressed to articulate new thoughts commensurate with their newfound experience. Accordingly, they sought to validate their experience in ways that were consistent with the epistemological norms of the culture, thereby erecting a counterorthodoxy. Ironically, African Americans benefited from their perpetual quarrel with the civilization because this allowed them to foster their experiences of God and forms of knowledge in the relative privacy that resulted from being obscure. Assumptions of primitiveness left a cultural space for internal development. In part, the scholarly task has been to disclose the strategies and rules by which those semi-private spaces were filled with institutional structures and practices specific to the community.

THE MATTER OF BLACK AND WHITE The point can be made rather forcefully that Pentecostalism is the form of American religion (and, perhaps, culture) where the distinctions between black and white are the least clear. Historically, the roots are traceable to black and white founders and leaders. Worship patterns among black and white Pentecostals remain quite similar. Like the Populist movement, the Holiness-Pentecostal movement brought together people with more in common than in difference save one factor—namely, race. Irrational, unpredictable, and uniquely susceptible to political manipulation, the category known as race performed to divide people who testified to being partakers of the same power of the world to come. The relationship between black and white Holiness and Pentecostal people is really a story to itself. Indeed, there is a sense in which it is another chapter in the long, tragic story of race relations in the United States and the inability of the church to be triumphant in this area. The Holiness movement, like the revivals of the late eighteenth century, was an experience (experiment) in social egalitarianism. Among the evangelicals there burned a passion to preach the gospel to all, making it simple and appealing to the heart. These effects brought “a harvest among the Africans as Ethiopia stretched forth her hands unto God” (Psalm 68:31). One problem was that whites began to be influenced and in some congregations overrun by the blacks. Additional problems arose when masters pondered the prospects of relating to their slaves as equals in worship, or dealing with the desire for

156

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

freedom incited by the preaching of the gospel. Social and political pressures caused experiments to be short-lived. The pattern was repeated in the Holiness movement. The experiment advanced even further among the Pentecostals: the most significant revival that launched Pentecostalism onto the American scene was led by a black Holiness preacher. Persons of every racial and ethnic background flocked to W. J. Seymour’s meeting in Los Angeles, and numerous white Pentecostal denominations trace their origin to the ministry conducted by him. In addition, numerous white Pentecostal preachers during the early days of the movement were licensed by the black Charles Harrison Mason, who headed the Church of God in Christ. Racism was the chief issue that brought the Apostolic Faith Mission at Azusa Street to an end and led the white ministers in the Church of God in Christ to found the Assemblies of God.43 The Holiness-Pentecostal movement among blacks and whites drew from common sources of faith and experience. For both racial groups there was a hunger for God, who was not merely an idea to be pondered but a person to know and with whom to have communion. Despite the skepticism within the culture concerning claims to knowledge that could not pass the tests of the empirical sciences, the Spirit was experienced as real—as the power of God to save, sanctify, heal, and bestow spiritual gifts. The factor of race, so deeply driven into the American psyche, drove persons who held much in common to a self-understanding that accented the differences of their history, even seducing them to understand one another as enemies. Race, the diversion that undermined the Populist movement, also divided the Holiness-Pentecostal movement into different camps. For whites it became the badge of distinction to which they could hold when all other political, economic, and social benefits were denied. Spiritual power was diluted into the narcotic that led them to believe egalitarian efforts to challenge racial inequality were anti-Christ, an illicit mixture of religion and politics. The joy of the Spirit assisted them in facing the pain of life with stolid courage in full expectation of a full reward in the world to come. An even greater tragedy occurred when Pentecostal leaders like Charles Fox Parham interwove racist teaching with the preaching of the gospel, persuading devoted ones that the fight against race-mixing was their duty under God and an enemy against which to fight with the spiritual power that had been given in abundant measure.44 43 44

D. J. Nelson, “For Such a Time as This.” C. F. Parham, The Everlasting Gospel; Benjamin Mays, The Negro’s God as Reflected in His Literature.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

157

Black Holiness-Pentecostal people found themselves caught in the same dilemma as the rest of the church. After receiving the heavenly gift and tasting of the world to come, they faced the harshness of this life. Like Seymour, they found themselves having to repudiate the very ones from whom they had heard powerful preaching of the gospel. The same ones who sided with them on matters such as conversion, sanctification, Spirit baptism, and speaking with tongues were faced as mortal enemies on the issues of justice, bringing the Apostolic Faith Mission at Azusa Street to an end. Black Pentecostals were forced to ask the same questions as Richard Allen, Nathaniel Paul, and Henry Highland Garnett (see chap. 1 above): namely, was God a respecter of persons?45 Did the Giver of the Spirit create one race inferior to another, thereby authorizing racism?46 These questions, even when not articulated with the precision of black theology, form the anvil over which the meaning of faith is hammered out in a society that placed a premium on race in the way the Post-Reconstruction era in America did. Religious life shaped in the face of this reality constituted the praxis of blackness manifested in Black Holiness-Pentecostal communities of which the United Holy Church is a sample. We must remember that within American culture the terms “black” and “white” have more to do with socio-political power than anything else. For all the sophistry arising around the issue, there never was a successful effort to prevent racial mixture. Purity was the “privilege” of Euro-Americans. Any person with any African blood was designated by some variation on the theme of Africa or blackness. Blacks are those among whom racial mixture is discernable, and for whom political enfranchisement is at best a contestable matter. At any moment, Justice Roger B. Taney’s decision in the Dred Scott case is potentially enforceable—namely, that a black person has no rights a white person is bound to respect. The meaning of “black” and “white” was dramatized in the historic creation of a new association of Pentecostals in North America. Meeting explicitly for the purpose of reconciliation, black and white Pentecostals gathered in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1994 to formally disband the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America, comprising white Pentecostal bodies. The president elected at the meeting was Ithiel Clemmons, a bishop from the Church of God and Christ, a black denominational church. The most dramatic event of the meeting, however, was an act of reconciliation. In acknowledgement of the sin committed against Bishop William J. Seymour 45 46

See chap. 1 above. The question is put most forcefully in William R. Jones, Is God a White Racist?

158

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

by racist actions, a white Pentecostal brother washed the feet of black Pentecostal bishops. As the sign of forgiveness, the black brother washed the feet of the white brother.47 The bottom line here is that the race line is not and need not be hard and fast. More than all else, we are attempting a description and interpretation of black people living in the world, praising and glorifying God within their context and on their own terms. The presumption is that to the extent that we are considering human beings, there will be points of resonance and relevance to other human beings—simply for the reason that we are dealing with humans.

