Sierra 1

Oneness Pentecostalism on the U.S. Mexico Border

A Historiographical Approach

Eclipsed by the histories and historiographies of wars and politics, religion tends to take a

latter place on the academic scale of relativity. If religion has this place on the academic scale

what of denominational histories? In American Denominational History: Perspectives on the

Past, Prospects for the Future, Keith Harper as well as other historians lay out some of the issues

in said histories and propose a broad historiography for various mainstream Christian

denominations in the United States. In the introduction as Harper outlines some of the authors in

denominational history he lays out some of the issues proposed by Robert Bruce Mullin and

Russell E. Richey’s Reimagining Denominationalism: Interpretive Essays. As Harper puts it:

Mullin and Richey note that denominational histories are notorious for two tendencies…

On the one hand, they tend to be written by denominational “insiders” for denominational

insiders. Celebratory and triumphal, this literature recounts how great men in bygone eras

vanquished heresy hip and thigh to preserve “pure” Christianity… On the other hand, even when

denominational historian tried to write for “outsiders,” they tended to produce uneven works that

lacked depth and contextualization.[1]

Although this may be true, it must be noted that most if not all histories are biased none

the less. However, in the midst of these biased interpretation of sources there is fact and truth. To

find the fine line between the realities of the historical accounts and the mythological

understanding of these histories, historians must be able to have both insight and be willing to be

analytical of these denominations. The responsibility of writing these histories and

historiographies though must be in the hands of denominational historians.

Sierra 2

In this case, this paper brings forth the denominational historiography of Oneness

Pentecostalism in particular. The main emphasis of this paper is to give a brief historiography of

Oneness Pentecostalism, and a historiography of Pentecostalism on the U.S.-Mexico Border.

This historiography is well intertwined with the overall historiography of Pentecostalism,

particularly when working with Cerillian methodology (which will be explained).

Oneness Pentecostal Historiography

Introduction

Augustus Cerillo is the first to divide Pentecostal historiography into four distinctive types:

the providential/theological, the functional, the historical, and the multicultural/multiethnic.[2]

This innovation in Pentecostal scholarship came in the late 1990’s however Pentecostal

scholarship had been around since the 1970’s. As Cerillo has observed, not many Pentecostals

saw a need for explanations for the rise and history of Pentecostalism. Some of the books that we

have today from the mid-century of the rise of Pentecostalism deal more with chronicling

individual denominations rather than providing a historical overview of the movement. This

plays in to what Mullin and Richey wrote, it was during this time that denominationalism was

romanticized and various books on denominational history was writted, particularly on

Pentecostalism. The last decade however has seen a rise in academic historical research of

Pentecostalism and its various denominations.

In this historiographical paper I will apply what I have dubbed as the Cerillian method to

Pentecostalism in the United States, emphasizing on the rise of the Oneness Pentecostal

Movement also known as the Jesus Only Movement. For the sake of this essay I will arrange the

Sierra 3

historiographical types as follows: the providential, historical roots, multicultural/multiethnic,

and finally the functional. This way of arranging the historiographical emphasis seems the most

beneficial when dealing with the oneness movement.

The Cerillian method identifies the historical roots of Pentecostalism as a continuance of

the Wesleyan Holiness movement. It reveals the “complicated institutional, theological and

experiential strands that ultimately eventuated in twentieth-century Pentecostalism.”[3] The

providential approach sees the rise of Pentecostalism as a form of divine intervention where God

is the reason for the rise of Pentecostalism. The multiethnic/multicultural aspect aims toward the

importance of African-American impulses within Pentecostalism and seeks to comprehend this

phenomenon in light of African-American culture and contributions. And finally the functional

approach sees the “function of Pentecostalism as a means by which psychologically maladjusted

migrants in the new American cities recreated the religious habitus of their origins or in other

ways found in religion a psychological antidote to their own disorientation and

marginalization.”[4] It is in this functional approach that we will be able to find the traces of

borderland’s Pentecostal historiography. After this has been explained, this essay will transition

into what can be known as Pentecostalism beyond la frontera and the rise of Spanish dominated

ministries in parts of Latin America and to an extent, the African continent.

