CYBERJOURNAL FOR PENTECOSTAL-CHARISMATIC RESEARCH #26

"The Origin of T.B. Barratt's Concept of 'Missionary Tongues'"

By Geir Lie

In recent decades many Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals have considered speaking in tongues  to be the “most characteristic feature” of the Pentecostal movement.[1] However, early Pentecostals generally understood tongues speech to be secondary to and arising out of what could be characterized as a “millenarian” belief system.[2] My purpose in this article is to suggest that this belief system was not only representative of North American Pentecostalism, but was also the initial message of Thomas Ball Barratt (1862-1940), founder of Pentecostalism in Norway and the instrument in spreading the Pentecostal revival to other countries within Western Europe. 

How did the concept of missionary tongues enter American Pentecostalism?

It is common knowledge among Pentecostal scholars that Charles F. Parham, who gave notoriety to the initial-evidence Spirit baptism teaching in the USA, preached a millenarian message. Parham was influenced by Holiness advocate Frank W. Sandford, who again was indebted to other millenarians who believed that Christ’s imminent return would be preceded by a world-wide revival. Inspired by Sandford, Parham believed that the gift of speaking in tongues (not understood as glossolalia but instead as xenolalia) would function as a tremendous evangelistic tool, as it implied speaking existing human languages. One American teenager, Jenny Glassey, “upon whom the Holy Spirit purportedly had bestowed a dozen African dialects and several other languages”,[3] left the U.S. in December 1895 with the intention of going to Sierra Leone as a missionary. Sandford printed parts of her testimony in his Tongues of Fire magazine, and Parham did likewise in his own Apostolic Faith periodical in 1899, informing his readership that she could “read and write, translate and sing the language while out of the trance or in a normal condition, and can until now.”[4]

The main difference between Sandford and Parham was the former’s belief that the gift of tongues was just one among several possible Spirit manifestations following the end-time Church, while Parham was convinced that tongues speech was the very key to spreading the Gospel effectively to all corners of the world, which, in turn, would usher in the return of Christ. Besides, according to Parham, speaking in tongues was the very criteria or evidence for knowing whether one had received the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Parham seems to have maintained his understanding of tongues as real languages, intended for missionary usage, until his death. It was only natural, then, that he passed on this understanding to his followers. Agnes N. Ozman, the first of Parham’s followers who received the gift of tongues on January 1, 1901, asked him to pray for her with the laying on of hands “as she hoped to go to foreign fields”. She concluded that her supernaturally received language was “the Chinese language”, without identifying the particular dialect (such as Cantonese or Mandarin) [5]. Two days later, Parham himself claimed having received “the Sweedish [sic!] tongue, which later changed to other languages”.[6] Some of Parham’s students were convinced that under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration they could even write in foreign languages they had never learned.

William J. Seymour, who had been taught by Parham for five weeks before he took the Pentecostal message to Los Angeles in February 1906, also initially believed in the concept of missionary tongues. Parham had claimed that those who were Spirit baptized “would achieve recognition as members of Christ’s bride upon the occasion of the Second Coming. This elite band of Christians consisted of those to be snatched away in the rapture and spared the awful trials of the seven-year tribulation period. Upon returning with Christ during the second stage of his appearing, they would serve important positions in the administration of the millennial government.”[7]

Seymour had been introduced to Parham via Mrs. Lucy F. Farrow, who was pastoring an African American Holiness church in the city of Houston. She had spoken in tongues and gave full support to Parham’s Pentecostal message. One month after Seymour’s arrival in Los Angeles, he was joined by her and Joseph A. Warren, both part of Parham’s ministry to African Americans in Houston.

Seymour had left Houston in February to pastor a Holiness church at 1604 East Ninth Street, founded by Julia W. Hutchins. After about a week’s preaching, however, Seymour was ejected from the church and started independent prayer meetings, first in the home of Edward S. and Mattie Lee, who according to Pentecostal historian Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. lived “near the corner of Union and West First Street (now Beverley Blvd.)”, and then in the home of Richard and Ruth Asberry on 214 (now 216) N. Bonnie Brae Street. “The core group […] comprised about fifteen African Americans, including five children.”[8] The crowd grew quickly. Both Anders Gustaf Johansson, a Swedish immigrant who used the American name Andrew G. Johnson, and at least two fellow countrymen found their way to prayer meetings at the Bonnie Brae house and elsewhere. When the meetings were moved to 312 Azusa Street in April, it did not take long before attendance exploded.