BLACK THEOLOGY AND BLACK HOLINESS-PENTECOSTAL STUDIES As valuable as black theology is, from the outset it did not take into account the data of obscure groups like the United Holy Church. Indeed, it could not; the necessary data were not available. What’s more, the urgency of the times demanded a defense of the faith—to discern the flaw resulting from doing theology on racist foundations. The resultant errors led countless oppressors to conclude that God sanctioned their work. The oppressed were compelled to accept their dehumanization as the will of God, or reject Christianity as a racist ploy to keep Africans in bondage. The strong public challenge came in the antecedents of black theology, articulated clearly in the work of Howard Thurman and Martin Luther King, Jr.48 The challenge was articulated with even more force in black theology per se, with the chief 47

For a summary of the history of the “Memphis Miracle” that dissolved the white Pentecostal Fellowship of North America to create the Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches of North America (PCCNA), see http://www.pctii.org/pccna/ history.html. 48 Howard Thurman was an influential African American preacher, scholar, mystic, and writer whose career spanned the latter decades of the pre–Civil Rights era and overlapped with the Civil Rights era. He was dean of the chapel at Howard University and Boston University. His outstanding work, Jesus and the Disinherited, had a powerful influence on Martin Luther King, Jr., and it may be called “proto-liberation” theology. It is without a doubt one of the sources of black theology; see also For the Inward Journey. Martin Luther King, Jr., the unparalleled leader of the Civil Rights Movement toward the middle of the twentieth century, advanced a penetrating analysis of racism as the bane of Christianity and adumbrated many of the themes advanced later under the rubric of black theology. The best collection of King’s work is the volume edited by James Washington entitled Testimony of Hope.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

159

spokesperson being James Cone. Balance to the liberationist perspective of the young Cone came early on from already seasoned theologians like J. Deotis Roberts, who insisted on a dialectic between liberation and reconciliation, and who insisted on retaining the soteriological language and emphases of the black evangelical tradition.49 The first wave of black theology was heavily and properly preoccupied with gaining a hearing in the academy and establishing the legitimacy of the way black believers expound on their faith. This group was self-critical and was even more strongly criticized by successors for paying too little attention to the sources generated from within the black religious tradition. In the search for “authentic sources,” however, there was often failure to adequately perceive and appreciate the profound sense in which African American believers were Christian. Yes, being Christian meant challenging those who served the idol gods of slavery and racism. Before God alone, sin was confessed, pardon was given, and the divine image was restored. In more cases than a few, this encounter was the key to gospel labors that included declaring liberty to brothers and sisters shackled by sin within themselves and within the society. A more sufficient foundation for black theology, one that rooted the religious experience of African American Christians in their historic church bodies, was still absent. No statement of this problem contained more force than that of James Cone’s brother, Cecil, in his Identity Crisis in Black Theology. Cecil Cone called for testimonies to the experience of the Almighty Sovereign God working among African Americans as the data for the black theological project. This resulted in the turn to the Negro Spiritual, the blues, and other literature produced by African American novelists, playwrights, and anthropologists.50 This tendency can be seen clearly in the work of persons like Dwight 49

James Cone is the most influential theologian who contributed to the development of black theology toward the last quarter of the twentiethth century. His seminal work, Black Theology and Black Power, expanded the themes advanced in the manifesto of the National Committee of Black Churchmen. It insisted on the necessity of social, political, and economic liberation as ingredients of the Christian gospel, and it forced a dialogue with a broad range of theologians who were concerned with keeping their work relevant. Articles by a number of these theologians are in edited volumes by James Cone and Gayraud Wilmore. J. Deotis Roberts was an early interlocutor who pressed issues of reconciliation alongside Cone’s main theme of liberation; see Liberation and Reconciliation and Quest for a Black Theology. 50 Cecil W. Cone, Identity Crisis in Black Theology; Dwight N. Hopkins, Heart and Head: Black Theology—Past, Present, and Future; Dwight Hopkins and George Cummings,

160

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

Hopkins and George Cummings. “Cutting loose the stammering tongue” and finding “shoes to fit the feet” are their metaphors for insisting on the importance of African American sources for doing African American theology. Womanists likewise turn to the works of Alice Walker and Zora Neal Hurston for sources to root the theological project in a soil capable of nourishing it, the African American experience.51 Revisiting the work and career of Howard Thurman has similarly afforded priceless insight into the spirituality of African Americans. From the womanist school we gain insight into the struggle of the Black Church to address the issue of gender bias. This is a sub-field of studies that probes the history of the African-American Church so as to disclose the blind spots of men who could not see how oppression based on gender was equally heinous. It also brings to light the extraordinary career of previously unknown women and offers critical insight into the lives of others who were better known. In the process, access was granted into the inner workings of the Black Church in those settings where the first issue was not race, but being the church within the setting where the local assembly was planted. There is a real sense in which womanist scholarship reveals one of the flaws of my own work. On the one hand, the United Holy Church of America illustrates the problem of the Black Church in dealing with women who felt the call of God upon their lives. Although the names of outstanding women are listed, the recorded material (with some exceptions) highlights the work and leadership of men. Prominent women like E. E. Craig, Julia Delk, and Margaret Bennett are pictured in Yearbooks and focused on for their work in missions. Women such as Lucille Light, A. D. Moore, and Gussie Walker were profiled as powerful speakers and national lecturers. One of the more powerful of these women, Ida Robinson—whose name appears prominently at the founding of the Northern Convocation in 1920—drops from the roll of the Holy People in Philadelphia. Ida Robinson reappears on the scene in Philadelphia as Bishop and founder of the Mount Sinai Holy Church movement shortly thereafter, as the leaders of the United Cut Loose Your Stammering Tongue: Black Theology in the Slave Narratives; Emilie Townes, Embracing the Spirit: Womanist Perspectives on Hope, Salvation, and Transformation. 51 The designation “womanist” is taken by black women theologians to signify the distinctiveness of critical theology that holds in tension race, gender, and class factors. A seminal contribution came from Jacqueline Grant’s White Woman’s Christ, Black Woman’s Jesus. One gets the sense of that development from James H. Cone and Gayraud S. Wilmore, Black Theology: A Documentary History, vol. 2: 1980–1992.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