Pentecostalism’s Providential Approach

According to Cerillo’s providential approach there are those who see the rise of

Pentecostalism as a form of divine intervention and an end times revival. This eschatological

Sierra 4

understanding of Pentecostalism however can be divided into two groups: (1) those that see the

new Pentecost as a completely divine and (2) those who understand Pentecostalism in light of

human history. In a historiographical overview Cerillo states:

A fundamental problem with respect to the history of American Pentecostalism is the question of

the movement’s origins during the early decades of the twentieth century. Pioneer students of

Pentecostalism, including “participant-observers” and a later generation of Pentecostal ministers

and church leaders, generally saw little need to seek explanations for their movement’s beginnings

within the historical process, nor did they search for causal connections between Pentecostalism’s

emergence and a turn-of-the-century American context of profound socioeconomic, political, and

religious transformations. Instead these early writers, although not entirely unaware of the role of

human agency in history, largely viewed Pentecostalism’s arrival as a providentially generated,

end-time religious revival fundamentally discontinuous with 1,900 years of Christian history.[5]

One book that reflects Pentecostalism’s providential roots is Suddenly… From Heaven by Carl

Brumback. Few others have been written, however this providential notion did not go beyond the

first half century of Pentecostalism. With the rise of Pentecostal scholarship, the shift in the

history of Pentecostalism was aimed towards a more historical analysis rather than a theological

one.

Historical Roots

Although its historical origins and its place in history is rarely disputed, historians have not

always known what to do with the movement.[6] In The Challenge of the ‘Sects’ Henry P. Van

Dusen suggests that it is possible to divide Pentecostalism as a third variant of Christianity along

with Catholicism and Protestantism. Historically, the Protestant movement was established as a

result of theological and administrative tensions within the Catholic Church. Because of these

disagreements Martin Luther and other Catholic clergy decided to separate. Pentecostalism on

the other hand is separate from mainline Protestantism in the sense that Pentecostals feel they

have a new spiritual understanding of Christian theology. Van Dusen states:

Sierra 5

But it is not beyond possibility that future historians, looking back in a perspective which we

cannot possess, will declare that what is taking place under our eyes today is a new Reformation,

comparable to that of the sixteenth century, from which will emerge a third major type and branch

of Christendom, alongside of and not incommensurable with Roman and Orthodox Catholicism

and historic Protestantism, a principal permanent variant of Christianity.[7]

This separation between main line Protestantism and Pentecostalism is seen by Van Dusen as a

type of reformation. Although the majority of Pentecostals share a similar administrative style as

followed by Protestants, its ecstatic worship practices are considered as radical evangelicalism.

Within Pentecostalism in itself there is a theological separation, there are Oneness

Pentecostals who believe that in order to be saved one can only call on the Name of Jesus as is

stated in Acts 2:38 and 4:12 and there are Trinitarian Pentecostals who follow the Trinitarian

teaching of mainline Protestantism and baptize in accordance to Matthew 28:19. Oneness

Pentecostalism has the greater chance of being considered a third variant of Christendom in

accordance with what Van Dusen is saying because Oneness theology, belief and practice is

radically different from that of mainline Protestantism and theologically different from

Trinitarian Pentecostalism. Grant Wacker, a prolific writer and historian from the Assemblies of

God (a Trinitarian Pentecostal church) states that the first generation Pentecostals presented

themselves as a church with a definitive break from not only the Protestant church but also any

other Christian sect that has come before.[8]

Whether or not Pentecostal, Christian and other historians will in fact place

Pentecostalism as a separate branch on its own still remains to be seen but it cannot be denied

that the movement has its origins among Protestant churches and therefore has a Protestant

system of leadership and organization.

The roots of Pentecostalism are found in the Wesleyan Holiness Movement (which was

product of the Second Great Awakening) of the Nineteenth Century in the United States. The

Sierra 6

roots of Pentecostalism as a result of the Protestant movement has not been disputed, however its

current place in Christian history is in disputed. While some historians argue that Pentecostalism

is merely a chapter in the history of the Protestant Church, others have begun to argue that

Pentecostalism is in itself a separate player in the History of Christianity in general.

The Wesleyan Holiness Movement’s doctrine was based on its notion of the “Four-fold

Gospel” which included: personal salvation, Holy Ghost Baptism, divine healing, and

dispensational premillennialism.[9] What separated Pentecostalism from the Wesleyan Holiness

Movement were glosolalia (speaking in tongues) and the place of glosolalia in the salvific

plan.[10] This historical notion is not disputed, however what is disputed is its foundational

origins.

Joe Creech first raises the perception that the Azusa Street Revival’s role in the history of

Pentecostalism has been overly emphasized and has dwarfed the importance of the revivals that

preceded it. [11] He states, “in the long run, they gave rise to the central myth of origin for

almost every Pentecostal denomination. Briefly stated, this myth of origin, which has persisted

until the present, has in one way or another identified the Azusa Street Revival of 1906 to 1909

as the central point from which the world wide Pentecostal movement emerged.”[12] He goes on

to say that this mythic understanding of the place of Azusa Street has permeated and has caused

a bias among historians, sociologist, and theologians. But to what extent do his ideas have

validity?

Dale T. Irvin, author of Pentecostal Historiography and Global Christianity: Rethinking

the Questions of Origins, stated in his work that one of the debates of within Pentecostal studies

in North America has been the question of who should get credit for being the “founding father”

Sierra 7

of the modern Pentecostal Movement.[13] Two schools of thoughts clash in this area, the

Parhamians and the Symourians.

