[This post presents chapter 2 from my dissertation, The People of the Name: Oneness
Pentecostalism in the United States (Florida State University, 1985). This chapter focuses on the Frank Ewart - G.
T. Haywood - W. T. Witherspoon school of oneness thought which holds all “3
steps” of Acts 2:38 – repentance, water baptism administered by immersion with
the invocation of the name “Jesus,” and Spirit baptism evidenced by glossolalia
– as necessary for the “new birth” or “full salvation.” This view was rivaled
by a “2 step” view which holds the more traditional classical Pentecostal view
that “new birth” occurs at repentance and Spirit baptism is “subsequent to and
distinct from” the new birth. See Thomas Fudge’s Christianity Without the Cross: A History of Salvation in Oneness
Pentecostalism for a full discussion of these competing doctrines of
salvation.]
Excitement and uncertainty surrounded the formative years of
American Pentecostalism. Religious ecstasy bound the diverse elements that
participated in the 1906-07 Azusa revivals in Los Angeles. From these
promising, but meager beginnings, Pentecostal victories soon resounded in the
South and Midwest. Opposition, however, grew alongside the Pentecostal
congregations. Newspaper editors chided the eccentricity of ecstatic worship,
while denominational leaders rejected the Pentecostal claims of superior
religious experience. Even more foreboding, doctrinal conflict emerged from the
haze of ecstasy that before had clouded the differences among American
Pentecostals. In 1908, controversy raged over the nature of sanctification and
threatened to end the early harmony. By 1910, the fire of Azusa had been
extinguished and with it the central unifying symbol of the now scattered
Pentecostals faded. Regional organizations—many formed from existing Holiness
bodies that converted to Pentecostalism en masse—hoped to avert any
dissolution. Similarly, large camp meetings sought to consolidate the movement,
but failed to match the nationwide scale of the recent revivals. Five years
after its inception, the solidarity of Azusa was long since passed and it
appeared that American Pentecostalism would become diffuse, regional, and
ultimately powerless.
Envisioned as a nationwide organization, the Assemblies of God
sought to bind up the remnants of the Pentecostal revivals and to provide
structure for effective evangelistic, educational, and missionary action. With strong
anti-creedal sentiment, the Assemblies' founders rejected the confining
parameters of a firm doctrinal statement and emphasized instead the Pentecostal
experience—the baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by glossolalia—as the
movement's unifying factor. Officially organized in Hot Springs, Arkansas, April
2-12, 1914, the Assemblies of God emphatically pronounced that members of the
new body “do not believe in identifying ourselves as, or establishing ourselves
into, a sect, that is a human organization that legislates or forms laws and
ARTICLES OF FAITH [emphasis mine] and has unscriptural lines of fellowship and
disfellowship.”1
The purpose of the new organization was not to "legislate laws,"
"usurp authority," or "deprive rights and privileges," but
rather to "recognize scriptural methods and order for worship, unity, and
fellowship."2 Adopting only the most general statement of the
sufficiency of the scriptures in matters of faith and practice, the new
organization avoided potentially schismatic doctrinal debate. A guiding maxim
epitomized the spirit of the new body: "Endeavor to keep the unity of the
Spirit until we all come together in the unity of the faith."3
But this attitude of tolerance was soon to be tested. The New
Issue, or Oneness, Controversy challenged the organizing principles of the new
body and resulted in a crippling schism three years later. Boasting of new
revelation, several Pentecostal leaders began preaching an innovative baptismal
formula, a reevaluation of the person of Jesus, and a denial of Trinitarianism.
Many ministers converted to this new doctrine, including the Assemblies of God
General Chairman, E. N. Bell, and the most important leader in black Pentecostalism,
G. T. Haywood. When entire congregations followed these leaders, a growing rift
threatened the unity of the new body.
The New Issue controversy had been born unexpectedly and
unobtrusively amidst the excitement of the "Worldwide" Pentecostal
Camp Meeting held in the Highland Park area outside Los Angeles in April 1913.
