THE AZUSA STREET REVIVAL: UNCOVERING THE TRUTH

Note: this article [revised and updated] was first published in the Voice of Zion in April 2006 under the title ‘Azusa Street Centennial Celebration’ Sincere and Honest, or a Mockery by Bishop Wade H. Phillips.

TO HERE THIS ARTICLE IN AUDIO CLICK HERE: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUNchxl6i_Y
​
It was written in part to magnify the ministry of W. J. Seymour, the pastor of the Apostolic Faith Mission [“Azusa Street Mission”] in Los Angeles, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that shook that city and the world beginning in April 1906. But it was written also to contradict the distortion and misrepresentations of those who planned and organized the centennial celebration regarding that spiritual phenomenon. Thousands gathered in April 2006 and heard renown leaders of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements misconstrue the nature and origin of Pentecostalism and the part the Azusa Street Mission played in the unfolding restoration of Spirit-baptism in the late nineteenth- and early twentieth century.

Since the 1960s there has been an increasing number of non-Wesleyan Pentecostal and Charismatic leaders that claim, either wittingly or unwittingly, that their organizations are rooted in [or grew out of] the Azusa Street Mission which was established in the first decade of the twentieth century. Just as intriguing, most believe that the history and heritage of the Azusa Street Mission is the origin of the 20th century Pentecostal-Charismatic movement. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Many scholars and leaders of the Assemblies of God denomination, by far the largest Pentecostal fellowship in the world, organized in 1914 at Hot Springs, AR, claim, for example, that the Assemblies of God has roots in the Azusa Street Mission in Los Angeles and in the mighty Pentecostal outpourings that transpired there beginning in 1906. But the Assemblies of God fellowship is more in line with the view of William H. Durham [see below] and his “finished work of Calvary” doctrine that denies sanctification as a second definite work of grace and the holiness lifestyle that emanates from that powerful sin-crucifying experience. Notwithstanding the claims of so many Assemblies of God scholars and leaders of other non-Wesleyan groups, the Azusa Street Mission is forever etched in the Wesleyan-holiness tradition. Nothing can change that!
 
So, why make this a major issue? We answer, because it is a major issue. The point is: give up your Wesleyan-holiness roots and true Pentecostalism will gradually die away, and what is left to fill the vacuum is nothing more than watered-down Christianity and spiritual confusion! It is no wonder, then, that so many groups that originated as “classical Pentecostals,” that is, Pentecostals with Wesleyan-holiness roots, are now identified simply as Evangelicals. For almost every twisted imagination and ungodly thing is allowed now under the covering of “Evangelicalism” and/or “Pentecostalism.”    
 
Again, the Azusa Street Mission was thoroughly Wesleyan regarding the order of salvation and the holiness lifestyle, including a firm stand against divorce and remarriage, worldliness in all its uncomely forms, various kinds of fornication and immorality, dressing and adorning oneself immodestly with gaudy cosmetics, expensive and luxurious jewelry and provocative attire, and, in general, conforming oneself according to the fads, fashions, and “spirit of this present age” [Is. 3.16-18; 1 Tim. 2.8; 1 Pet. 3.3]. See, it was upon consecrated, modest, and saintly believers, who had a burning desire to reach the world with the glorious Gospel of Christ, that God poured out His Pentecostal baptism in Acts 2.  
 
Now regarding the “Pentecostal” aspect of the Azusa Street Mission, namely, speaking in tongues as unintelligible speech---“unknown tongues,” that experience primarily grew out of, either directly or indirectly, the ministry and vision of Benjamin Hardin Irwin [Lincoln, NB] and the Fire-baptized Holiness movement that began to impact the American South in 1896. On the other hand, Charles Fox Parham, beginning in Topeka, KS in 1901, taught that speaking in tongues was the gift to speak known languages. Seymour and the brethren at the Azusa Street Mission gradually settled the issue in the months following the initial outpouring of the Spirit in 1906, namely, that “unknown tongues” or “unintelligible speech” was the initial evidence of Spirit-baptism, and the ability to speak known languages was a gift of the Spirit imparted subsequently to Spriit-baptism.          
 