The Parhamian School opts to give Charles Fox Parham the credit of “founding father”

because of his theological innovation to the Wesleyan Holiness doctrine. As was previously

mentioned the Wesleyans believed in the fourfold gospel which included: personal salvation,

Holy Ghost Baptism, divine healing and dispensational premillennialism. Parham went on to

“formulate the distinctive doctrine that speaking in other tongues was, according to Acts 2, the

biblical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Tying this back to Creech’s argument, the

interesting fact is that Parham is historically responsible for the Topeka, Revival of 1901. It was

from Parham’s Topeka based Bible School that the first revival came in the twentieth century.

Because of Parham’s contribution to the movement’s central doctrinal point and because he is

responsible for the first revival, Parham gets credit for being the “father” of modern

Pentecostalism.[14]

The Seymourian School of course argues that it is William Joseph Seymour and not

Parham that should be credited as the “father” of modern Pentecostalism.[15] Another interesting

fact is that Seymour himself was a student of Parham and a co-participant of the 1901 Topeka,

Kansas Revival. Seymour was not a direct student of Parham’s Bible School. Parham was a

racist pastor and teacher but ultimately allowed Seymour to listen to his teachings from outside

of his classroom door. When the revival occurred on December 31, 1900, Seymour himself did

not receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in new tongues; though

he went on to preach that same doctrine in other churches.

Sierra 8

In 1906 Seymour was invited to preach at a Holiness church in Los Angeles, CA. There

Seymour tried to preach the new doctrine he had learned from Parham and was kicked out of the

church for doing so. Seymour was then invited to the house of one of the white congregants of

the church and he began to have services in a small house on Bonnie Brae Street there in Los

Angeles. It was there at the Bonnie Brae house that the first movements of the Holy Spirit began

and as the number of congregants grew the church was moved to a liver stable on Azusa Street

from which the revival gets its name.

Seymourians argue that “nevertheless it is from Azusa Street revival that the modern

Pentecostal Movement (as opposed to the modern Pentecostal doctrine of speaking in tongues)

first emerged as a global phenomenon. Thus Seymour is the “father” of the modern Pentecostal

Movement.[16]

Returning to Creech’s idea of Azusa superiority in the historiographical context of

Pentecostalism, if Seymour’s preaching’s came from Parham’s teachings, why does the Azusa

Revival have a greater emphasis in historical Pentecostalism? Why is Parham’s Topeka Revival

eclipsed by Seymour’s Azusa Revival? Creech offers an answer.

In order to understand the historical paradigm that developed around the Azusa revival,

the historical consciousness of Azusa’s journalistic boosters must be understood… Those early

promoters… minimalized certain elements of historical context, such as prior theological or

institutional developments at Azusa and other Pentecostal centers. In their minds, Azusa was the

epicenter of a worldwide Pentecostal revival; the Holy Spirit flowed from Azusa to spark

subsequent stirrings without human assistance.[17]

Sierra 9

Creech believes that the amount of publicity by actors from within the Azusa revival is

the cause for the view of Azusa Street as the “mythic epicenter” and starting point of the

Pentecostal movement. The Azusa Street Mission in 1906 began editing the Apostolic Faith

Magazine in which they edited hundreds of testimonials from people around the world as they

came and visited the mission. Creech states that the problem in the historicity of Azusa begins

when the “chroniclers accepted the boosters’ theological interpretations as historical fact.”[18]

In assessing the works of both Irvin and Creech there is a balanced analysis that can be

made. Creech over emphasizes that lack of representation of other Pentecostal revivals and

declares that as a reason for the Azusa supremacy. However, if other revivals, for example, the

Topeka Revival of 1901, had received as much journalistic attention as Azusa, would it be the

epicenter of Pentecostal history? The crude reality is that the Topeka Revival under Parham

would not have succeeded. Parham was a racist and he criticized the “interracial mingling and

exuberance he witnessed taking place.”[19] Parham’s racist attitude would not have allowed him

to embrace African American and Mexican American converts into his circle. His racist attitude

would not have had appealed to all the people and groups that Seymour’s Azusa Street Mission

appealed to. Another factor that can and should be taken into consideration is the fact that

Topeka is in Mid-America while Los Angeles was costal city with ports whose ships came in

from other parts of the world. It would have been and it was easy for missionaries to come in and

return to where they were ministering and now filled with the assurance of the Holy Spirit which

they came and sought. Contrary to Creech’s belief, Azusa did not gain worldwide recognition

because of its journalistic boosters (although they could be considered an asset to the

movement’s growth), it made a world impact because in its early stages it sought interracial

integration among it congregants and that is what led it to become a focal point in the history of

Sierra 10

modern Pentecostalism.