Edward Lee, Seymour’s host, was the first to experience Spirit baptism in Los Angeles. Several African Americans had a similar experience at the Bonnie Brae prayer meetings, while the first one to receive a specific Spirit encounter in the Azusa Street building after Seymour took over the building was a “Latino day worker, reportedly struck by the power of the Holy Spirit while preparing the Apostolic Faith Mission for the Saturday service.” This day worker, most probably a Mexican, was “clearing the mission of debris a day before the mission opened.”[9]

The Azusa Street meetings soon attracted “various racial and ethnic groups: blacks, whites, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans.”[10] Later researchers have sometimes claimed that Barratt attended the meetings, but that is simply not the case. During a visit to the U.S. in 1905-6 to raise funds for his City Mission in Christiania (Oslo), he heard about the Azusa Street revival. He corresponded with Ida May Throop, Clara Lum, Benjamin H. Irwin and Glenn Cook, staff workers at the Azusa Street mission, who tried to instruct him regarding how to receive Spirit baptism.[11] On October 11, he even received a letter from Seymour.[12]

The history of Barratt and his role in the origins of the Pentecostal movement in Norway is fairly well known among Pentecostal scholars. As already hinted at in the introduction, the purpose of this article is not only to challenge a previous claim that Norwegian Pentecostalism in its initial stage did not reflect the missionary tongues concept, but also to suggest serious doubts about the identification of early Pentecostalism as a millenarian movement to be an original thesis with Robert Mapes Anderson, when he published his first edition of Vision of the Disinherited in 1979.[13] This thesis was set forth as early as 1928, in a lengthy, often overlooked footnote in Norwegian. The book, Dommedagsventing (Waiting for judgment day) with subtitle Millennismen og dens innslag i norsk kristenliv (Millenarianism and its impact on Norwegian church life) by author Thorstein Gunnarson, pertains only tangentially to Pentecostalism. According to Gunnarson, Barratt and his Pentecostal associates, both in Europe and in the U.S, were basically preaching an eschatological message about the imminent return of Christ. “The imminent Millennium and its even more imminent rapture will be preceded by a new Pentecost of the Spirit.” Then the author claims to be citing Barratt, although it is uncertain whether he paraphrases or is quoting a supposed written Barratt source from the latter’s earliest Pentecostal phase which I have been unable to locate: “What now happens – Barratt wrote – is just the beginning. The work [of God, i.e., The Pentecostal revival] will penetrate all camps and prepare the nations for the return of Christ.” He then continued with his own words – “Barratt’s humble City Mission would actually become sort of a Mission towards Europe [as a whole], which, in turn, is a Mission towards the Gentiles: a missions preaching encompassing all peoples which would attack the masses of heathendom with prophetical[ly inspired] fervor of tongues-speech and understood xenolalia [by the audience]– that made unnecessary the complicated language studies. During the initial and experimental phase, there were various men and women who according to this kind of faith ran to the ends of the earth with their optimistic gospel.”[14] Quoting Gunnarson’s footnote in a previous Norwegian article, I added the following words: “Unfortunately Gunnarson does not reveal which Barratt sources he has consulted, and there is an uncertainty as to whether he quotes Barratt literally or paraphrases.”[15]

How did the concept of missionary tongues enter Norwegian Pentecostalism?

How did Gunnarson arrive at the conclusion that Pentecostalism was a millenarian movement? I find it hard to believe that he was mistaken, as what he claimed constituted the Pentecostal message corresponds perfectly with the eschatological orientation within American Pentecostalism during its initial phase. In fact, the understanding of tongues as an eschatological sign and as a legitimization of the missionaries’ end-time message regarding the imminent return of Christ only lasted through 1908-9[16] (as several returned to their home country “in disappointment and failure”[17]), although Parham never abdicated from this doctrine.[18] From about 1909, tongues were redefined as a ‘heavenly language’ (now understood as glossolalia), although God, exceptionally, might give somebody a human language they had never learned naturally (xenolalia), as was the case with the 120 believers on the Day of Pentecost. This redefinition of the purpose of tongues speech was not published from the rooftops, though, and gradually people seemed to forget that the concept of missionary tongues was not “an aberration entertained only by a few extremists”, but “rather, a fundamental and nearly universal notion during the first few years of the movement.”[19] For this reason, when Anderson in his Vision of the Disinherited claimed that not tongues, but millenarianism, was Pentecostalism’s most significant characteristic during its earliest phase, his thesis was considered groundbreaking. How could Gunnarson, accidentally so to speak, have hit the nail on the head in 1928 with an identical thesis if it were not for the fact that he was right? For both Barratt and the American Pentecostalists, to quote Anderson, “speaking in tongues and healing were subordinate elements in what was first and foremost a millenarian movement.”[20]