161

Holy Church were unprepared to consecrate a woman bishop.52 The Holiness-Pentecostal movement, of which the United Holy Church is the present example, illustrates the dilemma of the Black Church in dealing with women who felt the call of God. Indeed, the early membership of the United Holy Church and other similar groups comprised largely those “sanctified women” for whom the Methodist and Baptist churches had no room. The problem for many women from the evangelical churches —Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians—was that they were not allowed to preach, hold leadership, or exercise charisms (spiritual gifts) in the church. Many Methodists, and nearly all Baptists, took their authority for this position from the Pauline teaching of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 and 1 Timothy 2:11–15. The instruction of these passages was for women to learn in silence, and to ask questions of their husbands when they got home. Women who were filled with the Spirit and felt that they had received charisms took their authority from Acts 2:17, where the outpouring of the Spirit bestows the prophetic gift upon the daughters (women) as well as the sons. The Holy Church was where they found freedom in the Spirit to exercise their gifts without being browbeaten by a doctrine that forbade women to exercise spiritual authority. And so the various patterns: wives led husbands, husbands and wives went together into the Holy Church, and some husbands did leave wives. Womanist critique is exceedingly helpful for showing how the essentially male leadership of the African-American Church repeated the flaws of their white predecessors and counterparts in relegating women along lines of gender to a mere menial position. Although more sensitive in this matter than many other groups, Black Holiness-Pentecostals (the United Holy Church included) had a less than exemplary record. From the other side, however, it is incumbent on womanist theologians to understand the seriousness of these women in matters of their faith. First and foremost, their self-understanding was as “anointed vessels of God,” sent on a mission to preach the gospel to the lost. They were living witnesses that the prophecy of Joel had been fulfilled: the Spirit has been poured out, empowering the daughters as well as the sons to prophecy. The challenge to womanist theology—as well as to black theology—is to ascertain and make explicit how the themes and concerns of liberation flow through the mission of saving souls and initiating men and women into fullness of life in the Spirit. Black Holiness-Pentecostal Studies goes a long 52 Yearbook, 1920; Arthur Fauset, Black Gods of the Metropolis; James Goff and Grant Wacker, Portraits of a Generation: Early Pentecostal Leaders.

162

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

way in that direction. Social ethicists like Peter Paris are keen to point out that their work is not to be confused with “theology” (as with Cone and Roberts). They deal with the rubrics of the constructive project that clearly shows the intersection between professed faith and the practice of believers. While there is a critical attitude toward the white church for its racism, far more attention is given to the constructive statement of what it meant for blacks to be Christian. Existing rubrics and loci of doctrines remained recognizable. Paris is careful to show how his discipline is concerned with the outlook and outward posture of black believers as they taught within their churches and nurtured the faithful for obedience in the context where they were called to bear witness.53 There is a real sense in which studies of this sort indicate the direction in which black theology must move in order for it to gain a proper hearing within the churches and the learned clergy. It is utterly important to ascertain what has actually been taught among Afro-Christian believers with respect to issues of salvation, nurture, and Christian witness. The formal content was taken from the same sources that were being used by counterparts within the church. But reflection (at whatever level) was by clergy and laity in the throes of suffering and oppression. The experience of life and the presence of God is an indispensable source in doing theology—as contemporary theologians accurately declare. On the other hand, the meaning of faith in Christ among those who are oppressed must not be confused or conflated with the protest of professional theologians against the blindness of the academy. That is, the argument for the legitimacy of black theology is not necessarily the same as the constructive work of reflecting on the faith for and with those undergoing oppression. While the faithful among Afro-Christian believers knew that God was not the author of their condition, they nevertheless believed they, and those to whom they witnessed, were tainted by and fully capable of sin. Thus, there was an integral connection between liberation from political bondage and the bondage of sin that was not to be served or collapsed.

53

Peter Paris, The Social Teaching of the Black Churches; James Evans, We Have Been Believers: An African-American Systematic Theology; Henry Young, Major Black Religious Leaders, 1755–1940; Lewis Baldwin, There is a Balm in Gilead: the Cuultural Roots of Martin Luther King, Jr.; Robert Franklin, Another Day’s Journey: Black Churches Confronting the American Crisis.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

163

BLACK SACRED MUSIC Another profitable angle of vision for Black Holiness-Pentecostal studies comes from the work of Jon Michael Spencer, who makes a major contribution in the area of black sacred music. Spencer takes rhythm and music seriously as the very heartbeat of the Black Church. Indeed, it is the rhythm of black preaching, giving it an element of musicality, that has become normal. As much as any other factor, rhythm is responsible for the incredible power that accompanies black preaching. The chanted sermon gives to preaching what Smith54 would call the “conjuring affect” upon the hearer. By virtue of the accompanying rhythms, the word is not just a collection of alphabet and syllables; it is dabar, nommo.55 It is a manifestation of power (a kratophany) within the churches and among the hearers. Spencer traces the development of music in the Afro-American churches by looking at its emergence from plantation songs, which yield the spirituals on the one hand and the blues on the other. Spencer is careful to point out that the secular development along the axis of rhythm and blues, jazz, and rap expresses a point of view about God in relation to the condition of African Americans, and for that it can (and must) be examined for theological content.56 Interesting insights emerge from this line of investigation, especially as it has to do with the spirituality of the youth culture and what it takes for them to be reached and stabilized. Speaking more specifically of the church, Spencer’s approach gives critical insight into a somewhat neglected aspect of life within the Black Church. Within the music (perhaps more so than in any other genre), the true pulse of the Black Church registers. Here one has a source of the church’s theology that is as rich and in need of mining as the preaching tradition. Moreover, whereas the theological emphases specific to the Black Church often have to be teased out with great labor, they tend to be more perspicuous in the songs. In any event, they surely lie alongside the sermon as a rich source. With his emphasis on music, Spencer can focus cleanly on the Holiness-Pentecostal churches. In terms of preaching, the chant has been preserved among the Holiness-Pentecostal people to an unsurpassed degree. It is probably safe to say that among some, one can actually hear preaching the 54 55

Theophus Smith, Conjuring Culture: Biblical Formations of Black America. This is a term from the Dogon of West Africa to account for “primordial rhythm” in the universe. Lischer, The Preacher King: Martin Luther Kingm Jr. and the Word that Moved America, takes up the term in his account of how King’s preaching “moved” the nation—and to some extent, the world. 56 Jon Michael Spencer, Protest and Praise: Sacred Music of Black Religion.

164

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

way it was done in antebellum times. When it comes to song-writing, one of the most prolific African American hymn-writers of the century illustrates the connection to which we have been referring. Bishop Charles Price Jones saw himself preserving a spirituality he learned among the Baptists, and he wanted to preserve it in the church. As Jones put the matter, from the Baptists he received doctrinal assurance of salvation and fullness of the Spirit.57 What he desperately desired was personal (experiential) assurance. The quest for and fulfillment of this assurance is ably inscribed in the sacred verse he set to music as hymns, anthems, and gospel songs. Unknown to many, he is one of the most prolific hymn-writers of the American church. Joining the ranks of Charles Wesley and Fanny Crosby, Jones made use of the hymn to give popular appeal to his faith. Numerous hymn-writers from the Black Holiness-Pentecostal ranks have followed the lead of C. P. Jones. One consequence is the enormous influence Pentecostalism now exerts on black gospel music. Popular musicians like Shirley Caesar, Andre Crouch, Edwin Hawkins, the Clark Sisters, and F. C. Barnes are but a few who have taken the ways of worship so characteristic of Black Holiness-Pentecostalism to the larger public.