There were other indirect influences that affected the Azusa Street Mission: among them Frank W, Sanford and his restoration vision centered in Shiloh, Maine in the late nineteenth century; and the faith healing and restoration movement of John Alexander Dowie in Zion City [Chicago] beginning in the last decade of the nineteenth century. All the men and movements just mentioned merged with and contributed to the Pentecostal phenomenon that happened at Azusa Street in 1906. Seymour, for example, was a student and admirer of Parham, the latter being one of the first pioneers to acknowledge that the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift upon the sanctified life.  It is significant also that all these men and their movements [Dowie excepted perhaps] were radically Wesleyan in their faith and practice of holiness.
 
Now more especially regarding tongues as unintelligible speech: this was not settled at Azusa Street for several months after the initial outpourings in 1906. Until that time, Seymour and the members of the Azusa Street Mission were still under the influence of Parham’s doctrine that speaking in tongues is the gift to speak known languages. According to him, “unknown tongues” or unintelligible speech was just so much “chatter,” “babble,” “jabber,” and “gibberish,” all according to him, nonsensical manifestations. He failed to see that deeper, mystical aspect of Spirit-baptism in which the sanctified believer communes on a much deeper level with God with “groanings that cannot be uttered” (Rom. 8.26-27). Parham therefore denounced and avoided altogether “unknown tongues” in which believers speak directly to God in a language which He alone understands, a language that even the man himself who is speaking does not comprehend: for his spirit prays on a deeper spiritual level with God, and is thereby also edified at a deeper spiritual level (1 Cor. 14.2-4, 13-14, 19, 27-28).
 
Parham also endeavored to tame any perceived physical excesses among his students regarding jumping, shouting, dancing in the Spirit, falling under the power of the Spirit, crying out, etc. These were the basic reasons that Seymour repudiated Parham’s attempt in October 1906 to take over the leadership of the Azusa Street Mission. Parham believed since Seymour had been his student in his Houston school in 1905, and connected with the fellowship of churches of which Parham was head, that it was only right for him to assume the oversight of the mission on Azusa Street.  Besides, what he saw and heard in the meetings---namely, the demonstrations of shaking, quaking, falling out in the Spirit, shouting, crying out, hollering, etc. made him think that Seymour was unfit to pastor. But by the time he showed up there in October, Seymour had become the obvious leader of the mission and had a truer understanding and vision of what it meant to be “Pentecostal.” Thus, Seymour and the Azusa mission promptly refused to surrender the pulpit to Parham.       
 
But however wrong Parham may have been regarding the appearance of spiritual manifestations and demonstrations of the Spirit, tongues speaking, that is, the gift to speak known languages, as initial evidence of being Spirit-baptized, and in general what it meant to be truly Pentecostal, still he recognized that the baptism with the Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues was a divine enablement to help the church more rapidly evangelize the world. For the Pentecostal baptism [enabling sanctified believers to speak known languages] made the saints instant missionaries.  
 
Be all that as it may, one thing is crystal clear, the Azusa Street Mission was from its inception thoroughly Wesleyan at its core. All the men and movements just mentioned were all deeply grounded in Wesleyan faith and doctrine, and none more than Seymour. He considered the sanctifying power of holiness to be the most fundamental, if not the most distinctive mark of the Azusa Street revival. It would be truer to say therefore, that the Azusa Street Mission basically grew indirectly out of the restoration vision of Irwin and the Fire-baptized Holiness movement, and to one degree or other out of the restoration visions of the men and movements just mentioned [End of Note].
 