This, and other, increasingly centralized camp meetings rallied Pentecostal
strength for evangelistic appeal. Effused with enthusiasm and eschatological hope,
these camp meetings became the seed beds of new thought that would, in turn, be
quickly disseminated throughout the movement by those in attendance.
Large crowds gathered at the "Worldwide" Pentecostal
Camp Meeting to hear the ministry of Mary B. Woodworth-Etter, the foremost
Pentecostal woman evangelist and faith healer. The grand scale of the meeting
led to an atmosphere of inquisitive, restless expectancy. An early sermon from
Jeremiah 31:22 stressed the expectancy that God was about to perform some
"new thing" among these believers. Frank J. Ewart, a later New Issue
leader who was present at the camp meeting, echoed this expectation.
The very suggestion that God was
doing a New Thing struck fire in the minds and hearts of the saints. From that
point on, one could hear expressions of hope that God would do a New Thing for
His people.4
Into this otherwise typical Pentecostal camp meeting, doctrinal
conflict appeared. R. E. McAlister, a Canadian evangelist, sparked this dissension
with a casual remark during a baptismal service. While instructing the
candidates, he compared several different understandings of the baptismal mode
and refuted various false views with the abrupt declaration that Christ's
apostles (as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles) always baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus rather than the triune formula. McAlister asserted, "The
words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were never used in the early church in
Christian baptism."5 His shocked listeners voiced a hasty
rebuke and forced McAlister to clarify his position: the apostolic use of the
name of Jesus in baptism by no means negated the effectiveness of the triune
formula.6
But this explanation did not satisfy all those present.
McAlister's statements so arrested one man, John G. Sheppe, that he spent an
entire night in prayer and Bible study, to emerge the next morning shouting
throughout the camp that God had revealed to him "the truth of baptism in
Jesus name."7 Such "revelations" were common during
the Pentecostal revivals and would later become a point of contention among
those demanding biblical confirmation of doctrinal matters. Howard Goss, a
Oneness minister, wrote
A preacher who did not dig up some
new slant on a Scripture or get some new revelation to his own heart ever so
often; a preacher who did not propagate it, defend it, and if necessary, be
prepared to lay down his life for it, was considered slow, stupid,
unscriptural.8
More significant than its impact on Sheppe, McAlister's
declaration awakened the thoughts of Frank Ewart, the earliest formulator of
New Issue ideas. Ewart, an Australian, had served as a Baptist missionary in
Victoria, but poor health forced him to settle in a pastorate near Winnipeg.
Exposed to the Pentecostal revivals, Ewart fully accepted the Pentecostal
message in Portland, Oregon in 1908. As he began to proclaim his new
understanding of Spirit baptism and glossolalia to his congregation, his
Baptist superiors dismissed him. Moving to Los Angeles, Ewart became William
Durham's assistant at the Seventh Street Mission and assumed full
responsibility for the work with Durham's death in 1912.9
When the "Worldwide" Pentecostal Camp Meeting ended,
Ewart met with McAlister to discuss harmonizing the triune baptismal formula of
Matthew 28:19 and the apostolic formula of Acts 2:38. Shortly after this
meeting, Ewart left the Seventh Street Mission and established a new work on
Main Street aided by McAlister and Glenn A. Cook. Throughout the winter of
1913-14, Ewart honored his ministerial associations, not baptizing in
"Jesus name," but all the while wrestling with his conscience and
studying the divine name in both biblical testaments. Observing that the Old
Testament designations for God were repeated concerning Jesus in the New
Testament, Ewart "discovered that Jehovah of the Old Testament was Jesus
of the New Testament." With this insight, he expounded the new baptismal
formula based on a new doctrine of the name and nature of God. Asserting that
"Jesus" was the proper and redemptive name of God, Ewart argued that
baptism must be administered in "Jesus name." The application of Old
Testament monotheism to the person of Jesus and the subsequent denial of the Trinitarian
conception of God—both implicit in Ewart's "theology of the Name"—followed
from his new understanding of the divine name and baptism.10
Ultimately, Ewart preached his first "public sermon" calling for
baptism in "Jesus name" on April 15, 1914. Realizing their own need
for rebaptism, Ewart and Cook publicly baptized one another in "Jesus
name."