THE FOLKLORIC DIMENSION In Conjuring Culture, Theo Smith reminds us once again of the ways in which black religion is the religion of the people.58 He uses the term “conjure” to account for the ways in which forms of the black church elicit participation and total involvement. This dynamic is unsurpassed within Black HolinessPentecostalism. The term “conjure” is derived from the Latin that carries the sense of a “jury” involved in a conspiracy of sorts to press a point. Smith examines the incensory dimension in the way scripture is used in AfricanAmerican churches. What one has here is a tradition of interpretation that identifies biblical stories and characters with contemporary (historical) events, making use of Scripture to gain its power. It must be noted that the African-American Church is not unique in American culture with respect to appropriating this motif. Essentially, Africans followed the lead of the Puritans, who saw themselves as the New Israel. Ironically, while the Puritans saw the Ocean as their passageway to the Promised Land, African Christians saw the same Ocean as their passageway into Egypt, the House of Bondage. Identification with the biblical story, presumably, enlisted the power of God in a manner that paralleled God’s intervention for the ones being benefited. 57 58

Cobbins, Church of Christ (Holiness), 23. Smith, Conjuring Culture.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

165

In a similar manner, God would do to the opponent what was done to the enemy in the biblical account. Smith seeks to chart another direction for theology in the Black Church by offering a way of reading and interpreting Scripture that does not equate conjuring (incantation) with witchcraft. Essentially, he follows the hermeneutical locus of the black preacher, which focuses on the God of Moses as mighty in power. The emphasis is on power to perform in a way that produces historical benefits for those who are bound and oppressed. This interpretation is of the vitality of black religion and especially attends to how the Bible is a book filled with power in the African-American Church. Rather than pre-casting the Black Church in terms of dogmas, ideas, or denominations, or in motifs such as liberation and other worldliness, there is a sensitive examination of how this religious community actually is in the world. The anxiety that emerges early in reading the text is whether we have a repeat of Joseph Washington’s Black Religion. Is historic Protestantism the norm against which Black Religion is then measured and found to be an aberration? The designation Washington used was “folk religion.” There is a sneaky feeling that, once again, Smith is talking about a religion of conjure. There can be little quarrel that these elements remain, but the tension is strong, inasmuch as the Christian factor is taken seriously within the churches. More often than not, this is manifest in terms of the denominational affiliation and the “orthodoxy” that is mediated thereby. Such a tension is present even with black theology to the extent that dialogue with the larger Christian theological tradition is maintained. Theologians like Cone and Roberts are careful to maintain that tension. Very little attention is given to the Holiness-Pentecostal tradition in an explicit manner. However, points of resonance and correspondence are abundantly clear, as there is reference to the performance of the word, nommo. The correspondence is equally clear where there is reference to incantation and conjuring, as ritual life is manifested in powerful acts and identification with those whom God blesses and defends. Again, it cannot be overstressed how the religion of the plantation and the antebellum Black Church is the antecedent of Black Holiness-Pentecostal groups. What one has in Smith is an attempt to gain an angle on the Black Church that shows the normal, everyday acts of the faithful. However, as this study insists, what people say of themselves must be taken with utter seriousness in a truly empirical and useful study. While patterns may show parallels with incantatory and divining practices, this language was totally unacceptable in the account Holiness-Pentecostal people gave of themselves and in the Christian groups with whom they maintained fellowship.

166

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

BIBLIOGRAPHY For an overview of Black Holiness-Pentecostal groups, one might consider the Directory of African American Religious Bodies, published by Howard University Press. The exhaustive list of names includes nearly all the groups that could be identified at the time of the study. It also includes articles discussing the basic constituent groups that comprise the Black Church: the Methodist, Baptist, and Holiness-Pentecostals-Apostolics. Further, an extremely important source of information on the Church of God in Christ is C. Eric Lincoln’s and Lawrence Mamiya’s Black Church in the African-American Experience. The first of Charles Jones’s two exhaustive bibliographies, Guide to the Study of the Pentecostal Movement, surveys and catalogs the literature in every genre dealing with the subject. It includes novels, such as those of James Baldwin, where the black Pentecostal community is clearly the setting. It includes the work of those who have responded to Pentecostalism—including those who must be called “anti-Pentecostal.” In fact, this is where some of the clearest statements come. Names of the countless organizations, with their founders, brief histories, and publications, are also included. The bibliography includes the names of major periodicals and articles carried in them.59 Jones’s Black Holiness is a guide to the study of black participation in the Wesleyan Perfectionist and Glossolalia Pentecostal movements. Along with the first volume, it is an extremely valuable source on the Black Church. Aside from Sherry DuPree’s work compiled on Black Pentecostals, it may well be the only source of its kind.60 An important observation is made by Walter Hollenweger in his forward to Charles Edwin Jones’s Black Holiness. He notes that in literature, Pentecostalism is presented as a “white man’s religion” (vii). Without a doubt, this has primarily to do with existing works in print more so than empirical investigation. Here we have an interesting pattern: what in other parts of the world would be just “religion” or “Christianity,” is what the 59

Wardell Payne, ed., Directory of African American Religious Bodies; C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence Mamiya, The Black Church in the African-American Experience; Charles E. Jones, A Guide to the Study of the Pentecostal Movement; Charles E. Jones, Black Holiness: A Guide to the Study of Black Participation in Wesleyan Perfectionist and Glossalaic Pentecostal Movements; Watson Mills, A Bibliography of the Nature and Role of the Holy Spirit in Twentieth-Century Writings. 60 C. Jones, Black Holiness; Sherry DuPree, African-American Holiness Pentecostal Movement: An Annotated Bibliography; Biographical Dictionary of African-American, HolinessPentecostals, 1880–1990.