Interracial Pentecostalism

Whether you call it multiethnic, multiracial or interracial, it does not matter, the early

Pentecostal movement at Azusa had it. The Pentecostal Movement at Azusa came in at time

when Jim Crow was still a major part of the United States and its WASP culture. Azusa was a

place of scandalous ideologies because of its interracial adherents. Blacks, poor whites and even

Mexicans were a part of Seymour’s Azusa mission. Historians such as Iain MacRoberts and

Douglas Nelson have claimed that “the subversion of racial as well as gender and class barriers,

rather than the doctrine of the Spirit baptism accompanied by tongues, constituted the core of

early Pentecostal theology.” [20] To an extent this is a truthful statement. Various historians have

seen the Azusa Street Revival as a mirror to the first century church in which class and race had

minimal part in the church. Frank Bartleman a eye-witness historian and journalist in the Azusa

mission stated in his 1925 book, How Pentecost Came to Los Angeles, that “the ‘color line’ had

been washed away in the blood.”[21]

Although the interracial aspect of the Azusa Street mission was one to be proud of, it did

not last long. Daniel Ramirez expertly said, “If poor whites and blacks were the Jews and

Samaritans of the new Pentecost then Latinos were among the first gentiles...”[22] In a

disturbing note Bartleman tells us that in late 1909, “some poor, illiterate Mexican, who had been

saved and ‘baptized” in the spirit” were dis-fellowshipped by one of its white leaders.[23]

Bartleman compares his co-religionists actions to that of a dictator and says that it was like

“murdering the Spirit of God.”[24] Irvin tells us that by 1915 the majority of the white members

Sierra 11

had left the Azusa mission and the church went on to be a predominantly black Pentecostal

church under Seymour’s leadership.[25] This fall out in interracial equality then leads to what is

now the ethnic based, sectarian Pentecostal denominations.

Irvin argues that at this point in Pentecostal history we must have a genealogical

approach.

A genealogy, Michel Foucault reminds us, provides an account of history that engages in an

analysis of the accidental details that accompany every beginning, indeed the ‘numberless

beginnings whose faint traces and hints of color are readily seen by an historical eye’ It is, says

Charles H. Long, a ‘crawling back’ through one’s history, done so explicitly in order to recover

the multiple histories and historical identities of those who have been subjugated or oppressed.[26]

Although the Pentecostal denominations and historians have agreed upon the origins and

the roots of the Pentecostal Movement and it is clear that the early twentieth century church was

very much interracial, it is also clear that these elements did not remain. “Genealogical

investigations expose the detailed working of power that is being exercised by claims of singular

origins. They do so by uncovering hidden knowledge’s in history and tracing their dispersion

through the social domains of practice in order to bring their full subversive force into play.”[27]

Continuing with the ideas of a multiethnic/multiracial Pentecostal movement, we will see

the historiographical approach to the genealogical claims of Irvin following Cerillo’s

multiethnic/multicultural approach and emphasizing on the importance of African-American

impulses within Pentecostalism.

Dale T. Irvin author of the article Pentecostal Historiography and Global Christianity:

Rethinking the Questions of Origin states that the Symourians (which were mentioned in the

previous section) “locates the roots of Pentecostalism firmly in the back church tradition in North

America, and specifically in the tradition of spirituality that reaches back to slave religion…”[28]

Sierra 12

“A considerable consensus of scholarship has come to view the emergence of

Pentecostalism in the U.S. as rooted in the American revivalism and Black spirituality prevalent

in the early twentieth century.”[29] African American, Negro spirituals shaped the Pentecostal

movement, in particular its liberation theology and its liturgy. “These spiritual have had a

positive impact on black homiletics, as many black preachers have focused their sermons on the

notion of freedom from fear, humiliation, oppression, subjugation, and diminishment as a way

out of society’s confinement.”[30] W.E.B. du Bois says in his book, The Souls of Black Folk,

“The road wandered from our rambling log-house up the stony bed of a creek, pas wheat and

corn, until we could hear dimly across the fields a rhythmic cadence of song, - soft, thrilling,

powerful, that swelled and died sorrowfully in our ears.”[31]

Dove Stephen states in the Pneuma journal article, Hymnody and Liturgy in the Azusa

Street Revival, 1906-1908 that “…from the first century up though modern Christian

communities, church history is replete with examples of the significance of music as a tool for

developing both theology and practice.”[32] In Their Souls Made them Whole author, Rev.