Equipped with Ewart's new theology, the "Jesus name"
movement spread throughout the Midwest in late 1914 and early 1915. Ewart's
periodical, “Meat In Due Season”, which offered glorious testimonials to the
"greater blessings" received with the "new light" message,
greatly influenced this advance. Glenn Cook's evangelistic tour in January 1915
reaped many crops sown by Ewart's periodical. His initial success occurred at
Mother Mary Barnes' Faith Home in St. Louis, where the entire staff was
rebaptized.11 With this foothold, Cook pioneered revivals in
Indiana, Oklahoma, and several southern states.
The new movement made particularly important strides among black
Pentecostals in Indianapolis, Indiana. Here, L. V. Roberts and his entire
congregation submitted to rebaptism after hearing Cook. G. T. Haywood and his
congregation followed this example, with Haywood receiving a "personal
revelation" after a visit to Cook's home. J. Roswell Flower, the young
General Secretary of the Assemblies of God, sent a letter warning his good
friend Haywood to avoid this new error. Haywood replied, "Your warning
came too late. I have already accepted the message and been rebaptized."12
Many black pastors emulated Haywood's shift, bringing a substantial portion of Midwestern
black Pentecostalism into the new movement. Haywood's periodical, “A Voice in
the Wilderness”, soon replaced “Meat In Due Season” as the most widely read New
Issue publication.13
By spring 1915, the "Jesus name" movement saturated
American "Finished Work" Pentecostalism. The efforts of R. E. McAlister
and Franklin Small made inroads into Canada. Louisiana became the stronghold of
the New Issue when all the Assemblies of God ministers shifted to the new
position.14 Many key Pentecostal leaders likewise converted to the
"new light" message at this time: C. C. Hall, George B. Studd, Elmer
K. Fisher, R. J. Scott, W. T. Witherspoon, Delmer White, E. G. Lowe, W. L. Stallowes,
and Harry Morse.15
Although not fully understood, the danger of the new doctrine
became obvious to the leadership of the Assemblies of God, personified in Bell
and Flower. As the new understanding of God and the demand for rebaptism
persisted, the new movement leaned ever closer to an exclusive doctrine of
baptismal regeneration. Seeking to prove the necessity of baptism in
"Jesus name," the New Issue thinkers Haywood and Ewart first sought
to prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation in contrast to the
official Assemblies of God position. Appealing to Clarke's Commentary, which
equated the "born of" of the New Birth passage (John 3:3-5) with the
"baptized with/in" of Acts 2:38, the New Issue advocates linked the
imperative of "birth by water," or water baptism, with the command to
baptize in "Jesus name." Apparently as an afterthought, Spirit
baptism (Acts 2:38) was also linked to the imperative of "birth by the
Spirit" (John 3:5), equating for the first time the Pentecostal experience
with conversion.16 This intricate reinterpretation of passages
produced a well-defined "plan of salvation" based on Acts 2:38:
repentance, water baptism administered in "Jesus name," and Spirit
baptism evidenced by glossolalia. In the New Issue mentality, these three steps
were essential to Christian salvation and those not participating in them were
held as deficient and not truly saved. (Thus, the semantic differentiation
between "salvation" and "full salvation.") Glenn Cook's
description of "Jesus name" baptism as the "water test" of
sincerity and truth summed up the sectarian quality of the New Issue.17
As the dispute became volatile, Bell and Flower began defending
the triune formula in the pages of “Word and Witness” and the “Weekly Evangel.”