HOLINESS, PENTECOSTALISM, AND BLACK CHURCH STUDIES

167

West calls Pentecostalism. For instance, one can read Eliade’s Patterns in Comparative Religion and find most, if not all, of what is present in Pentecostalism. Far and away the most comprehensive bibliography of Black HolinessPentecostalism is found in the work of Watson Mills. This is a comprehensive bibliography of articles, books, and dissertations on classical Pentecostalism, neo-Pentecostalism, and the charismatic movement. It also includes selections by persons who opposed the movement, as well as those seeking to make a critical assessment (that is not necessarily antagonistic). Bibliographical entries are in alphabetical order. The work comes with an immensely helpful introductory essay that traces the outline of the movement. Citing key events and personalities critical to the development, Mills offers interpretation and insight into how this form of religion is rooted in the American experience, and how it has affected the world scene. In a real sense, development is correlated with the development of literature. This necessarily tends to obscure the significance of the movement among African Americans, Africans, and other Twothirds World people who have not been major participants in the literary output. Other Writings The importance cannot be overstated for work like Proctor’s My Moral Odyssey and Lincoln’s novel The Avenue: Clayton City for insight into the black world in which the Black Holiness, Pentecostals, and Apostolics took root.61 Completely lost to the larger world of scholarship, to the culture as a whole, and (now) to younger generations of African Americans is the enormous influence of the churches in shaping the moral climate of AfricanAmerican communities. Routinely, Black Holiness-Pentecostals and Apostolics attracted the segment of the population the more established groups found difficult to reach. Also valuable is the work on preaching of Henry Mitchell, who has done critical reflection on the art of black preaching; and Ella Mitchell has given special attention to the preaching of black women. Outstanding preachers like Gardner Taylor, Alfred Smith, William A. Jones, and H. Beecher Hicks have printed volumes of their sermons that capture the art of black preaching. The work of James Forbes, R. L. Speaks, William A. Jones, 61

Samuel D. Proctor, My Moral Odyssey and The Substance of Things Hoped For; C. Eric Lincoln, The Avenue, Clayton City; Henry Louis Gates, Colored People; Cornel West, Race Matters; C. Eric Lincoln, Coming through the Fire.

168

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

Gardner C. Taylor, and Samuel Proctor makes public the black preacher as theologian of the people and bard of the pulpit as a reflective essay is hard pressed to do.62

POSTSCRIPT None of these sources substitutes for reflection on how African-American Christians disciplined their corporate life in the religious bodies they fashioned. No adequate substitute can be found for testimonies, sermons, Bible lectures, and accounts of praise as the subjects gave their report. The United Holy Church, and groups like it, were founded by African Americans and did not separate from white Christians. Hence, its emergence as a body affords a view of the texture of religious life where the endeavor to be Christian was not first a protest against racist structures. It is like watching the Black Church Family being itself when not on public display. Since the roots of Black Holiness-Pentecostals pass back through the black independents like the African Baptists and African Methodists, the focus in a study like this helps to identify and unearth patterns in spirituality, soteriology, and liturgy that have resonance throughout the Black Church. In the “spiritual greenhouse” where approval from mainstream Protestantism held limited value, forms indigenous to African-American spirituality achieved vitality and integrity. Cultivated in the spiritual environment that afforded an occasion for growth and the space to flourish, this way of knowing, worshipping, and serving God flowed back into the American Church and into the world that God has not ceased to love.

Black Preaching: The Recovery of a Powerful Art; Those Preaching Women, ed. Ella P. Mitchell; Gardner C. Taylor, How Shall They Preach and The Words of Gardner Taylor; J. Alfred Smith, No Other Help I Know; James Forbes, The Holy Spirit and Preaching; William A. Jones, Jr., God in the Ghetto; H. Beecher Hicks, Jr., Preaching through a Storm; Reuben L. Speaks, Prelude to Pentecost; Samuel B. Proctor and Gardner C. Taylor, We Have This Ministry: The Heart of the Pastor’s Vocation. 62 Outstanding Black Sermons, ed. J. Alfred Smith, Sr.; J. Alfred Smith, Sr., No Other Help I Know: Sermons on Prayer and Spirituality; Henry H. Mitchell, Black Preaching and

BIBLIOGRAPHY UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS The Diary of Bishop Henry Lee Fisher, 1919–47. From a personal collection supplied by Bishop Fisher’s daughter, the Reverend Lillian Fisher Amis. They were microfilmed by Sherry DuPree, who made them available through the Assemblies of God Archives in Springfield, Missouri. Personal Interviews with the author Bishop J. T. Bowens, Durham, N.C., August 1983. Elder R. K. Diggs, Winston-Salem, N.C., December 1982. Bishop H. W. Fields, Durham, N.C., December 1982. Bishop Elroy Lewis, Durham, N.C., August 1983. Rev. Mrs. Lucille Light, Philadelphia, Pa., September 1981. Bishop W. N. Strobhar, Montclair, N.J., July 1981. Ms. Fannie P. White, Wilmington, N.C., December 1982.

BOOKS AND ARTICLES Allen, Richard. The Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours of the Rt. Rev. Richard Allen. New York: Abingdon, 1960. Anderson, Robert M. Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Asbury, Francis. The Journal of the Letters of Francis Asbury. 3 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1953. Baldwin, Lewis. There is a Balm in Gilead: the Cultural Roots of Martin Luther King, Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Bastide, Roger. The African Religions of Brazil: Towards a Sociology of the Interpenetration of Civilization. Translated by Helen Seba. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. Blassingame, John W. The Slave Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972. Brightman, Edgar S. A Philosophy of Religion. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1940. 169

170

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

Campbell, Joseph E. The Pentecostal Holiness Church, 1898–1948: Its Background and History. Raleigh: World Outlook, 1961. Clark, Elmer T. The Small Sects in America. Nashville: Cokesbury, 1937. Clemmons, Ithiel C. Bishop H. C. Mason and the Roots of the Church of God in Christ. Bakersfield, Calif.: Pneuma Life Publishing, 1996. Cobbins, O. B. Church of Christ (Holiness) U.S.A. 1895–1965. New York: Vantage, 1966. Cone, Cecil W. Identity Crisis in Black Theology. Nashville: African Methodist Episcopal Church Publishing House, 2004. Cone, James H. A Black Theology of Liberation. Twentieth Anniversary Edition. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991. ———. God Of The Oppressed. New York: Seabury, 1975. Cone, James H., and Gayraud S. Wilmore. Black Theology: A Documentary History, vol. 2: 1980–1992, Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1999. Conn, Charles W. Like a Mighty Army: A History of the Church of God 1886– 1976. Cleveland, Tenn.: Pathway, 1977. Cushman, Robert E. Therapeia: Plato’s Conception of Philosophy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1977. Deiter, Melvin E., “Revivalism and Holiness.” Ph.D. diss., Temple University, 1972. Degler, Carl N. Out of Our Past. New York: Harper and Row/Colophon, 1970. The Directory of St. Steven’s A. M. E. Church, Wilmington, N.C. Douglass, William. Annals of the First African Church in the United States. Philadelphia: King and Baird, 1862. DuPree, Sherry. African-American Holiness Pentecostal Movement: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland, 1996. ———. Biographical Dictionary of African-American, Holiness-Pentecostals, 1880– 1990. Washington, D.C.: Middle Atlantic Regional Press, 1989. Durkheim, Emile. Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Translated by J. W. Swan. New York: Macmillan, 1915. Eliade, Mircea. The Myth of the Eternal Return; or, Cosmos and History. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954. ———. Patterns in Comparative Religion. Translated by Rosemary Sheed. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1958. ———. The Quest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Evans, James. We Have Been Believers: An African-American Systematic Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Fauset, Arthur H. Black Gods of the Metropolis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1944.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