Our readers should be receiving this issue of the Voice of Zion about the same time that thousands of Pentecostals and charismatics will be packing for their trip to Los Angeles to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the outpouring of the Spirit that stirred that city in April 1906. The problem with this “celebration” is that it will have little in common with the power, holiness, and glory of the Spirit that ignited the Pentecostal revival there beginning one hundred years ago. That great revival grew out of a thirst and hunger for personal holiness, and a passion to reach the world with the full Gospel message—a message that was centered in a second crisis experience in grace--sanctification, and the holiness lifestyle that emanates from that experience. The baptism with the Spirit was sought for anointing and empowerment upon the sanctified life, to be more effective in proclaiming the true Gospel and reaching out to the world with the “all things” message of Christ. An integral part of that full Gospel message was that Jesus’ blood can instantly and entirely purify believers from sin in this present world and to keep them as such blameless throughout their lives. The Azusa Street Mission was therefore thoroughly Wesleyan at its core and by extension should be identified with what has come to be known as “classical Pentecostalism,” a phrase coined in the 1970s by Roman Catholic scholar, Kilian McDonnell, to identify Pentecostal denominations and fellowships that continued to hold to a second definite and instantaneous work of grace, namely, sanctification as a prerequisite for Spirit-baptism. Intriguingly, almost all the original or early Pentecostal fellowships were “classical Pentecostals.” Some of the more prominent bodies that held tenaciously to this view were the Pentecostal Holiness Church [now the International Pentecostal Holiness Church] centered in Oklahoma City, OK]; various Fire-baptized Holiness bodies [NC/SC], the Church of God in Christ [centered in Memphis, TN] , the Church of God [centered in Cleveland, TN], the Original Church of God [centered in Chattanooga], and the Church of God of Prophecy [centered in Cleveland, TN), the two latter bodies being the result of divisions within the Church of God in 1919 and 1923 respectively.
 
This was the message that William Joseph Seymour (1870–1922) brought to Los Angeles in February 1906. The “good news” was that Jesus’ work on the Cross could make believers “free from sin” and enable them to bring forth “fruit unto holiness.”1 This remained his focus even after the mighty outpourings of the Spirit began to fall in April 1906. He continually admonished the people to seek for a deeper personal relationship with God—for His holiness, not so much, at least primarily for tongues and sensational manifestations, and certainly not for the so-called “Health and Wealth Gospel.” His admonition, “Above all, let us honor the blood of Jesus Christ every moment of our lives,”2 was typical of his preaching. Like John Wesley, his theological ground was in the Atonement, and thus all genuine mystical experiences sprang from the Cross of Christ and were measured by it. He maintained that people who commit habitual sin and at the same time speak in tongues were “counterfeits.” He admitted that imposters often came into the Azusa Street meetings but were quickly exposed by the power of the Spirit, and by the spiritual conviction that filled the atmosphere of the meetings. He thus warned visitors: “Be careful, dear ones, for your sin will surely find you out.”

Seymour’s message was plain and simple: first genuine and crystal-clear experiences in regeneration and sanctification---with perfect cleansing and sincere restitutions! then Spirit-baptism. He emphatically held that the latter could not be received without first having received the former. Entire sanctification was thus an imperative prerequisite for a genuine baptism with the Spirit. His message, “Sanctified Before Pentecost,” makes this clear.
“By reading the Bible carefully, you can see that the disciples were saved and sanctified men, and had received the unction of the Holy Spirit, before the day of Pentecost. . .”3

In another message, he wrote:
“The first step in seeking the baptism with the Holy Ghost, is to have a clear knowledge of the new birth in our souls, which is the first work of grace and brings everlasting life to our souls . . . The next step for us is to have a clear knowledge, by the Holy Spirit, of the second work of grace wrought in our hearts by the power of the Blood and the Holy Ghost . . . When we have a clear knowledge of justification and sanctification, through the precious Blood of Jesus in our hearts, then we can be recipients of the baptism with the Holy Ghost.”4

The doctrine of sanctification was clearly stated also in the outline of beliefs that appeared regularly in The Apostolic Faith, the official organ of the Azusa Street Mission. The outline stated in part:

·     “First Work.—Justification is that act of God’s free grace by which we receive remission of sins (Acts 10:42,43; Romans 3:25).