From March to July 1915, the call to moderation and orthodoxy emerged as the
official Assemblies of God position.18 These articles attacked
"Jesus name" baptism as novel, rather than as a return to apostolic
practice. Bell and Flower likewise rejected the unbiblical practice of
rebaptism and sought to discredit the claims of mass conversion to the New
Issue. Arguing that the New Issue interpretation of ecclesiastical history was
at best imaginative, Bell contended that the early church recognized a variety
of baptismal formulas and that to act "in the name of Christ" was
merely to act with his authority or in his stead. Above all, these articles isolated
the real issue as the divisiveness of a doctrine of baptismal regeneration and
the growing sectarianism of the New Issue advocates.19 These
articles provided the ammunition for the future Assemblies of God attacks on
New Issue doctrine. But within the next few months, the hierarchy of the
fledgling organization splintered and threatened the much lauded unity of the
body. Most surprisingly, Bell, the orthodox defender, defected to the New Issue
party in late July 1915.
Dismaying his colleagues, Bell submitted to rebaptism in
"Jesus name" at the Third Interstate Encampment of the Assemblies of
God in Jackson, Tennessee. With Bell and H. G. Rogers officiating, the first
services of the meeting were uninspired and the converts few. New Issue
believers in attendance vocally decried Bell's rejection of the new message as
the reason for this failure. Sorely troubled, Bell confided his doubts to Rogers
and they sent for L. V. Roberts, a New Issue evangelist, to conduct the
remainder of the meeting.
Startling success followed Roberts' sermons. Convinced by the
results, Bell and Rogers submitted to rebaptism in the apostolic formula with
sixty-eight others following their example, including eleven area pastors. The
news of Bell's rebaptism brought a curious crowd of four thousand to the final
service of the meeting.20 The swelling crowds only served to confirm
Bell's experience and sent him boldly defending the position he had once
attacked.
Bell spent the remainder of the summer fulfilling previous
ministerial obligations. In each instance, he met with area pastors, discussed
their differences, and sought permission to preach his new understanding. This
new approach met little grassroots opposition. Not surprisingly, Bell avoided
the Assemblies of God headquarters and the showdown with his fellow officials that
was sure to follow. Bell's editorial duties fell to Flower.
By late August 1915, the news of Bell's defection filtered
throughout the new body and prompted much confusion and hostility. In defense,
Bell submitted an explanatory article—entitled "Who Is Jesus Christ?:
Jesus Christ, Rediscovered as Jehovah of the Old Testament"—to both the “Weekly
Evangel” and “Word and Witness.”21 But Flower rejected this
offensive title substituting the less volatile word "exalted" in the
subtitle and omitting Bell's testimony to rebaptism. New Issue advocates
hastily charged that Flower "mutilated" the article.22
Actually Bell's article was rather tame by later New Issue
standards, but Bell played a key role in sensitizing the Assemblies' leadership
to the full scope of the debate. Following the usual pattern of comparing Old
and New Testament texts, Bell also appealed to Colossians 2:9, "For in him
[Christ] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Interpreting this
passage quantitatively, Bell understood Christ as the embodiment of the entire
Trinity rather than merely the incarnate Son and, thus, formed a middle ground
in the debate which properly "exalted Jesus," but did not deny
classical Trinitarianism.
"Who Is Jesus Christ?" brought accolades from New Issue
advocates, but intensified hostilities among the Assemblies of God leaders.
Bell tried to defuse the situation with further articles in which he argued
that he sought neither to cause division nor to force any issue of controversy
in the body.23 He also contended that his experience was not to
serve as a standard for others and urged that his example be followed only if
conscience demanded. Most significantly, the moderate Bell denounced the
"errors" associated with the New Issue: the identification of the New
Birth and water baptism and the equating of Spirit baptism and conversion.
Bell's unique stance in the New Issue became clear in these articles: although
the discussion of the divine name had led him to a new understanding of the
person of Christ, he did not promote the sectarian spirit of the movement.
Despite Bell's moderation, the Assemblies' leadership felt the
need for quick action to preserve the unity of the organization. Usurping
leadership over the lackluster interim chairman, Arch P. Collins, Flower
alerted the Executive Presbyters and arranged for a General Council in October
1915.24 Many of the movement's founders had been swept into the New
Issue (including Bell, Howard Goss, and D. C. O. Opperman), leaving the
remainder, led by Flower and J. W. Welch, to respond to the new threat. The power
politics and secret arrangements of the following year insured the ascendancy
of this group and the dominating positions of Flower and Welch in the future of
the Assemblies of God.
