Has Pentecost changed?

[Esaias]

http://www.oocities.org/heartland/7707/mcpente.htm

In the early spring of 1936 Aimee Semple McPherson returned to Angelus Temple after a protracted absence. She did not like what she found. She discovered that the church had declined spiritually. She used the words "cold" and "dead" to describe conditions she deplored. Nowadays services and results such as prevailed at the time in the Temple likely would be considered a flaming revival, with hundreds saved, healed, and filled with the Holy Spirit every week. But the state of the church was a far cry from what she left months before. Associate Pastor Rheba Crawford had not been able to maintain the afflatus she formerly had presided over during Mrs. McPherson's previous absences.

Frank Bartleman's book Azusa Street (a firsthand account) talked about how, later on, Pentecost had been replaced with emotionalism, many had gone cold, and many had reverted to using 'music to jazz up the people.'

I get the feeling that what passes for 'Pentecostal church' these days is a far cry from what shook the world in the early 20th century... Much less the late 1st century...

[n david]

I read that book last year. It's a great book that every Pentecostal/Apostolic should read. And yes, we're a far cry from the days of Azusa Street.

[Ferd]

I read that book last year. It's a great book that every Pentecostal/Apostolic should read. And yes, we're a far cry from the days of Azusa Street.

dude, we are a far cry from what the church was when I was a kid.

we got edumacated and decided we needed to be taken seriously.

[KWSS1976]

N.David, that is something I have just not understood yet per your qoute at the bottom about the Apostolic/Pentecostal, how can one be both I mean I have heard my Ex Pastor in the Apostolic Church I attened (ALJC) affiliation talk poorly of other Pentecostal Churches in the area, I thought all you guys are the same..We had a discussion before we left the Church and I brought up being Pentecostal and he said he was not, that he was Apostolic but the Church affiliates with some other Pentecostal Churches?? That really lost me....lol

I read that book last year. It's a great book that every Pentecostal/Apostolic should read. And yes, we're a far cry from the days of Azusa Street

[n david]

dude, we are a far cry from what the church was when I was a kid.

we got edumacated and decided we needed to be taken seriously.
This is true as well. The church my father pastored once had revival services for a full month back in the late 80s. Tuesday thru Sunday, with only Monday evening off. Now it's a fight to have a special service on a Friday or Saturday.

[seekerman]

The difference between oneness pentecostal services in the 50s and oneness pentecostal services today is tremendous. I was there in the 50s and I occasionally visit today and today has very little in common with back then. If you could take the saints in the 50s and transport them to today, they wouldn't believe what was happening....or more accurately, not happening.

Oneness pentecostalism today is a mere shell of what it was 50-70 years ago. It's a completely different church.

[Esaias]

The difference between oneness pentecostal services in the 50s and oneness pentecostal services today is tremendous. I was there in the 50s and I occasionally visit today and today has very little in common with back then. If you could take the saints in the 50s and transport them to today, they wouldn't believe what was happening....or more accurately, not happening.

Oneness pentecostalism today is a mere shell of what it was 50-70 years ago. It's a completely different church.

Trust me, it's not limited to Oneness Pentecostal churches.

About 10 years ago I was invited to an AoG, up in Washington State. We were told this place was happening, in the middle of revival, people were coming from 100s of miles away.

So we went. It was a packed house, probably about 500 people or so.

And no different than any Baptist church I had ever been to.

My kids were whispering to me 'are you sure this is a pentecostal church? They sure don't seem like it...'

[Praxeas]

The difference between oneness pentecostal services in the 50s and oneness pentecostal services today is tremendous. I was there in the 50s and I occasionally visit today and today has very little in common with back then. If you could take the saints in the 50s and transport them to today, they wouldn't believe what was happening....or more accurately, not happening.

Oneness pentecostalism today is a mere shell of what it was 50-70 years ago. It's a completely different church.
You have a time machine? :heeheehee

[seekerman]

Trust me, it's not limited to Oneness Pentecostal churches.

About 10 years ago I was invited to an AoG, up in Washington State. We were told this place was happening, in the middle of revival, people were coming from 100s of miles away.

So we went. It was a packed house, probably about 500 people or so.

And no different than any Baptist church I had ever been to.

My kids were whispering to me 'are you sure this is a pentecostal church? They sure don't seem like it...'