·     “Second Work.—Sanctification is the second work of grace and the last work of grace. Sanctification is that act of God’s free grace by which He makes us holy (John 17:15, 17).

“Sanctification is a cleansing to make holy. The Disciples were sanctified before the Day of Pentecost. By a careful study of Scripture, you will find it is so now. "Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you" (John 15:3; 13:10); and Jesus had breathed on them the Holy Ghost (John 20:21,22). You know that they could not receive the Spirit if they were not clean. Jesus cleansed and got all doubt out of His Church before He went back to glory.”

“The Baptism of the Holy Ghost is a gift of power upon the sanctified life . . .
Seymour was a radical holiness preacher, who sought for and advocated, by preaching and practicing the faith of the Gospel, perfect conformity to the image of Christ. This was also the foundational theology and practice of the Azusa Street Mission. He emphasized the inner power of sanctification to instantly cleanse the heart and crucify the “old man” (body of sin), and to empower believers to perfectly obey the teachings of Christ and the apostles. He thus taught and practiced a strict holiness code of ethics. In fact, except for his doctrine of the church itself (and its financial system), his theological views were almost identical with what we espouse in Zion Assembly Church of God.

He believed in true repentance (confessing and turning from sin), justification and regeneration (with the manifest fruit of new life in Christ), sanctification as a definite and instantaneous experience that eradicates inbred sin, restitution where possible (making wrongs right), Spirit-baptism (with the evidence of “unknown tongues”), divine healing (with the encouragement to trust God for healing rather than physicians and medicine), the sanctity of marriage (as a sacred bond that can be broken only by the death of one of the partners), plain dress and good manners (he discouraged the wearing of jewelry, expensive clothing, and gaudy cosmetics), required total abstinence from wine, strong drink, and the use of tobacco. He also preached and practiced foot-washing in addition to the Lord’s Supper and water baptism, embraced the doctrine of the Trinity (three persons in one Godhead), the infallibility and inerrancy of the holy Scriptures, the premillennial second coming of Christ, and boldly proclaimed heaven for saints and hell for sinners!

In contrast to many modern-day Pentecostal and Charismatic preachers and celebrated televangelists, Pastor Seymour was no showman or entertainer; neither was he a manipulator of people’s minds—a theological sorcerer, preying on the poor, taking advantage of the simple, and seeking wealth from the sufferings of Christ! The object of his ministry was not to make the Lord’s work lucrative, nor to turn it into “big business.” He was not of the number of corrupt preachers that the apostle Paul called “cunning craftsmen”; nor of the kind that Jude denounced as having “run greedily after the error of Balaam.” He was no hireling! and certainly never with “feigned words endeavored to make merchandise” of his listeners. This kind of religious practice he detested and denounced with the same passion that Jesus and the apostles did in the New Testament. He was a plain and simple preacher (the son of slaves), who confessed by his lifestyle—like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that he was a pilgrim in this present world, seeking a better and more enduring country—a heavenly home, “a city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God!”

Seymour was not a great orator, yet his words were weighty and full of truth, and therefore effective! They pierced the hearts of sinners and convicted lukewarm church members. He was anointed, but his anointing did not make him boisterous or flamboyant. Personally, he was self-denying and self-effacing, endeavoring always to maintain a low profile; but the Spirit within him made him a powerful presence that could not be ignored. Above all, he was a prayer-warrior, in the tradition of our classical Pentecostal forefathers and foremothers (and in the tradition of the patriarchs and prophets before them). His habit included hours of prayer and contemplation upon God and His Word, to more intimately unite with God through the Spirit. This was the secret of his strength and the source of his success!