Labeled an "experiment in liberality,"25 the
1915 General Council convened October 1. Welch and Flower controlled the
meeting in the absence of General Chairman Collins and Assistant Chairman
Opperman. Flower called the meeting to order and arranged for the selection of
Welch as temporary chairman.26 Together, Flower and Welch pushed for
an exclusive doctrinal statement to define the boundaries of fellowship with
New Issue doctrines and adherents, of course, outside orthodox circles.
Despite several days of debate and the machinations of Flower and
Welch, the Council reached no final word regarding baptismal formula. Succinctly,
the Council refused "to attempt to bind the conscience of men on this
matter." Ministers retained "perfect liberty to baptize such persons
whose consciences are not satisfied that they have fully obeyed God in
Christian baptism."27 Carl Brumback records, "The general
conviction prevailed that all should wait patiently for another year, allowing
time for prayerful study of the Word, before reaching a definite
conclusion."28
Despite this hopeful optimism, the "experiment in liberality"
was flawed. The "spirit of Hot Springs" began to crack with the
Council's listing of doctrines disapproved by the majority. Of the five listed,
the final four directly addressed the New Issue.
1. The use of fermented wine in
the communion service.
2. The failure to distinguish
between the blood and the Holy Spirit.
3. The confusion of the New Birth
with the baptism or filling with the Spirit.
4. The identification of the
Father as the Son.
5. The identification of Christ as
the Holy Spirit.29
Also New Issue ministers received no committee appointments. Welch
officially replaced Bell as editor. Orthodox ministers replaced New Issue
sympathizers—Bell, Opperman, Goss, and B. F. Lawrence—on the Executive
Presbytery. The peace of the 1915 General Council more resembled an "armed
truce."30
New Issue advocates took this new tolerance as license to propagate
their message with greater fervor. Their renewed aggressiveness and
increasingly sectarian claims thwarted the proposed "experiment in
liberality" and moved the Assemblies' leaders to eliminate the problem
altogether. Dominated by Welch and Flower, the “Weekly Evangel” and “Word and
Witness” officially followed the Council's policy of moderation31,
but actually spoke the strongest against the New Issue.32 This
policy evoked a dire warning from Glenn Cook to Flower: "Roswell, if you fight
against this Oneness message, the whole printing plant will be a pile of junk
in six weeks."33 Tensions mounted throughout the year with
personalities clashing as often as beliefs. By summer 1916, schism was
imminent. Welch's call for an "Open Bible Council" to decide the
issue demonstrated the extent of the hostilities and the determination of the
orthodox party to end the debate.
The time has come for the
interpretation of what scriptural teaching and conduct is. The time of shaking
and solidifying is here. The great shaking has begun and all that can be
disturbed will be shaken into separation from that which is settled in God.
This will not all be done in a few days of Council, but lines will doubtless be
drawn.34
The 1916 General Council, opening on October 2, erupted in a blaze
of debate. The New Issue men boasted of a mass defection into their ranks, but
the meeting rested firmly in Trinitarian hands. Flower engineered the
appointment of a "wholly orthodox" committee, including T. K.
Leonard, S. A. Jamieson, D. W. Kerr, S. H. Frodsham, and E. N. Bell, to prepare
a doctrinal statement.35 The proposed statement of faith was
primarily the work of David Warren Kerr of Cleveland, Ohio, a shy, withdrawn
minister originally of the Christian and Missionary Alliance. After a personal
struggle with New Issue doctrine, Kerr prepared a lengthy defense of Trinitarianism,
much of which was incorporated into the "Statement of Fundamental
Truths."