Solomon Iyobosa Omo-Osagie II states:

The historian, Joe William Trotter, Jr., has posited that, "the creation of slave songs was a

dynamic social and cultural process. African Americans adopted white hymns and folk songs but

changed the words, musical structure, and mode of performance to fit their own vision —for

example, by using African call-and response patterns, which linked the individual to the

larger.. .community"[33]

This idea of communal worship has been passed down and is seen today in many Protestant and

Pentecostal churches. The following section will give a brief introduction to the Hispanic

adoption of music and liturgy in their movement.

Sierra 13

Pentecostalism and Functionality:

An Analysis of the Latino Apostolic Movement

Cerillo identifies the “function of Pentecostalism as a means by which psychologically

maladjusted migrants in the new American cities recreated the religious habitus of their origins

or in other ways found in religion a psychological antidote to their own disorientation and

marginalization.”[34] The idea of the function of Pentecostalism can not only re-adjust migrants,

but immigrants as well. This section will focus on how Spanish speaking immigrants were able

to adjust themselves in a growing American society.

As Anglos entered the various southern regions which had at one time been dominated by

Catholic Mexican believers, these migrants came in ready to spread their various Protestant

faiths.

In the 1996 documentary, Nuestro Canto… Our Song: Apostolic History and Music from

1906 to Today, Daniel Ramirez states:

If Poor Blacks and Whites were the Jews and Samaritans of the new Pentecost, then Latinos were among its first Gentiles. The Mexican, abandoned by the Catholic Church, condescended to by

main line Protestantism and discouraged by the anomean anonymity to which an expanding

capitalism consigned him, doubtless found a refreshing and encouraging place of spiritual rest in

the Azusa described by eye-witness historian and journalist, Frank Bartleman.[35]

The Spanish speaking population of Los Angeles, California had been displaced after the “Anglo

invasions” of the 19th century. The Mexican populations were now strangers in what had been

their own home land and they were now consigned to the heavy Latino Sonora Town in Los

Angeles. The proximity of the Azusa Revival to Sonora Town ensured an out pour of revival

among Mexicans and Mexican Americans.[36]

Sierra 14

The introduction of Pentecostalism to Latinos led to loss of membership among Roman

Catholics and main-line Protestantism. However, not all Latino Pentecostals are the same, as is

recorded by Gaston Espinosa:

They differ in theology (Trinitarian vs. Oneness), indigeneity (Anglo-American affiliated vs.

indigenous Latino), language (English and Spanish vs. Spanish only), denominational identity

(denominational vs. independent non-denominational), rationality (the New York City-based

Assembly of Christian Churches vs. the Texas-based Latin American Council of Christian

Churches vs. the California-based Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus), social

attitudes (pacifist oriented Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus vs. just-war oriented

Assemblies of God), and gender attitudes (non-ordination for women like the Apostolic Assembly

of the Faith in Christ Jesus vs. full ordination for women in the Assemblies of God vs. ordination

restricted to pastoring, teaching, and preaching but no weddings, funerals, and baptisms in the

Latin American Council of Christian Churches).[37]

These differences in religious ideology what has allowed Latinos to choose what teaching they

want to believe, follow, and practice.

The dominant group among Latino Oneness Pentecostals historically has been the

Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus (AAFCJ) (in the USA) and the Iglesia

Apostolica de la Fe en Cristo Jesus (IAFCJ) (in Mexico) , respectively. In his book, La Serpiente

y la Paloma, Dr. Manuel J. Gaxiola calls the IAFCJ the oldest indigenous Pentecostal

denomination of Mexico.[38] Philip R. Stover, author of Religion and Revolution in Mexico’s

North: Even Unto Death… Tengamos Fe, seems to want to refute Gaxiola’s analysis by stating

that the IAFCJ “claims to be the oldest, truly indigenous Protestant denomination… in the

Republic of Mexico”[39] however he does not offer a second opinion on the matter.

“The establishment of a Mexican Oneness Pentecostal movement in Los Angeles and its

growth throughout the borderlands and Mexico by 1912 signaled that Mexican converts

established churches and spread the Oneness message independently.”[40] These Mexican

Oneness Pentecostals sought out converts from among friends and family who were either

Roman Catholic or belonged to a Protestant Church. In his 1931 book, The Mexican Immigrant:

Sierra 15

His Life Story, sociologist Manuel Gamio interviews a man by the name of Alonso Galvan who

gives an observation of Apostolics.

Interviewer: “What is the religion which has the most followers in the cities where there are

Mexicans, that is to say, what is the principal religion among the Mexicans in the places in Texas

which you have visited?”