Now it should be plain to see that the story of William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street revival has little in common with the spectacle that is soon to take place in Los Angeles. In fact, this gentle and deeply spiritual man distinguished himself from all who denied entire sanctification and the holiness lifestyle that emits from this sin-crucifying experience. For this same reason, he denied the pulpit at Azusa Street to William H. Durham in 1911 (the father of the so-called “finished work” doctrine, which denies sanctification as a definite and instantaneous second work of grace). Durham earlier had professed to have been baptized with the Spirit at the Azusa Street Mission in March 1907. However, having returned to his ministry in Chicago, he thereafter vehemently denounced the second work of grace experience. In February 1911, he came back to Los Angeles fully prepared to repudiate Wesleyan holiness teachings. While Seymour was away on an extended trip, Durham endeavored to “take over” the Azusa Street Mission. Seymour returned in time to save the work, but not before Durham had gained considerable influence over the congregation. Durham subsequently divided the Azusa Street Mission by his clever tactics and “finished work” doctrine and founded a competing mission a short distance from Azusa Street. There he continued his tirade against the Wesleyan doctrines of instantaneous sanctification and the holiness lifestyle. But his disposition and actions (and reactions) against Seymour and other holiness ministers in Los Angeles only confirmed that he himself was not sanctified. Nevertheless, he drew large crowds for a few months (above 1000 according to some reports), but then fell ill and died in the summer of 1912 of tuberculosis at the age of 39.

We mention this episode of Durham merely to point out that Seymour would not countenance this serious defection of the Gospel: for he held that the crucifying power of the second work of grace was the ultimate purpose of Jesus’ blood being shed on the Cross. Just as certainly, he disagreed with what is now called the “prosperity Gospel” which is espoused by so many in the crowd of celebrants now gathering in Los Angeles, promoted even by some of the featured speakers on the program. In a message titled, “In Money Matters,” Seymour denounced preachers who manipulate people’s minds and hearts to get into their pocketbooks, exerting more energy in fleecing the sheep than in feeding them! Like the prophet Isaiah, he saw these “charismatic” charlatans as “greedy dogs” which never have enough “. . . shepherds that... look to their own way, everyone for his gain” (Is. 56.11). He emphasized that men should give only after having provided for their families, and then only as impressed by the Holy Spirit, and certainly never as the result of human manipulation. Regarding preachers and money, he answered in Jesus’ words, saying, those who preach the Gospel should “take no thought what [they] shall eat or drink.” In fact, he categorized these charlatans as “greedy dogs” and “false teachers,” and labeled their methods as “fanaticism!”5

Some of the esteemed scholars and leaders of the Pentecostal-charismatic movement and at least one of the featured speakers on the program for the celebration in Los Angeles denies that salvation is in the Atonement—in the blood of Jesus; another denies the Trinity; and most of the celebrants deny second-work sanctification and perfection as realistic expectations in this life. Seymour considered such teachers to be defective and heretical and refused to be identified with them. Doubtlessly, he would separate himself today (if he were still living) from such teachers, and probably would avoid or deny the label “Pentecostal” or “charismatic,” in view of the liberal and corrupt elements that are now classified under these terms. He would be outraged by the countless number of preachers and teachers (with their corrupt doctrines and worldly lifestyles), who parade themselves across our television screens, “foaming out their shame” in the name of Pentecostalism. Certainly, all holiness-Pentecostal people today---the true heirs of apostolic faith should be outraged by the hypocrisy and pretense of spirituality that marks so much of contemporary “Pentecostalism.”