When presented, this statement evoked more discussion of its
creedal nature than its specifics. Recognizing that their unique understanding
of God and demand for rebaptism stood little chance of Council approval, the
New Issue advocates focused all their efforts to block any binding doctrinal
statement and appealed to the promise of the Hot Springs Council to never
disfellowship anyone accepting the basic Pentecostal message. The Trinitarians
countered that the intent of the liberality of the Hot Springs Council was to
prevent rather than promote sectarianism. The Hot Springs Council had called
for the recognition of scriptural methods and for rules regulating "unity,
fellowship, and work," but had also called for disapproval of all
unscriptural methods and conduct—in this case, New Issue doctrine and practice.36
When their attempt to block any statement of faith failed, the New
Issue men, led most vocally by Haywood, Goss, Opperman, Roberts, Rogers, and
Ewart, voted en bloc against every portion of the statement, even those
portions with which they concurred. This stance evoked such hostility on the
Council floor that the debate drifted into a less than gentlemanly scuffle.
Deterred by the bitter words passed, the New Issue leaders recognized the
futility of any further action and withdrew from the discussion.
The 1916 General Council adopted the "Statement of
Fundamental Truths," of which roughly one-half addressed the New Issue
error. Traditional Trinitarianism, expressed in Athanasian and Augustinian
terms, predominated. Further instructions to the Credentials Committee insured
against a resurgence of any unorthodox position. With this thorough
repudiation, the New Issue ministers withdrew from the Assemblies of God,
shrinking its ranks from 585 to 429 ministers. These homeless ministers passed
from view briefly, only to reappear in new Oneness bodies as early as December
1916. Under the reins of Welch and Flower, the Assemblies of God, shaken by the
New Issue, steered back to the course of orthodoxy and stability.
The New Issue controversy, with its doctrinal and organizational ramifications,
began as an evangelical awakening of sincere minds, but soon swelled into a
numerical and doctrinal threat to the status quo unity of the Assemblies of
God. Nurtured by poor exegesis, misapplied literalism, and the lack of
sufficient rebuttal, the New Issue shifted from an academic debate concerning
the baptismal formula to a revolutionary application of monotheism to the
person of Christ, and ultimately to a rigid, exclusive doctrine of salvation.
This exclusiveness necessarily bred schism.
Formulated by Ewart and Haywood and later defended most
prominently by Andrew Urshan, the Oneness doctrine of God and the Acts 2:38
"plan of salvation" pitted sectarian claims against the non-sectarian
liberality of the Assemblies of God. Perhaps even more important than any
theoretical leadership, the New Issue evangelists—such as Cook, Roberts, Goss,
and Oliver F. Fauss—captivated the grassroots of the movement with their
sincerity and powers of persuasion. The New Issue leaders also deftly handled
the wavering position of Bell during the crucial year of conflict to the
advantage of their cause. Nevertheless, the New Issue was destined for
separation rather than success: its sectarian doctrines demanded it. The
idealized anti-creedalism of the Assemblies withstood three years of threat
before the New Issue forced the body to redefine itself in more realistic
terms. In this, the New Issue provided a great service to the Assemblies of God
by forcing a clarification of its beliefs, goals, and future direction.
_____________________
1Assemblies of God, Minutes of the General Council, 1914, p. 4.
(Typewritten.)
2Ibid.
3E. N. Bell, "There Is Safety in Counsel," Weekly Evangel, September 18, 1915, p.
1.
4Frank J. Ewart, The
Phenomenon of Pentecost (Hazelwood, Mo.: World Aflame Press, 1947), p. 104.
Three hundred sixty-four received the baptism of the Spirit here.
5Ibid., pp. 105-06.
6These statements had little effect on the meeting a whole. Miss
Woodworth-Etter, notorious for exploiting any miracle, healing, or vision,
failed to record this event. See her Signs
and Wonders God Wrought in the Ministry of Forty Years (Chicago: Herald
Press, 1916).
7Although the specific content of this "revelation" is
unclear, Sheppe sided with the New Issue and became a minister in the
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, an early Oneness body. See David A. Reed,
"Origins and Developments of the Theology of Oneness Pentecostalism in the
United States" (Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1978), p. 99.
8Ethel E. Goss, The Winds of
God (Hazelwood, Mo.: World Aflame Press, 1958), p. 155.
9For complete discussion, see Ewart, Phenomenon.