I agree, it's not limited to oneness pentecostal churches. Growing up, I couldn't attend an AG (or any trinitarian) church so I don't have the experience from the 50s like I do with the oneness pentecostals, but listening to my AG friends today talk, it seems the AG was much different in the past also.

[seekerman]

You have a time machine? :heeheehee

I was there.....I'm ancient. :)

[navygoat1998]

I agree, it's not limited to oneness pentecostal churches. Growing up, I couldn't attend an AG (or any trinitarian) church so I don't have the experience from the 50s like I do with the oneness pentecostals, but listening to my AG friends today talk, it seems the AG was much different in the past also.

Its true. When we first moved here a friend of my wife told her about this AG that she walked into a few years ago on a Sunday night and this lady said that everybody was swinging from the chandeliers and out of control, well she was Baptized in the Holy Ghost years ago and she still turned around a left. I don't understand that.

We were looking for a church and we went to a service and after we left I told my wife they need to erase the word Pentecostal from the name.

We go to an AG church that is just that very Pentecostal. I am blessed because all the AG churches we have been part of are very Spirit filled and very Pentecostal, but they are not all like that and it makes me sad.

[Hoovie]

Please give the top few reasons things are differ now than in the 50's...

[Praxeas]

I was there.....I'm ancient. :)
And you also went back again? :happydance

[Praxeas]

Pentecost is different from when I started going in the late 80s

They were less song and music oriented. There was more time spent during the "worship" service just with the hands raised worshiping God between songs.

The preaching was better, less "Quote a verse then tell stories" but more "Quote several verses and elaborate on the verse and maybe some stories"

And evangelists actually preached messages. Today evangelists nearly all come to church, crack jokes, tell stories and finally works the visitors up to coming forward to speak in tongues. No joke. I've been in services where the evangelist never opened his bible.

We had a missionary come through and preach for an hour or so and never opened the bible.

[Jason B]

Is the spiritual health of a church to be based on how demonstrative they are?

The problem isn't "manifestations" it is a lack of time, yea, desire for prayer and the Word. There's not the same hunger and thirst for righteousness as at times in the past. People are too full and entertained to really be hungry spiritually. They might have to get off Facebook for a day.

[Praxeas]

Is the spiritual health of a church to be based on how demonstrative they are?

The problem isn't "manifestations" it is a lack of time, yea, desire for prayer and the Word. There's not the same hunger and thirst for righteousness as at times in the past. People are too full and entertained to really be hungry spiritually. They might have to get off Facebook for a day.
And lo, thou shalt surely leadeth the way

[seekerman]

Please give the top few reasons things are differ now than in the 50's...

There is a marked difference between the move of the Spirit when I went to church in the 50s to when I visit an OP church today. Today, it seems there's a lot of mimicking of the move of the Spirit, worship seems forced not free as compared to the past. A wave of the Spirit would just move through the church in which I was raised, almost tangible and visible, a holiness if you will. Today, the preacher is more of a cheerleader telling the people what to do. Jump! Run! Shout! That wasn't the case in the past.

The music back then was purer, not as orchestrated, more spontaneous. Yes, brother so-and-so didn't have a great voice, his timing was off but when he sang it would bring the Spirit down. Sister so-and-so would sing the same song time off key time after time, but it wasn't the entertainment of the singing, it was the moving of the Spirit which followed. Today singing is taught, organized, planned and most of the time little more than secular entertainment. In the past, when the church was in worship and the 'bad' singers would begin singing ..."there is pow-er, pow-er, wonderful working power, in the blood...of the Lamb"....it may not have been pretty but the Spirit moved and worked in the people.

The church in which I was raised was small, most of the time less than 100 people. But there song service included anyone who wished to stand together on the rostrum and sing, men on one side, women on the other. People participated more in worship, a more intimate part of the church. That changed though, now it's a stay in your pew while the 'professionals' sing and entertain you type of service.

Revivals back then would last for weeks sometimes with the power of God moving each and every night. There was an excitement, an expectation, a knowing that the service each night would be a real Spirit filled, shouting, Holy Ghost moving service. I've been in revivals which lasted literally for months, not just weeks. It was amazing to see the workings of God in those services. Healings. Deliverences.

Yes, so much difference between then and now. But, as someone pointed out, it's not limited to oneness pentecostalism, it's throughout the Church. I don't know if we can reclaim the purity of Pentecostalism. I most of the time doubt it.

[commonsense]

I'm also "ancient" and totally agree that services in the 50's were different.