171

Fisher, Henry L. The History of the United Holy Church of America, Inc. Durham, N.C., 1945. ———. Standard Manual for Holy Convocation. 1919. Fisher, Miles Mark. Negro Slave Songs in the United States. New York: Citadel, 1953. Forbes, James A., Jr. The Holy Spirit and Preaching. Nashville: Abingdon, 1989. Franklin, Robert, Another Day’s Journey: Black Churches Confronting the American Crisis. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Frazier, E. Franklin. The Negro Church in America. Liverpool: University of Liverpool, 1963. Corrected reprint, New York: Schocken, 1974. Bound with Lincoln, The Black Church since Frazier. Gates, Henry Louis. Colored People. New York: Knopf; distributed by Random House, 1994. Geertz, Clifford, The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Genovese, Eugene. Roll Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York: Vintage, 1976. Goff, James, and Grant Wacker. Portraits of a Generation: Early Pentecostal Leaders. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2002. Grant, Jacquelyn. White Women’s Christ and Black Women’s Jesus: Feminist Christology and Womanist Response. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Gregory, Chester W. The History of the United Holy Church of America, Inc., 1886–1986. Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1986. Herskovits, Melville J. Dahomey: An Ancient West African Kingdom. New York: J. J. Augustin, 1938. ———. The Myth of the Negro Past. New York: Harper, 1941. Reprint, Boston: Beacon, 1958. Hicks, H. Beecher. Preaching through a Storm. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1987. Hopkins, Dwight N. Heart and Head: Black Theology—Past, Present, and Future. New York: Palgrave, 2002. Hopkins, Dwight N., and George Cummings. Cut Loose Your Stammering Tongue: Black Theology in the Slave Narratives. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 2003. Idowu, E. Bolaji. African Religion: A Definition. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1973. Jones, Charles E. Black Holiness: A Guide to the Study of Black Participation in Wesleyan Perfectionist and Glossalaic Pentecostal Movements. Metuchen, N.J.: American Theological Library Association; Scarecrow Press, 1987. ———. A Guide to the Study of the Pentecostal Movement. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press; American Theology Library Association, 1983.

172

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

Jones, William A. God in the Ghetto. Elgin, Ill.: Progressive Baptist Publishing House, 1979. Jones, William R.. Is God A White Racist? Boston: Beacon, 1998. Kendrick, Klaude. The Promise Fulfilled: A History of the Modern Pentecostal Movement. Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing Co., 1961. King, Martin Luther, Jr. A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings. Edited by James M. Washington. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986. Kitagawa, Joseph M. “The History of Religions in America,” in The History of Religions: Essays in Methodology, edited by Mircea Eliade and Joseph M. Kitagawa, 1–31. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1959. Kreeft, Peter. Catholic Christianity: A Complete Catechism of Catholic Beliefs. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2001. Lawson, Andrew W. The Doctrine of the United Holy Church. Durham, N.C.: Service Printing Co., 1980. ———. “The Life and Times of Henry Fisher: A Biography.” B.D. thesis, Shaw Divinity School, Raleigh, N.C., 1948. Lincoln, C. Eric. The Avenue, Clayton City. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1996. ———. Coming Through the Fire. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1996. ———. The Black Church since Frazier. The James Gray Lectures, Duke University, 1970. New York: Schocken, 1974. Bound with Frazier, The Negro Church in America. ———. Sounds of the Struggle: Persons and Perspectives in Civil Rights. New York: Morrow, 1971. Lincoln, C. Eric, and Lawrence Mamiya. The Black Church in the African-American Experience. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990. Lischer, Richard. The Preacher King: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Word that Moved America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Long, Charles H. “The Meaning of Religion in the Contemporary Study of the History of Religions.” Criterion 2 (spring 1963): 23–26. Lovett, Leonard. “Black Holiness-Pentecostalism: Implications for Ethics and Social Transformation.” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1979). Marett, R. R. The Threshold of Religion. London: Methuen, 1914. Mays, Benjamin E. The Negro’s God as Reflected in His Literature. Boston: Chapman and Grimes, 1938. Mays, Benjamin E., and Joseph Nicholson. The Negro’s Church. New York: Negro University Press, 1933. Mbiti, John S. African Religions and Philosophy. New York: Praeger, 1969. McGee, Gary B., ed. Initial Evidence: Historican and Biblical Perspectives on Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

173

Meier, August, and Elliott Rudwick. From Plantation to Ghetto. New York: Hill and Wang, 1966. Mills, Watson. A Bibliography of the Nature and Role of the Holy Spirit in TwentiethCentury Writings. Lewistown, N.Y.: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993. Mitchell, Ella P. Those Preachin’ Women: Sermons by Black Women Preachers. Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1985. Mitchell, Henry H. Black Preaching. Philadelphia: Lipincott, 1970. ———. Black Preaching: The Recovery of a Powerful Art. Nashville: Abingdon, 1990. Nelson, Douglas J. “For Such a Time as This: The Story of Bishop William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival; A Search for Pentecostal/ Charismatic Roots.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Birmingham [England], 1981. Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy. Translated by John R. Harvey. New York: Oxford University Press, 1923. Parham, Charles F. The Everlasting Gospel. Baxter Springs, Kans.: Author, 1911. Paris, Peter. The Social Teaching of the Black Churches. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Patterson, James O., German Ross, and Julia Atkins, eds. History and Formative Years of the Church of God in Christ: Excerpts and Commentary from the Life and Works of Bishop C. H. Mason. Memphis: Church of God in Christ, 1969. Payne, Wardell, ed. Directory of African American Religious Bodies. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press, 1995. Peirce, Charles Sanders. Collected Papers, vol. 1: Principles of Philosophy, ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971. Peters, John Leland. Christian Perfection and American Methodism. New York: Abingdon, 1956. Proctor, Samuel D. My Moral Odyssey. Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1989. ———. The Substance of Things Hoped For. New York: Putnam, 1995. Proctor, Samuel D., and Gardner C. Taylor. We Have This Ministry: The Heart of the Pastor’s Vocation. Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1996. Rabinowitz, Howard N. Racial Relations in the Urban South. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Raboteau, Albert J. Slave Religion: The Invisible Institution in the Antebellum South. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972. Roberts, J. Deotis. Liberation and Reconciliation: A Black Theology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1994.