Gunnarson was a trained theologian and minister within the Lutheran state church of Norway, but although his purpose was to inform, he had no intention of writing an academic treatise. For that reason, he did not defend his thesis with literary references. As already mentioned, his book dealt with millenarianism in a general sense, and Pentecostalism was only briefly referred to in the beforementioned footnote. Consequently, the book, which remains out of print, has hardly been known among Norwegian Pentecostals. Nils Bloch-Hoell, however, in his 1956 dissertation on Norwegian Pentecostalism, mentions the book and quite arrogantly dismisses the validity of the author’s claim. Bloch-Hoell agrees with Gunnarson that eschatology has always been an important doctrine within Pentecostalism, but not that it takes center stage in Pentecostalism’s belief system. In 1964, a modification of Bloch-Hoell’s dissertation was published in English, and the author’s criticism of Gunnarson was maintained. Bill Faupel, in his The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought (1996), who wrote: “in agreement with Robert Mapes Anderson […] [with focus] on the central importance of eschatology for understanding American Pentecostalism,”[21] complements Anderson’s thesis stating that the “millenarian belief system [within American Pentecostalism] resulted from a paradigm-shift which took place within nineteenth-century Perfectionism.”[22]

Neither Anderson nor Faupel credits Gunnarson as the originator of their thesis. It does not require much creativity to have a competent linguist translate Gunnarson’s footnote into English and thereafter make the thesis one’s own. To begin with, there is nothing wrong doing so, because both Anderson and Faupel provide invaluable insights into American Pentecostalism which is without a doubt a product of their own original research. But especially considering the academic breakthrough of Anderson’s thesis, Gunnarson should have been duly credited. Faupel did credit him, not in his 1996 publication, however, but in his lengthier Ph.D. dissertation from 1989, stating that Gunnarson’s thesis “available only in [the Norwegian language] remained unknown to the English-speaking world until 1964 when The Pentecostal Movement, written by a fellow Norwegian, was translated. The author, Nils Bloch-Hoell, briefly considered and then rejected Gunnerson’s [sic!] contention: ‘This is not correct. Eschatology is certainly a necessary part of the Pentecostal message. It is a consequence of the Biblicism of the Movement, and it is also in accordance with the fancy for the extraordinary and perturbing. Apart from this, eschatology in itself does not appear to have assumed any unusual importance.’”[23] Bloch-Hoell also made it easy for the two Americans locating Gunnarson’s Norwegian thesis, footnoting it after having stated to be in disagreement with “Th. Gunnarson when he claims that the Pentecostal preaching is first of all eschatological.”[24]

It is not surprising that Bloch-Hoell rejected Gunnarson’s claim. After all, Gunnarson did not reveal any literary sources – he just stated that “Barratt writes”. And how could Bloch-Hoell have known about the subtle redefinition of the purpose of tongues-speech as long as trained American academicians seem to have depended on Gunnarson for the formulation of their own thesis?[25] And Faupel was even born within Pentecostalism in the sense that his parents were participants in the Latter Rain movement.[26]

Even though I have been unable to track down explicit statements by Barratt in his publications that he initially subscribed to the missionary tongues concept, I have no reason to doubt the validity of Gunnarson’s claim. Maybe there are still readable sources at the National Library in Oslo which may prove Gunnarson true, but I have not found them. For lack of substantial evidences, I will instead argue in favor of Gunnarson’s thesis, partly leaning on Barratt’s implicit statements and partly on  available historical information from his encounter with American Pentecostalism until he arrived in Norway in December 1906.

I have already touched on the fact that Parham’s eschatological message was passed on to his followers. Admittedly, Robeck is hesitant about whether Seymour remained loyal to the doctrine of missionary tongues much longer than 1907: “Initially Pastor Seymour had agreed with Parham’s position that tongues were actual human languages, given for missionary use. But by mid-1907 he seemed to distance himself from Parham on the issue.”[27] But we must remember that Barratt’s exposure to Pentecostalism occurred in 1906. And we do not yet know whether Gunnarson referred to a Barratt source written at approximately the same time. Besides, it was not common knowledge that Seymour was undergoing a theological shift.

Barratt had left for the U.S. in September 1905[28] with the purpose of raising funds for his City Mission in Christiania (Oslo). The fundraising effort proved to be a failure, though, and while finding lodging at A.B. Simpson’s Alliance House at 250 W. Forty-fourth Street in New York City, he was given a copy of the first issue of Seymour’s Apostolic Faith magazine from Azusa Street in Los Angeles. This particular issue was published in September 1906, and Barratt initiated his correspondence with Azusa Street staff workers that very same month. It must be remembered that at this time everybody among the Pentecostals subscribed to the eschatological message of Christ’s imminent return and to tongues-speech as missionary tongues, whose purpose was to give legitimacy to their eschatological message. Barratt received six letters from Throop, Cook, Lum, and Irwin, respectively, plus the one from Seymour already referred to.[29] And when Barratt during a service in Maude William’s mission at 250 W. 14^th Street[30] in New York City November 15, was prayed for by her and later that evening by Lucy Leatherman and an unknown Norwegian man, he not only spoke in tongues, but felt certain he could distinguish between seven or eight different languages.[31] He most certainly must have referred to recognizable human languages, because the Pentecostal identification of tongues as primarily a ‘heavenly language’ was not known until a few years later.