More annointing. Less mimicking of professional singers etc. In the 50's services were Spirit led.
Today it seems to be a performance! Nothing against practice but as we strive for perfection we often leave God out of the equation.

I don't want to go back 60 years but ......services, singing,specials, preaching
it was a different world______in church or politically. :foottap

[Praxeas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGS4LFNf5Dg

[Truthseeker]

There is a marked difference between the move of the Spirit when I went to church in the 50s to when I visit an OP church today. Today, it seems there's a lot of mimicking of the move of the Spirit, worship seems forced not free as compared to the past. A wave of the Spirit would just move through the church in which I was raised, almost tangible and visible, a holiness if you will. Today, the preacher is more of a cheerleader telling the people what to do. Jump! Run! Shout! That wasn't the case in the past.

The music back then was purer, not as orchestrated, more spontaneous. Yes, brother so-and-so didn't have a great voice, his timing was off but when he sang it would bring the Spirit down. Sister so-and-so would sing the same song time off key time after time, but it wasn't the entertainment of the singing, it was the moving of the Spirit which followed. Today singing is taught, organized, planned and most of the time little more than secular entertainment. In the past, when the church was in worship and the 'bad' singers would begin singing ..."there is pow-er, pow-er, wonderful working power, in the blood...of the Lamb"....it may not have been pretty but the Spirit moved and worked in the people.

The church in which I was raised was small, most of the time less than 100 people. But there song service included anyone who wished to stand together on the rostrum and sing, men on one side, women on the other. People participated more in worship, a more intimate part of the church. That changed though, now it's a stay in your pew while the 'professionals' sing and entertain you type of service.

Revivals back then would last for weeks sometimes with the power of God moving each and every night. There was an excitement, an expectation, a knowing that the service each night would be a real Spirit filled, shouting, Holy Ghost moving service. I've been in revivals which lasted literally for months, not just weeks. It was amazing to see the workings of God in those services. Healings. Deliverences.

Yes, so much difference between then and now. But, as someone pointed out, it's not limited to oneness pentecostalism, it's throughout the Church. I don't know if we can reclaim the purity of Pentecostalism. I most of the time doubt it.

Do you think it is because that church has become worldly as some believe? Has TV, sports, movies etc.... hindered revival like some claim?

[houston]

Do you think it is because that church has become worldly as some believe? Has TV, sports, movies etc.... hindered revival like some claim?Those that abstain from those things are not having revival.

[seekerman]

Do you think it is because that church has become worldly as some believe? Has TV, sports, movies etc.... hindered revival like some claim?

I'm not sure. Probably 'worldliness', whatever that is, plays some part in it. More than that though I see that Pentecostalism, both oneness and trinitarian, becoming just another denomination with religious politics being played in the various organizations. Before, and I can only reference the 50s, the ministers were less educated, poorer, the churches were usually not the nicest in town, the people were more common, yet the ministers and laity fellowshipped other organizations, attended and supported the revivals in the area. Now each church seems to be almost an island unto itself, in competition with other churches in their area. For example, the church in which I grew up in was ALJC, but we didn't know the difference between that organization and the UPC for years. The pastors supported each other, visited each other, fellowshipped with each other. I saw that begin to change in the 60s, the ALJC became territorial and the UPC definitely became much more territorial. The unity was gone, the common ground was gone and the oneness movement slowly became just another movement like many which preceded it.

[Jason B]

And lo, thou shalt surely leadeth the way

Certainly not. Its by realizing my own tendency to let "life" and convenience dampen my enthusiasm and spiritual desire to a point that has in fact opened my eyes to my failure. Not wholesale failure, not leaving Christ. But I've had to ask do I love Him like I did at first? Have I allowed responsibilities and obligations to shorten (or even put off) my prayer time, study time? If I want to be honest about revival about a move of God I need to go stand in front of the mirror. I'm not alone though. Many pentecostals/Christians need to do the same. Are we more desperate for a move of God and revival than our next meal, than knowing where we'll live in 3 months, than having nice things, than going out to eat after church? Are we really more desperate for God than ourselves? Are you? Am I?

[Praxeas]

And Lo, surely that has gone over your head. Thus saith Praxeas

[Steve Epley]

Well we have church like we always have. I was raised in the 50's I should know.:happydance

[renee819]

The difference between oneness pentecostal services in the 50s and oneness pentecostal services today is tremendous. I was there in the 50s and I occasionally visit today and today has very little in common with back then. If you could take the saints in the 50s and transport them to today, they wouldn't believe what was happening....or more accurately, not happening.