174

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

Roberts, J. Deotis, and James J. Gardiner. Quest for a Black Theology. Philadelphia: Pilgrim, 1971. Sanders, Cheryl J. Saints in Exile: The Holiness-Pentecostal Experience in African American Religion and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Smith, J. Alfred, Sr. No Other Help I Know: Sermons on Prayer and Spirituality. Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1996. ———, ed. Outstanding Black Sermons. Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1976. Smith, Theophus. Conjuring Culture: Biblical Formations of Black America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Sobel, Mechal. Trabelin’ On: The Slave Journey to an Afro-Baptist Faith. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1979. The Souvenir Journal for the 93rd Anniversary of the Fisher Memorial United Holy Church. Durham, N.C., 1983. Speaks, Reuben L. The Prelude to Pentecost. Orlando, Fla.: Exposition Press, 1985. 2nd ed., The Prelude to Pentecost: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Charlotte, N.C.: A. M. E. Zion Publishing House, 1988.

Spencer, Jon Michael. Protest and Praise: Sacred Music of Black Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. ———. The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1971. ———. The Old-Time Power. Franklin Springs, Ga.: Advocate Press, 1973. Taylor, Gardner C. How Shall They Preach. Elgin, Ill.: Progressive Baptist Publishing House, 1977. ———. The Words of Gardner Taylor. Compiled by Edward L. Taylor. 5 vols. Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1999–2001. Thurman, Howard. Jesus and the Disinherited. Nashville: Abingdon, 1949. ———. For the Inward Journey: The Writings of Howard Thurman. Selected by Anne Spencer Thurman. Richmond, Ind.: Friends United Meeting, 1984. Townes, Emilie. Embracing the Spirit: Womanist Perspectives on Hope, Salvation, and Transformation. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997. Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977. Turner, William C., Jr. “A Review of African American Holiness/Pentecostal/Apostolics.” In Directory of African American Religious Bodies: A Compendium by the Howard University School of Divinity, 2nd ed., edited by Wardell J. Payne, 41–49. Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press, 1995. Van der Leeuw, Geradus. Religion in Essence and Manifestation. Translated by J. E. Turner with Appendices to the Torchbook edition incorporating the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

175

additions of the second edition by Hans H. Penner. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1967. Wach, Joachim. Comparative Study of Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. ———. Sociology of Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944. ———. Types of Religious Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. Walker, Sheila. Ceremonial Spirit Possession in Africa and Afro-America. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Washington, Joseph R. Black Religion. Boston: Beacon, 1966. ———. Black Sects and Cults. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1972. Weber, Max. Methodology in the Social Sciences. Translated and edited by Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1949. ———. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Anthony Giddens. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1976. ———. The Sociology of Religion. Translated by Ephraim Fischoff. Boston: Beacon, 1964. Weiss, F. G. Hegel: The Essential Writings. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1974. West, Cornel. Prophesy Deliverance! An Afo-American Revolutionary Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982. ———. Race Matters. Boston: Beacon, 2001. Williams, J. Rodman. Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective. 3 vols. in 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Williams, Melvin. Community in a Black Pentecostal Church: An Anthropological Study. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1974. Wilmore, Gayraud S. Black Religion Black Radicalism: An Examination of the Black Experience in Religion. New York: Doubleday, 1973. 2nd ed., Black Religion and Black Radicalism: An Interpretation of the Religious History of Afro-American People. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1983. Woodson, Carter G. The History of the Negro Church. Washington, D.C.: Associated Publishers, 1921. Yearbook of the United Holy Church, 1918–20, 1928–72. Yinger, J. Milton. Religion, Society and the Individual: An Introduction to the Sociology of Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1963. Young, Henry. Major Black Religious Leaders, 1755–1940. Nashville: Abingdon, 1977.

INDEX board of elders 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 64 board of presbyters 36, 39, 45, 46, 64 Bowens, J. T. 37, 90, 93, 96, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 124, 127, 131, 132 Boydton Academic and Bible Institute for Colored People 51, 66, 76 Branch Memorial Tabernacle 73 Branch, G. J. ix, 33, 34, 38, 48, 57, 58, 64, 65, 70–74, 75, 79, 80, 84, 85, 87, 122, 123, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 134, 135 Brown v. Board of Education 56

A

A. M. E. see African Methodist Episcopal African Methodist Episcopal (church) 22, 23, 24, 48, 52, 53, 62, 75, 115, 168 Afro-Christian worldview 119, 124 Anderson, Robert 143, 154 Andrew, James O. 13 Apostolic Faith Mission 156, 157 Apostolics 10, 11, 52, 113, 166, 167 Articles of Incorporation 50 Asbury, Francis 18, 23 Assemblies of God 10, 56, 140, 141, 142, 156, 169 Azusa Street Revival 137, 139, 142

C

Caesar, Shirley 164 Calvinism 12 Campbell, Joseph E. 154 cardinal truths 66, 71, 80, 85, 121 Carey, Lott 48 Cashwell, G. B. 140, 141 Catholicism 9, 152 charisma 59, 60, 61, 71, 76, 142, 167 Christian and Missionary Alliance 51, 65, 76, 79, 85, 87 Church of Christ Holiness 52, 113, 145, 146 Church of God 20, 26, 140 Church of God Anderson 152 Church of God in Christ 10, 52, 113, 137, 140, 142, 144, 152, 156, 166 Civil War 1, 3, 4, 19, 23

B

band room 24, 105 baptism of the Holy Ghost 10, 11, 66, 121 Baptist (church) 17, 22, 31, 37, 41, 44, 48, 52, 58, 67, 74, 91, 102, 113, 114, 116, 129, 144, 161, 164, 166, 168 Bennett College 75 Bennett, Margaret 160 Bethune, Mary McCleod 55, 133 Bible Church School 34, 36, 90 Big Kahara Association 25, 105 black religion x, xi, 18, 19, 51, 54, 111, 114, 115, 117, 125, 136, 145, 164, 165 board of bishops 34, 35, 36, 83 177

178

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

clean sheet doctrine 68 Clemmons, Ithiel 152, 157 Cobbins, O. B. 144, 145, 146, 164 Coker, Daniel 48 come-outers 26, 134 communitas 99, 100, 101, 102 Cone, Cecil 159 Cone, James 159, 160, 162, 165 Conn, Charles 20 convocation x, 21, 25, 26, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89–111, 126, 131, 153, 160 Course of Study 45, 65, 76 Craig, E. E. 57, 160 Crouch, Andre 164 D

Delk, Julia 62, 86, 160 Diggs, J. D. 27, 34, 38, 40, 46, 57, 58, 64, 65, 74–79, 80, 82, 86, 87, 122, 128, 133, 134, 135 Diggs, R. K. 22, 27, 34, 74, 75 dispensationalism 80 Douglass, Fredrick 4 Dred Scott 157 DuPree, Sherry 56, 154, 166 Durham Tabernacle 21, 63 E

Edwards, Jonathan 67, 97 Eliade, Mircea 92, 93, 95, 98, 118, 167 Enlightenment 124, 125, 154 entire sanctification 10, 15, 22, 62, 77, 122, 146 epistemology 154 Ethiopia 48, 67, 155 Ethiopianism 48 evangelical ix, 2, 10, 12, 15, 31, 41,