In the present ecumenical climate, the tendency is to classify everything that shakes, shivers, shouts, stammers, or stutters as one “Pentecostal” group, a monolithic whole, and to identify this group as the legacy of the Azusa Street revival. Accordingly, Pentecostal leaders today boast that the phenomenal movement now numbers more than 600 million participants worldwide (embedded in a variety of denominations and independent sects). Nothing could be farther from historical reality or theological sanity, particularly regarding the assertion that contemporary Pentecostalism is linked directly with the faith and discipline of the Azusa Street Mission, or with our holiness-Pentecostal pioneers in the late nineteenth- and early twentieth centuries. In fact, most Pentecostals today, and certainly most charismatics, have completely different historical origins and theological orientations. These range from Pope John XXIII’s call in the late 1950s for a “new pentecost,” which revolutionized Roman Catholic worship and expectations through the agenda set by Vatican Council II (1962–65), to the Episcopalian renewal groups of the 1960s, to the so-called “Third Wave” groups that developed in the 1980s (the latter of which probably should be linked more with mainline evangelicalism than classical Pentecostalism. Make no mistake, these historical and theological differences are great, and the differences have created (or conditioned) a wholly different species, if not kind, of religious faith, government, discipline, and practice. We may be certain that W. J. Seymour, Florence Louise Crawford (later founder of the Apostolic Faith church in Portland, Oregon), and other faithful co-workers in the Azusa Street Mission would “turn over in their graves” if they thought their names and sanctified baptisms were being lumped together with the watered-down doctrines, worldly lifestyles, and shallow, if not completely phony, experiences that masquerade today under the name of “charismatic” and “Pentecostal.” Nor would they identify with the inherent confusion and contradictions that have overtaken the Pentecostal movement!

The leaders gathering for this current celebration have as many different views on the Cross of Christ and its effects as they do regarding Spirit-baptism and tongues-speaking. There may be, in fact, more widespread differences in the crowd gathering in Los Angeles for the centennial celebration of the Pentecostal movement than there were between Roman Catholics, Calvinists, and Anabaptists in Geneva in the sixteenth century! Some believe that tongues-speaking is the evidence of Spirit-baptism, others do not; some believe in purgatory, others do not; some believe Mary is the Mother of God, others do not; some believe she was immaculately conceived, others do not; some believe that the Apocrypha is part of the authoritative canon of holy Scripture, others do not; some believe that God is a trinity of persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—others do not; some believe that divorce and remarriage (while one’s first spouse is still living) are acceptable, others do not; some believe in priests, others do not; some believe that the pope is the head of the church on earth, others do not; most believe in sinning religion (that one cannot cease from committing sin in this life), while precious few have remained faithful to the classical holiness-Pentecostal message and experience embraced in the Azusa Street Mission; some ascribe to a Calvinist interpretation of Scripture, others to an Arminian; some are premillennial, others postmillennial or amillennial; some are restorationists, others successionists; some believe in a world-wide visible church; most in an “invisible church”; some believe in the “moderate” use of wine and strong drink, others in total abstinence; some believe in modern-day apostles and prophets, others do not; some believe in women bishops and even women apostles, others do not; some believe that Christians should be neutral in regard to the use of tobacco, others that it should be denounced; some believe in seven sacraments, others in two or three ordinances (Azusa Street held to three including the practice of footwashing). Many desire and covet riches, and even attempt to justify their corrupt desires on the authority of the holy Scriptures. All these self-contradictory and confusing doctrines and practices are now tolerated, if not embraced, in the name of Pentecostalism! The movement has become shamelessly a “Babylon” of theological and spiritual chaos!

Many Pentecostals and charismatics purport that all these inherent differences are somehow abstracted into a mystical body of Christ, a so-called “invisible church” or “spiritual church” which enables them to embrace all these serious differences or else transcend them by shouting the name of Jesus and speaking in tongues. This is delusional thinking, certainly not biblical. The only reason that many will return from this meeting in Los Angeles trumpeting its praises and testifying to the great love and unity that prevailed, is because most of the celebrants will not have had the opportunity to get to know each other! The only true way to prove such testimonies is in the context of the concrete and real fellowship of the visible church. This is where “the rubber meets the road!” Our fellowship in the church, like a marriage between a man and woman, tries our testimonies and purifies our experiences. True spiritual maturation in Christ comes only through the trials and struggles we experience together as covenant believers in the same corporate body. This covenant commitment makes us “members one of another,” like a marriage, and is designed by God in His infinite wisdom to purify and perfect our lives together in Christ (1 Cor. 12. 1—14.40; Eph. 4.11-16; Phil. 3.16). This divine objective cannot be achieved without believers being “yoked together” in the same harness with Christ!