Oneness pentecostalism today is a mere shell of what it was 50-70 years ago. It's a completely different church.

Amen!

[renee819]

Is the spiritual health of a church to be based on how demonstrative they are?

The problem isn't "manifestations" it is a lack of time, yea, desire for prayer and the Word. There's not the same hunger and thirst for righteousness as at times in the past. People are too full and entertained to really be hungry spiritually. They might have to get off Facebook for a day.


AMEN!

[renee819]

There is a marked difference between the move of the Spirit when I went to church in the 50s to when I visit an OP church today. Today, it seems there's a lot of mimicking of the move of the Spirit, worship seems forced not free as compared to the past. A wave of the Spirit would just move through the church in which I was raised, almost tangible and visible, a holiness if you will. Today, the preacher is more of a cheerleader telling the people what to do. Jump! Run! Shout! That wasn't the case in the past.

The music back then was purer, not as orchestrated, more spontaneous. Yes, brother so-and-so didn't have a great voice, his timing was off but when he sang it would bring the Spirit down. Sister so-and-so would sing the same song time off key time after time, but it wasn't the entertainment of the singing, it was the moving of the Spirit which followed. Today singing is taught, organized, planned and most of the time little more than secular entertainment. In the past, when the church was in worship and the 'bad' singers would begin singing ..."there is pow-er, pow-er, wonderful working power, in the blood...of the Lamb"....it may not have been pretty but the Spirit moved and worked in the people.

The church in which I was raised was small, most of the time less than 100 people. But there song service included anyone who wished to stand together on the rostrum and sing, men on one side, women on the other. People participated more in worship, a more intimate part of the church. That changed though, now it's a stay in your pew while the 'professionals' sing and entertain you type of service.

Revivals back then would last for weeks sometimes with the power of God moving each and every night. There was an excitement, an expectation, a knowing that the service each night would be a real Spirit filled, shouting, Holy Ghost moving service. I've been in revivals which lasted literally for months, not just weeks. It was amazing to see the workings of God in those services. Healings. Deliverences.

Yes, so much difference between then and now. But, as someone pointed out, it's not limited to oneness pentecostalism, it's throughout the Church. I don't know if we can reclaim the purity of Pentecostalism. I most of the time doubt it.

I was there, also there in the 40's.

I started noticing a big difference when the music changed. Music has meaning. Ask the Jungle Tribes. I remember hearing sermons on, "That Jungle Music."

They changed the music to attract the young people. and the young people came---WITH INTERTAINMENT, instead of a hunger for God.

When the Spirit moved in those days, with or without the music, It wasn't a worked up emotional ho-down just to see if they could still do that.” When the Spirit moved, there was results. Someone was healed, or received the Holy Ghost, even a “come clean” repenting service.

And with the entertainment, came worldliness. But the worldliness could not have came into the church, if it hadn't already been in the home.

We weren't without fault. In my young days, I saw the hunger to know more about God, to draw closer to God, but our church lacked teaching. Emphasizing the outward appearance.
After about 15 yrs, we got a new Pastor, that was a teacher. That is when I began to love to go to church, and devour the Word. The church doubled in size, under his teaching.

[DaveC519]

http://www.oocities.org/heartland/7707/mcpente.htm



Frank Bartleman's book Azusa Street (a firsthand account) talked about how, later on, Pentecost had been replaced with emotionalism, many had gone cold, and many had reverted to using 'music to jazz up the people.'

I get the feeling that what passes for 'Pentecostal church' these days is a far cry from what shook the world in the early 20th century... Much less the late 1st century...
I've read Frank Bartleman's book several times. It seems to me that revival, and all the revivals in Scripture, didn't start because some church or organization took out an ad campaign to hold "revival" on a certain date. True revival started because there existed in the hearts of a few individuals a holy dissatisfaction with the status quo. It started in prayer closets of a few crying out to God because they hungered for more of him. It started with those that didn't care what the cost was to have revival, they were willing to pay any cost, make any sacrifice, just to have greater communion with God. They weren't going to put God in a box anymore, but begin to seek God for its own sake, on his time schedule, not theirs.