Galvan: “I would say that the majority are Catholics, but it would be better to say those who are

half-educated belong to that religion while the others, the majority, don’t have any religion, for

they are very ignorant. I have noticed that the majority of our countrymen are allowing themselves

to be guided by the Protestantes, by any religious sect. One of these sects which has mad the

greatest head-way is that of the so-called Apostolicos, which the Mexicans call the Aleluyas. The

preachers of that set say that they are the sons of Christ and they heal by means of prayer. They

are the ones that exploit the Mexicans the most, for the Mexicans think that these preachers have

special faculties and that they will be healed by means of prayer. But the Mexicans who don’t

either go to church of care anything much about religion are very numerous.”[41]

The comment made about the Apostolicos reflects the religious xenophobia in the majority

Roman Catholic Mexican and Mexican-American religious spectrum. “Latino Pentecostalism

was held in low regard by Protestant and Catholics alike because it was perceived as a religion of

shallow theology, excessive emotionalism, and ephemeral importance.”[42] Glossolalia, or

speaking in tongues, as well as ecstatic worship were uncomfortable to the more traditional

presbyter and Episcopalian style of church liturgy. Divine Healing was also something that

seemed unnatural to various people; however it was though Divine Healing that many people

came to convert to the Pentecostal Apostolic movement. Arlene Sanchez Walsh states:

The centrality of the Pentecostal experience of speaking in tongues and divine healing were

stressed… as experiences vital to a full faith life. That, coupled with the unique doctrine of

Oneness, provided Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans more religious choices that

demonstrate that very early in the Pentecostal movement a different religious identity was being

created within these small but vital religious communities.[43]

This Mexican and Mexican American religious experience helped the IAFCJ and the

AAFCJ reach out to those in need. In his book, Christians at the Border Daniel Carroll states

that “Hispanic immigration is labled a ‘flood,’ a ‘rising tide’ or a ‘horde,’ or an ‘invasion.’”[44]

In returning to Cerillo’s idea of “immigrant/migrant adjustment” in American cities a true

Sierra 16

statement is made by a South Texas pastor and ex-Presidential Bishop of the AAFCJ, Benjamin

Cantu:

Nowadays, as back then, our churches are being filled with people from other countries, who lack

orientation and fellowship. The church befriends them, invites and brings them in. They feel the

warmth of fellowship that they miss from their friends back home. Thus, the church becomes a

refuge, a place of gathering and the people come and they are filled.[45]

As is stated by Cerillo, and as seen in this analysis, the church aids in the adjustment and

readjustment to American life, particularly in the early twentieth Century.

In reference to the previous section and in regards to the adaptation of immigrants to U.S.

society, it is important to note that Mexicans and Mexican-American have never truly been able

to adjust, however, they do adapt. Like the Negro spirituals and the early black Pentecostal

church, music and liturgy was and is an important factor in the Latino Pentecostal movement. Dr.

Daniel Ramirez gives this analysis on Latino music:

Borderlands Pentecostal composers drew liberally from mundane agricultural metaphors, such as Vamos a la Siembra (Let’s all go to the Sowing) and El Sembrador (The Sower); bakeries; barren

and flowery landscapes such as Rosa de Saron (Rose of Sharon) and Como la Primavera (As the

Springtime); and even railroads and trains, as in El Tren del Evangelio (The Gospel Train). The

sweet emotive wells of matriarchy and maternity inspired numerous elegies, such as Mi Madre

Oraba por Mi (My Mother Prayed for Me). The bitter fruit of poverty, in hymns such as Tu Eres

Refugio del Pobre (You are the Refuge of the Poor), fed scathing prophetic and social commentary

in hymns such as Profecia de Habacuc (Prophecy of Habakkuk). Composers wrapped entire

biblical passages in corrido and decima forms, a practice essential for the improved general and

biblical literacy of a community long denied ready access to the scriptures.[46]

The ability to minister though music became an essential part of the Latino Pentecostal

experience especially in in the area of evangelism. Walsh goes on to say that “The Oneness

movement, and consequently the Apostolic Assembly, grew because it constantly came back to

its roots to seek out converts.”[47]

Not only did Latino Pentecostal ministers return to preach in the fields, but they also

ministered through music there. This idea of music out in the fields is one that inspired others,

Sierra 17

and in particular, Cesar Chavez. In his autobiography Chavez gives detail to his experience with

the apostolic church in Madera, CA. He says:

So in that little Madera church, I observed everything going on about me that could be useful in

organizing. Although there were no more than twelve men and women, there was more spirit there

than when I went to mass where there were two hundred. Everybody was happy. They all were

singing. These people were really committed to their beliefs, and this made them sing and clap and

participate. I liked that. I think that’s where I got the idea of singing at the meetings. That was one

of the first things we did when I started the Union.[48]

The importance of music and corridos among Mexicans and Mexican-Americans is great

and that is what has helped the AAFCJ and the IAFCJ attract parishioners to their churches both

in Mexico and in the United States.