10This doctrinal development is best seen in Frank J. Ewart's Revelation of Jesus Christ (St. Louis:
Pentecostal Publishing House, n.d.).
11Particularly significant in that Missouri and Arkansas were
Assemblies of God strongholds. See Carl Brumback, Suddenly From Heaven (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House,
1961), p. 192.
12Paul Dugas, ed., The Life
and Writings of Elder G. T. Haywood (Stockton, Ca.: Apostolic Press, 1968),
p. 19.
13Robert M. Anderson, Vision of
the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1978), p. 193.
14Brumback, Suddenly, 197.
15Ewart, Phenomenon, 117.
16See the comments on John 3:3-5 in Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 4 (New York: Funk and Wagnall's,
n.d.). Compare G. T. Haywood, The Birth
of the Spirit and the Mystery of the Godhead (Indianapolis: Christ Temple,
n.d.), p. 5.
17Arthur L. Clanton, United We
Stand: A History of Oneness Organizations (St. Louis: Pentecostal
Publishing House, 1970), p. 5.
18See the following articles by E. N. Bell, "Baptized Once For
All," Weekly Evangel, March 27,
1915, p. 1; "To Act in the Name of Another," Weekly Evangel, May 8, 1915, p. 1; "The Great Outlook," Weekly Evangel, May 29, 1915, p. 1;
"The Sad New Issue," Weekly
Evangel, June 5, 1915, p. 1; and "Scriptural Varieties in Baptismal
Formula," Weekly Evangel, July
3, 1915, p. 1. See also these articles by J. R. Flower, "Editorial," Weekly Evangel, June 19, 1915, p. 1;
"Preliminary Statement," Word
and Witness, June 1915, p. 1; and "Mis-statement Corrected," Weekly Evangel, July 17, 1915, p. 2.
19A defense of Trinitarianism is notably absent from these articles.
This does not mean that Oneness studies of the divine name had yet to equate
the radical monotheism of Jehovah and the "absolute deity" of Jesus. Rather,
this shows an incomplete understanding of the issue by Bell and Flower.
20Brumback, Suddenly, 196.
21E. N. Bell, "Who Is Jesus Christ?: Jesus Christ, Exalted As
Jehovah of the Old Testament," Weekly
Evangel, August 14, 1915, p. 1 and Word and Witness, September, 1915, p. 1.
22Note especially D. C. O. Opperman's comments in Clanton's United,
p. 19.
23Note especially E. N. Bell, "There is Safety in Counsel,"
Weekly Evangel, September 18, 1915,
p. 1.
24Brumback, Suddenly, p.
198.
25This is David A. Reed's term. See his "Origins and Developments,"
p. 124.
26Welch continued to sit as chairman throughout the Council despite
Collins later appearance.
27Assemblies of God, Minutes of the General Council, 1915 , p. 5.
(Typewritten.)
28Brumback, Suddenly, p.
201.
29Assemblies of God, Minutes, 1915, p. 5.
30Brumback, Suddenly, p.
202.
31See "Controversy Discouraged," Weekly Evangel, September 18, 1915, p. 2; "Controversy
Discouraged," Word and Witness,
October 1915, p. 4; and "Editorial," Weekly Evangel, October 30, 1915, p. 2.
32See E. N. Bell, "Bro. Bell on the Trinity," Weekly Evangel, November 6, 1915, p. 1;
M.M. Pinson, "What Think Ye of Christ?," Weekly Evangel, November 20, 1915, p. 3; "The Holy Ghost as a
Person," Weekly Evangel,
November 27, 1915, p. 2; and "The Mystery of God," Weekly Evangel, May 20, 1916, p. 1.
33Brumback, Suddenly, p.
202.
34J. W. Welch, "Editorial," Weekly Evangel, June 14, 1916, p. 1.
35By this time, Bell had denounced the New Issue and reaffirmed [re-embraced]
Trinitarianism. For a Oneness response, see Clanton, United, p. 21.
36Assemblies
of God, Minutes, 1914, p. 4.