As someone here posted not too long ago, the reason we don't have revival in the churches is because we've grown content to live without it. Revival cannot come without repentance, but when God's people believe they're okay with God, then why should they repent, and for what? But this is contrary to God's instructions:

"If my people (not the world, not backsliders, not the wicked, but those...) which are called by my name, shall humble themselves (actually come before God in the fear of the Lord, shedding the self-righteousness of self-sufficiency), and pray (without pre-determined time limits), and seek my face (not their own selfish wants or agenda), and turn from their wicked ways (not assuming they're "rich" in God and "have need of nothing"- Rev. 3:17) then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2 Chron 7:14).

[Barb]

Well we have church like we always have. I was raised in the 50's I should know.:happydance

What does "we have church" mean?

[Praxeas]

What does "we have church" mean?
It means they aren't the Ekklesia...because we can only use bible words, but the have an ekklesia? :huh

[renee819]

I've read Frank Bartleman's book several times. It seems to me that revival, and all the revivals in Scripture, didn't start because some church or organization took out an ad campaign to hold "revival" on a certain date. True revival started because there existed in the hearts of a few individuals a holy dissatisfaction with the status quo. It started in prayer closets of a few crying out to God because they hungered for more of him. It started with those that didn't care what the cost was to have revival, they were willing to pay any cost, make any sacrifice, just to have greater communion with God. They weren't going to put God in a box anymore, but begin to seek God for its own sake, on his time schedule, not theirs.

As someone here posted not too long ago, the reason we don't have revival in the churches is because we've grown content to live without it. Revival cannot come without repentance, but when God's people believe they're okay with God, then why should they repent, and for what? But this is contrary to God's instructions:

"If my people (not the world, not backsliders, not the wicked, but those...) which are called by my name, shall humble themselves (actually come before God in the fear of the Lord, shedding the self-righteousness of self-sufficiency), and pray (without pre-determined time limits), and seek my face (not their own selfish wants or agenda), and turn from their wicked ways (not assuming they're "rich" in God and "have need of nothing"- Rev. 3:17) then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2 Chron 7:14).

Amen DaveC And I believe there are a few, with just that kind of burden.

[Esaias]

So... any hope on the horizon?

[seekerman]

So... any hope on the horizon?

Sure. God always comes through at some point in time bystarting a new work that's not part of the established religious system. This doesn't mean established religious systems are evil, what it means is that established religious systems are inherently unable to follow the move of God which will lead them out of the established religious systems into a movement that's following the leading of the Spirit. Pentecostalism, for example, couldn't be birthed in the established religious systems of the early 1900s because of the constraints of romanist type organizations and 'churches'. The move of God was rejected and ridiculed by those systems, so God moved outside of them.

The next move of God will follow that pattern, IMO. A hungry people somewhere will connect with God, as did the people of Azuza, and this will birth yet another movement with signs and wonders following. It's not going to happen in Pentecostalism because Pentecostalism is no different than the Baptists, Methodists, ect. were in the early 1900s. It's a 'you agree with our church or you're not of God' type behavior.

I think the most likely place for this new and powerful move of God to occur is in a home meeting atmosphere somewhere. There's usually enough hunger and freedom in the home meetings to allow the Spirit of God to move without restraint. As did Pentecostalism in the early 1900s.

[Praxeas]

My hope is in Jesus and what He did on the cross

[renee819]

My hope is in Jesus and what He did on the cross

As is mine, and many others, but that doesn't solve the problem as to were we can meet with like-minded Christians.

[Steve Epley]

:thumbsupWent to church this morning AND we were having church like we have always had it. Just saying.:thumbsup
Plan on going back to tonite and expecting the same.:happydance

[renee819]

I went to church this morning and came home very discouraged.

Seekerman wrote,
The next move of God will follow that pattern, IMO. A hungry people somewhere will connect with God, as did the people of Azuza, and this will birth yet another movement with signs and wonders following. It's not going to happen in Pentecostalism because Pentecostalism is no different than the Baptists, Methodists, ect. were in the early 1900s. It's a 'you agree with our church or you're not of God' type behavior.

I think the most likely place for this new and powerful move of God to occur is in a home meeting atmosphere somewhere. There's usually enough hunger and freedom in the home meetings to allow the Spirit of God to move without restraint. As did Pentecostalism in the early 1900s.

AMEN. Any hungry people, living close to Muncie, Indiana, ready to start a house church?

[Praxeas]

I'm so glad I can go to church and come home not disappointed all the time over insignificant differences :-)

[*AQuietPlace*]

I'm so glad I can go to church and come home not disappointed all the time over insignificant differences :-)


Ditto.