As the study of Mexican-Americans, Hispanics and Latinos expands as well as the study

of the U.S.-Mexico Border, there is a chance that the study of religious tendencies and practices

of these groups will also increase. In recent years there has been a greater number of

denominational histories being written and as that has begun to occur, there also needs to be a

historiography done to lay the ground work for Pentecostal academia and intellectualism.

Bibliography

Sierra 18

Anderson, Allan. "The Origins of Pentecostalism and its Global Spread in the Early Twentieth

Century." Transformation 22, no. 3 (2005): 175-185.

Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus. Symposium of Apostolic Theology, 1913-2013.

Edited by Ismael Martin del Campo. Rancho Cucamonga: Department of Christian Education,

2013.

Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus, Inc. 50 Aniversario de la Asamblea Apostolica

de la Fe en Cristo Jesus, 1916-1966. Rancho Cucamonga: Secretaria de Educacion Cristiana ,

2001.

—. Himnario de Consolacion. Rancho Cucamonga: Secretaria de Educacion Cristiana , 2005.

Assemblies of God. "The 1913 Worldwide Camp Meeting." Heritage 3, no. 1 (1983): 1, 4-5.

Avalos, Hector. Introduction to the U.S. Latina and Latino Religious Experience. Boston: Brill

Academic Publishers, Inc. , 2004.

Bartleman, Frank. How Pentecost Came to Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Frank Bartleman , 1925.

Carroll, Daniel M. Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Cerillo, Augustus. "Interpretive Approaches to History of American Pentecostal Origins."

Pneuma 19, no. 1 (1997): 1-2.

Cerillo, Augustus. "The Beginnings of American Pentecostalism: A Historiographical

Overview." In Pentecostal Currents in American Protestantism , by Edith L. et.al. Blumhofer.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press , 1999.

Creech, Joe. "Visions of Glory: The Place of the Azusa Street Revival in Pentecostal History."

Church History 65, no. 3 (1996): 405-424.

Diaz-Stevens, Ana Maria, and Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo. Recognizing the Latino Resurgence

in U.S. Religion: The Emmaus Paradigm. Boulder: Westview Press, 1998.

Dove, Stephen. "Hymnody and Liturgy in the Azusa Street Reviva, 1906-1908." Pneuma 31

(2009): 242-263.

Du Bois, W.E.B. The Soul of Black Folks. Hazleton: Pennsylvania State University, 1898, 2006.

French, Talmadge L. ""In Jesus' Name": A Key Resource on the Worldwide Pentecostal

Phenomenon & the Oneness, Apostolic, or Jesus' Name Movement." Pneuma, 2009: 276-274.

French, Talmadge L. Early Interracial Oneness Pentecostalism: G.T. Haywood and the

Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (1901-1931). Eugene: Pickwick Publications , 2014.

Sierra 19

Gaxiola, Manuel J. "Latin American Pentecostalism: A Mosaic within a Mosaic." Pneuma , 1991:

107-129.

Gaxiola, Manuel J. La Serpiente y la Paloma: Historia, Teologia, y Analisis de la Fe en Cristo

Jesus, la Denominacion Pentecostal mas antigua de Mexico (1914-1994). Mexico : Libros Pyros,

1994.

Gonzalez, Ondina E, and Justo L Gonzalez. Christianity in Latin America: A History .

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Irvin, Dale T. "Pentecostal Historiography and Global Christianity: Rethinking the Questions of

Origins." Pneuma 27, no. 1 (2005): 35-50.

Levy, Jacques E. Cesar Chavez: Autobiography of La Causa. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press , 2007.

Martinez, Juan F, and Lindy Scott. Los Evangelicos: Portraits of Latino Protestantism in the

United States. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009.

Omo-Osiage, Solomon I. "Their Souls Made Them Whole: Negro Spirituals and Lessons in

Healing and Atonement." The Western Journal of Black Studies 31, no. 2 (2007): 34-41.

Ramirez, Daniel. "Borderland Praxis: The Immigrant Experience in Latino Pentecostal

Churches." Journal of the American Academy of Religion , 1999: 573-596.

—. "Migrating Faiths of Transgenic Danger?: Pentecostal Growth in Oaxacacalifornia." Latin

American Studies Association. Dallas: Daniel Ramirez, 2003. 1-24.

Nuestro Canto... Our Song. Directed by Jack Genaro. Performed by Daniel Ramirez. 1995.

Stover, Philip. Religion and Revolution in Mexico's North: Even Unto Death... Tengamos Fe.

Deming: Rio Vista Press, 2014.

Van Dusen, Henry P. "The Challenge of the 'Sects'." Christianity and Crisis 18, no. 13 (1958):

106.

Wacker, Grank. Heaven Below. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Walsh, Arlene S. "The Mexican American Religious Experience ." In Introduction to the U.S.

Latina and Latino Religious Experience , by Hector Avalos, 11-41. Boston: Bill Academic

Publishers , 2004.