52, 70, 89, 113, 116, 117, 120, 137, 138, 139, 155, 159, 161 Evangelicalism 116, 143 Evangelicals 54, 71 everlasting life in the flesh 25, 39, 40, 64, 65 F

falling fire 105 Fields, H. W. 40, 56, 74 Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God 52, 113, 145 Fisher Memorial United Holy Church 21 Fisher, H. L. ix, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 35, 38, 47, 48, 51, 52, 57, 58, 61–70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 121, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 144, 146, 153 Forbes, James, Jr. 152, 153, 167, 168 Forbes, James, Sr. 153 Frazier, E. Franklin 20, 116, 117, 130 Freedman’s Bureau 6 Freewill Baptist Church 74 Fuller, W. E. 140 Fundamentalism 154 G

Garnett, Henry Highland 17, 157 general convocation 35 Genovese, Eugene 18, 19 glossolalia 109 see also speaking in tongues Goldsboro, N.C. 25, 38, 40, 56, 71, 73, 80 Grant, Jacqueline 160 Great Awakening 18, 67, 97, 139 H

Herskovits, Melville J. 116, 123

INDEX hierophany 92, 125 history of religions 147 Holiness xi, 10, 51, 114, 120, 121, 124, 125, 135, 136 Holiness Union 153 holy dispositions 122 Hopkins, Dwight 159, 160 Houston, J. W. 34, 57, 58, 79–82, 83, 84, 85, 87 I

initial evidence 10, 126, 142 invisible institution 18, 113, 116 J

Jim Crow 28, 92 Jones, Charles E. 166 Jones, Charles P. 140, 144, 145, 164 justification 15, 77, 121, 122, 139 K

King, Martin Luther, Jr. 158, 163 kratophany 163 Ku Klux Klan 5, 130 L

lallation 105, 109, 110 Lawson, A. W. 61, 62, 63, 65, 68, 69, 71, 75, 77, 83, 95, 121, 122, 153 Lewis, Elroy 107, 122, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132 Liberia 48, 86, 87 Liele, George 48 Light, Lucille 31, 160 Lincoln, C. Eric 8, 20, 113, 166, 167 Long, Charles 118 Lovett, Leonard 21, 113, 117, 145, 146 Lowney, Elijah 21, 22, 62 Luther, Martin 66, 97, 124, 139 lynching 8, 28, 130 Lyons, E. B. 34, 57, 58, 82–85

179

M

Mason, C. H. 137, 140, 142, 145, 152, 156 Mason, L. M. 20, 21, 25, 57, 65 Mason-Dixon Line 9 Mays, Benjamin E. 17, 137, 156 Method, N.C. 20, 21, 57, 61, 95 Methodism 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 26, 27, 31, 37, 41, 44, 52, 53, 58, 62, 67, 75, 102, 113, 114, 115, 124, 129, 139, 144, 161, 166 Methodist Episcopal Church 12 Methodist Episcopal Church South 13 Mills, Watson 166, 167 Mission Department 48, 49, 50 Mitchell, Ella 167, 168 Mitchell, Henry 167, 168 Morris, Charles S. 76, 80 Mount Sinai Holy Church 138, 160 N

NAACP 55, 133, 134 Nelson, D. J. 137, 141, 156 new birth 72, 122 New Georgia Station 87 Nichols, E. B. 34, 48, 57, 58, 71, 85– 88 Northern District Convocation 38, 40, 46, 73, 74, 82, 84 numinous 123, 125 O

Oneness Pentecostals 10, 52, 82 Otto, Rudolf 118, 149 P

Parham, Charles 134, 140, 141, 142, 143, 156 Paris, Peter 162 Paul, Nathaniel 17, 157 Pentecostal Assemblies of the World 10, 113, 140, 145, 146

180

THE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA

Pentecostal Holiness Church 10, 132, 140, 141, 154 Pentecostalism 10 phaneron 150 Plan of Separation 13 Poole, Arthur 55, 56 Populist movement 155, 156 praise vs. prayer 105 prayer vs. praise 105 praying ground 17 Presbyterianism 17, 31, 67, 102, 114, 161 Proctor, Samuel D. 167, 168 Prohibition 12 prophetic social consciousness x, xi, 16, 51, 114, 120, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136 Protestantism ix, 2, 9, 11, 19, 66, 113, 116, 117, 124, 138, 139, 146, 149, 165, 168 R

Reconstruction 3, 5, 19, 114, 157 regeneration 29, 44, 76, 77, 122 religious consciousness 117, 118, 125 Roberts, B. T. 14 Roberts, J. Deotis 159, 162, 165 Robinson, Ida 138, 160 Roosevelt, Theodore 8

Seymour, William 137, 139, 140, 141, 143, 156, 157 shouting 18, 109, 123 sinless perfection 11 Slater Academy 75 social egalitarianism 155 sociology of religion ix, 147, 148, 149 Southern District Convocation 35, 38, 53, 57, 73, 75 speaking in tongues 10, 32, 108, 109, 126, 127, 142 Speaks, R. L. 167, 168 Spencer, Jon Michael 163 Spirit baptism 10, 44, 122, 123, 126, 139, 142, 157 spiritual empowerment x, xi, 51, 102, 111, 114, 120, 121, 124, 125, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136 Strobhar, W. N. 79, 87 Synan, Vinson 11, 12, 21, 126, 132, 134, 139, 140, 141, 142 T

tarry 63, 121 Taylor, Gardner C. 167, 168 Thurman, Howard 158, 160 tongues-doctrine 127 Turner, Henry M. 5, 6 Turner, Victor 99, 101, 102

S

U

Sam Jones Tabernacle 22 sanctification 10, 11, 12, 14, 44, 63, 68, 76, 77, 121, 122, 123, 139, 157 see also entire sanctification Sanders, Cheryl 152 Schofield, C. I. 80 Scott, Bessie 75 Scottsboro Boys 55, 133, 134 season of prayer 104

Ultimate Reality xi, 92, 98, 118, 144, 148, 149 United Christian College 56 W

Wach, Joachim 58, 59, 98, 147, 148, 149 Wacker, Grant 161 Washington, Joseph 113, 165

INDEX Weber, Max 58, 147, 149 Wesley, John 10, 11, 14, 124 Wesleyan Methodists 12, 13, 14 West, Cornel 124, 129, 131, 167 white supremacy 8, 9 White, Fannie P. 24, 126 White, Robert 22–24, 126 Wholly Other 118 Williams, Isaac 87 Williams, J. Rodman 142

181

Wilmore, Gayraud S. 48, 114, 119, 125, 159, 160 Winston-Salem State University 75 womanist theology 160, 161 Y

Yinger, J. Milton 149 Young People’s Holy Association 34, 36, 55, 154