Doctrinal soundness, and unity in doctrine, were important to Seymour and the saints in the Azusa Street Mission (even when it was flourishing between 1906–1909). The following comment by Seymour is sufficient to prove this:

“We find many of Christ’s people tangled up in these days, committing spiritual fornication as well as physical fornication and adultery. They say, ‘Let us all come together; if we are not one in doctrine, we can be one in spirit.’ But, dear ones, we cannot all be one, except through the word of God . . . I suppose that the apostolic church at Ephesus allowed people that were not teaching straight doctrine, not solid in the word of God, to remain in fellowship with them; and Jesus saw that a little leaven would leaven the whole, and His finger was right upon that impure doctrine. It had to be removed out of the church, or He would remove the light and break the church up. When we find things wrong, contrary to Scripture, I care not how dear it is, it must be removed . . .”6

The one crack in Seymour’s theological scheme of things was regarding his doctrine of the church itself. He spiritualized the nature of the church—taught that all believers were part of a mystical body through the new birth and thus tended to deny the church’s visible and institutional aspects, particularly regarding organization and government above the local churches. In this way, he deprived himself and the saints at the Azusa Street Mission (and the other missions in association with it) of true biblical government and divine order. His error in this regard was therefore a serious one. Though he came by this misunderstanding honestly: for almost all the theological influences in his life denied the visible and concrete nature of the church, it nevertheless proved detrimental if not fatal to his life’s work. In failing to institute the government and discipline of the church in the Azusa Street Mission, he was overcome with problems that he could not solve or master. He could not maintain order and peace in the house, and thus the mission reeled under its own instability. The Azusa Street Mission experienced between 1906 and 1909 one of the greatest and most dynamic revivals in the history of Christianity, but in failing to incorporate and form believers together into the church—into the actual and concrete ekklesia with settled doctrines and stable centralized church government, the people soon defected from the faith and were scattered.

Three things should be included in a sincere and honest celebration of the outpouring of the Spirit at the Azusa Street Mission. First, Pentecostals and charismatics should return to second-work sanctification and the holiness lifestyle that honors Christ and His work on the Cross. Of course, to achieve this worthy goal some will have to be first genuinely converted! Second, the leaders of this event should renounce all doctrines and practices and the preachers and priests who conceive and condone these errors that have corrupted and spoiled the original purity and power of the Pentecostal movement. Third, the error of the Azusa Street Mission needs to be acknowledged, namely, that of denying the Spirit His intrinsic work and purpose to form the visible government, order, and discipline of the church: for so many Pentecostals and charismatics today are perpetuating this same error.

The great majority either flatly deny God has a visible church (particularly above the local level), or else they believe the Roman Catholic Church is God’s true church. In either case, God’s plan and purpose for His church is turned aside. The ultimate purpose of Spirit-inspired revival is to incorporate believers together into the visible body of Christ, and this in order to provide for her nourishment, safety, unity, spiritual growth, discipline, mission, perfection, glorification, and the wedding day of Christ and His spotless bride--“the marriage of the Lamb!”(Eph. 5.27; Rev. 19.6-7).

Endnotes
1.W.J. Seymour, “The Precious Atonement,” The Apostolic Faith [hereafter TAF], September 1906, 2; “Sanctified On the Cross,” TAF, May 1906,
2. “River of Living Waters,” TAF, November 1906, 2.
3. “Sanctified Before Pentecost,” TAF, December 1906, 2.
4. “Receive Ye the Holy Ghost,” TAF, January 1907, 2.
5. “In Money Matters,” TAF, November 1906, 3.
6. “Christ’s Message to the Church,” TAF, January 1908, 3.