Sierra 20

[1] Keith Harper, et. al. American Denominational History: Pespectives on the Past, Prospects

for the Future (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2008), 2.

[2] Augustus Cerillo. "Interpretive Approaches to the History of American Pentecostal Origins."

Pneuma 19, no. 1-2 (1997): 1-2.

[3] William K. Kay, “Karl Popper and Pentecostal Historiography” Pneuma 32, no. 5-15 (2010):

10.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Cerillo, Augustus. “The Beginnings of American Pentecostalism: A Historiographical

Overview,” in Pentecostal Currents in American Protestantism, ed, Edith L. Blumhofer et.al.

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 229.

[6]Dale T. Irvin. “Pentecostal Historiography and Global Christianity: Rethinking the Question

of Origins.” Pneuma 27, no. 1. (2005): 35.

[7] Henry P. Van Dusen. “The Challenge of the ‘Sects,’” Christianity and Crisis 18, no. 13

(1958), 106.

[8] Wacker, Grant. Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture (Cambridge, MA

& London: Harvard University Press, 2001), ix.

[9] Wacker, 3.

[10] Irvin, 37.

[11] Joe Creech "Visions of glory: the place of the Azusa Street revival in Pentecostal history."

Church History 65, no. 03 (1996): 405-424.

[12] Ibid, 406.

[13] Irvin, 40.

[14] Irvin, 40.

[15] Irvin, 41.

[16] Irvin, 41.

[17] Creech, 407.

[18] Ibid, 408.

Sierra 21

[19] Irvin, 41.

[20] Creech, 410.

[21] Bartleman, Frank. How Pentecost Came to Los Angeles (Los Angeles: Frank Bartleman,

1925), 54.

[22] Ramierez, Daniel.

[23] Ibid, 140.

[24] Ibid, 140.

[25] Irvin, 41.

[26] Ibid, 42.

[27] Ibid, 42-43.

[28] Irvin, 41-42.

[29] Talmadge L. French, Early Interracial Oneness Pentecostalism: G.T. Haywood and the

Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (1901-31) (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2014), Kindle.

[30] Solomon Iyobosa Omo-Osagie II, “‘Their Souls Made them Whole’: Negro Spirituals and

Lessons in Healing and Atonement” Western Journal of Black Studies 31, no. 2 (2007): 37.

[31] W.E.B. du Bois, The Souls of Black Folks (Hazleton: Pennsylvania State University: The

Electronic Classics Series, 1898, 2006), 136.

[32] Stephen Dove, “Hymnody and Liturgy in the Azusa Street Revival, 1906-1908” Pneuma 31

no. 242-263 (2009), 245.

[33] Omo-Osaige, 35.

[34] William K. Kay, “Karl Popper and Pentecostal Historiography” Pneuma 32, no. 5-15 (2010):

10.

[35] Jack Genaro, Nuestro Canto, DVD, written by Daniel Ramirez (Jack Genaro Films, 1995).

[36] Ibid.

[37] Gaston Espinosa, “Reflections on Social Science Research on Latino Religions” in Miguel

A. de la Torre and Gaston Esponosa, Rethinking Latino(a) Religion and Identity (Cleveland: The

Pilgrim Press, 2006), 39.

[38] Manuel J. Gaxiola, La Serpiente y la Paloma (Mexico: Libros Pyros, 1994) Cover.

Sierra 22

[39] Philip R. Stover, Religion and Revolution in Mexico’s North: Even Unto Death… Tengamos

Fe (Deming: Rio Vista Press, 2014), Kindle.

[40] Arlene Sanchez Walsh, “The Mexican American Religious Experience” in Hector Avalos,

Introduction to the U.S. Latina and Latino Religious Experience (Boston: Brill Academic

Publishers, Inc. 2004), 32.

[41] Manuel Gamio, The Mexican Immigrant: His Life Story (Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 1931), 223.

[42] Ana Maria Diaz-Stevens and Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo, Recognizing the Latino

Resurgence in U.S. Religion : The Emmaus Paradigm (Boulder: Westview Press, 1998), 113.

[43] Walsh, 33.

[44] Carroll, Daniel, Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church and the Bible (Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 27.

[45] Translated quote from Benjamin Cantu, former presiding bishop of the Apostolic Assembly

in, Jack Genaro, Nuestro Canto, DVD, written by Daniel Ramirez (Jack Genaro Films, 1995).

[46] Daniel Ramirez, “Alabare a Mi Señor” in Juan F. Martinez and Lindy Scott, Los

Evangelicos: Portraits fo Latino Protestantism in the United States (Eugene: Wipf & Stock,

2009), 163.

[47] Walsh, 33.

[48] Jacques E. Levy, Cesar Chavez: Autobiography of la Causa (Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press, 2007), 115-116.