Already in August 1906, however, Barratt had met with Anders Gustaf Johansson (Andrew G. Johnson), who had not only received ‘Spirit baptism’ in Los Angeles, but like Barratt would do in November, was convinced that he under inspiration had spoken several human languages. They both found lodging at the Alliance House on W. Forty-fourth Street, and Barratt’s claim that he at the time knew nothing about Azusa Street and that Johansson did not share a word about his personal experiences there, seems anything but probable, especially since Johansson claimed the opposite.[32] As far as I can determine, Barratt was probably the one who lied.

The Azusa Street believers soon spread the Pentecostal message, not only to surrounding towns, but also all across the nation. Alfred Goodrich and Lillian Garr were the first oversees missionaries who went out from Azusa Street in July 1906, leaving for India in January 1907.[33] They were soon followed by others. Robeck believes that Lucy Leatherman functioned as a coordinator of a “missionary sending strategy” to Africa. Around December 1,[34] ten “first-time [Pentecostal] missionaries” (and three small children) arrived in New York City. Even though they had departed from Azusa Street “at different times, between August and November”, their arrival in New York City seemed fairly coordinated, and they were treated “as a single group”. According to Robeck, they stayed at the Alliance House (at least some of them, and the others close to it) where Barratt was lodging. And “they all worshipped together at the Union Holiness Mission at 351 West Fortieth Street, a small African American congregation led by Elder Sturdevant.”[35]

Who were these missionaries? The best well known of them, naturally, was Lucy Farrow, the African American Holiness pastor in Houston who had introduced Seymour to Parham and who was later invited to Los Angeles to assist Seymour at the Bonnie Brae prayer meetings, and subsequently at the Azusa Street meetings. It is also interesting to note that Julia Hutchins (with her husband Willis), the founder of the African American Holiness assembly on 1604 Ninth Street in Los Angeles, where Seymour had been invited as a pastor because she felt a missionary call to Liberia, was among the ten missionaries now heading for Africa. Although she had felt the obligation to “lock the door” on Seymour after he had started to preach about tongues speech as the initial evidence of one’s having received ‘Spirit baptism’, she had obviously been won over to the Pentecostal side. Notable among the missionaries were also Samuel and Ardella Mead, former Methodist missionaries to Angola for some twenty years. According to Robeck, they were “often mentioned as helping to identify [alleged human] languages spoken [in tongues] at the [Azusa Street] mission – though they were not alone in doing so.”[36] And George Batman eagerly testified that “God had given him six languages and instructed him to go to Monrovia [capital of Liberia].”[37] Barratt not only had the opportunity of eighteen days of fellowship with some of them in New York City, at least from November  21 until they set sail for England on December 8, en route for Africa, but he was actually a fellow passenger on RMS Campania. This implies twenty-five days of fellowship and mutual interaction with the Azusa Street missionaries from they arrived in New York City until the British ocean liner arrived in Liverpool on December 15.[38]

It would indeed seem strange if Barratt were capable of distinguishing between the Pentecostal experience (speaking in tongues) and the Pentecostal end-time message since those things went hand in hand. The Azusa Street missionaries were confident that God had endowed them with the gift of tongues so that they could preach to the natives in Liberia[39] and Angola[40], respectively, and Barratt expressed no reservations when referring to his encounter with them.[41] Neither did he criticize the concept of missionary tongues in his forthcoming books. In fact, he remained just as silent about this issue as the leaders of American Pentecostalism were after the purpose of tongues-speech around 1909 was redefined from being a human language meant for missionary preaching to being primarily a celestial one.[42]

Considering Barratt’s intense exposure to zealous missionary tongues evangelists where he received the experience without expressing reservations towards the theology which lay behind it, combined with the fact that Gunnarson gave an exact representation of what constituted the original Pentecostal end-time message, even claiming to be quoting a written Barratt source at a time (1928) when almost everybody, both insiders and outsiders within the United States, seemed to have forgotten what the message was all about, I believe there is a sufficient basis for considering Gunnarson a reliable source. Posterity has proven him correct as far as his assessment of what constituted the original Pentecostal message is concerned. Nothing seems to suggest that he possessed firsthand insights into American Pentecostalism per se, which again suggests that his only source was Barratt, which, in turn, strengthens the validity of Gunnarson’s claim that Barratt also, when he wrote what Gunnarson leaned on, subscribed to the same eschatological foundation as his American mentors in that respect had done. I also believe this article has succeeded in proving, in agreement with Faupel’s reference to Gunnarson’s book in his own Ph.D. dissertation from 1989, that Gunnarson is the originator of the millenarian thesis which both Anderson and Faupel built on and expanded. For that he should be duly credited.