Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274 brill.

nl/pneu

“In Jesus’ Name”1: A Key Resource on the Worldwide

Pentecostal Phenomenon & the Oneness,
Apostolic, or Jesus’ Name Movement

Talmadge L. French
First Pentecostal Church (Worldwide Pentecostal Fellowship),
Durham, South Carolina 27705, USA
talmadgefrench@yahoo.com

Abstract
he review summarizes the implications of David Reed’s excellent study of Oneness Pentecostalism
as a major treatment of the movement in which the sections regarding its background, history,
and theology are equally comprehensive. Reed’s work sets the movement, not in the context of
its global expansion and impact, but within the context of its historical development amidst an
array of Evangelical-Pentecostal tensions. It characterizes the movement as a sect, rather than a
cult, and as a worldwide expression of Pentecostalism in its own right. his review, therefore,
explores Reed’s argumentation in which he explains its historical development as a movement
rooted, first and foremost, in pietism, especially Wesleyan, which used Jewish categories, similar
to the practice of early Jewish rather than Nicene Christianity. Reed contends that a tendency
towards a Jesus-centric ‘reductionism’ in Evangelicalism shaped the movement and most of its
patterns of doctrinal ‘imbalances.’ he specific setting for this influence is seen as the theology
of William Durham, specifically, and the restoration impulses of Pentecostalism, generally.

Keywords
Oneness Pentecostalism, Trinitarianism, Pietism, Evangelicalism

David A. Reed is currently Professor Emeritus of Pastoral heology and

Research at Wycliffe College, Toronto, Canada. His 1978 Boston University
dissertation, “Origins and Development of Oneness Pentecostalism in the
United States,” was certainly a landmark study of the movement which evalu-
ated, for the first time, its history and theology in necessary depth, and more
importantly, from a balanced perspective. Now, after thirty years, the dissertation

1
David A. Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”: he History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals, Journal of
Pentecostal heology Supplement Series 31 (Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2008).
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/027209609X12470371387921
268 T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274

has finally been greatly expanded and released under the title “In Jesus’ Name”:
he History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals, although the revision is so exten-
sive that the final product is more a new work than a revision. he expanded
materials are welcome additions, especially to the historical detail. Like the
original, “In Jesus’ Name” is a must-read, being among the most significant of the
few academic studies produced regarding Oneness Pentecostalism.
Many scholars and observers of the movement, in fact, have derived their
basic understanding and perspective of Oneness Pentecostalism, especially
concerning its origins and its context ‘within’ Pentecostalism, from Reed’s
works. In addition to the rather comprehensive treatment of “In Jesus’ Name”,
he has written numerous articles and papers covering varied aspects of the
movement, including the “problems and possibilities” relative to Oneness
theological positions.2 And like his many related articles and papers, and his
earlier dissertation, “In Jesus’ Name” continues to argue for the theological
legitimacy of the movement, yet from the perspective of a former participant
within the movement.
Reed’s introductory discussion handles the customary sect-cult challenges
to the movement in his usual fashion, arguing that “Oneness Pentecostalism is
a sectarian movement within the wider parameters of the Church rather than
a cult, as popular anti-cult groups and writers contend.” He continues: “It will
be argued that theologically it is a heterodox rather than a heretical move-
ment,” citing the sociological framework of Hexham and Poewe’s New Reli-
gions as Global Cultures.3 But he leaves the evaluation of these issues to the final
chapter which is entitled “Whose Heresy? Whose Orthodoxy?” he exodus of
other Oneness scholars from the movement during and after the period in
which Reed produced his original dissertation has not always resulted in such

2
David Reed, “Origin and Development of the heology of Oneness Pentecostalism in the
United States” (PhD dissertation, Boston University Graduate School, 1978). Reed was raised in
New Brunswick, Canada, within the United Pentecostal Church (now “International”), the larg-
est U.S.-based Oneness Pentecostal organization, with 237 churches currently in Canada. Cf.
also, David Reed, “Oneness Pentecostalism,” in Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der
Maas, eds., he New International Dictionary of Pentecostal Charismatic Movements (Grand Rap-
ids: Zondervan, 2002), 936-44, and “Oneness Pentecostalism: Problems and Possibilities for
Pentecostal heology,” Journal of Pentecostal heology 11 (October 1997): 73-93.
3
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 9, 344; cf. Irving Hexham and Karla Poewe, New Religions as Global
Cultures (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1997), 27-40, as well as, Rodney Stark and William Sims
Bainbridge, “Of Churches, Sects, and Cults: Preliminary Concepts for a heory of Religious
Movements,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 18:2 (1979): 117-31.
 T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274 269

characteristically favorable treatment overall.4 Nevertheless, with the piqued

interest in the expansively growing global presence of Oneness Pentecostalism,
evaluations remain mixed, but, scholarly opinion, following Reed, seems
increasingly favorable.5
Two specific aspects of the discussion related to origins, which had not been
adequately explored in any previous historical accounts, have been particularly
crucial to the overall understanding of Oneness Pentecostalism. he first of
these is the identification of the central theme of Jesus’ Name heology with
early Jewish Christian theology, and, second, the historical precision with
which the roots of Oneness identity are linked with the highly “christocentric”
milieu of evangelical piety. Documentation of the latter premise demonstrates
the nineteenth century roots of the Jesus’ Name movement within, or as a
“form” and “product” of, Pietism, especially the “influence” of Wesley. For the
most part, though, essential links to early Jewish Christianity and explications
of the relationships within pietistic Evangelicalism, as critical elements in the
understanding of the movement’s emergence, had been largely overlooked in
related studies. But in Reed’s work they are rightfully treated as central com-
ponents influencing Oneness Pentecostal development.6 hese precise concep-
tualizations of the roots of the movement are examples of the type of research
that has made Reed’s dissertation and “In Jesus’ Name” such an enduring land-
mark study.
he first of these components, that is, the identification of the Oneness
position with that of early Jewish Christian theology, relies heavily on the
interpretations of aspects of early Jewish Christian christologies in Danielou’s
he heology of Jewish Christianity and Longenecker’s he Christology of Early

4
See Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1992), and Joseph Howell, “he People of the Name: Oneness Pentecostalism in the
United States” (PhD dissertation, Florida State University, 1985). he pejorative treatment of
the movement by Edward L. Dalcour (not a former Oneness Pentecostal), A Definitive Look at
Oneness heology: Defending the Tri-Unity of God (Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
2005), is reviewed by Reed in PNEUMA: he Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 28:1
(2006): 166-69.
5
Examples include works such as Roswith I. H. Gerloff, A Plea for Black British heologies:
he Black Church Movement in Britain in its Transatlantic Cultural and heological Interaction
with Special Reference to the Pentecostal Oneness (Apostolic) and Sabbatarian Movements, 2 vols.
(New York: Peter Lang, 1992); Kenneth D. Gill, Toward a Contextualized heology for the hird
World: he Emergence and Development of Jesus’ Name Pentecostalism in Mexico (Frankfurt and
New York: Peter Lang, 1994); and Douglas Jacobsen, hinking in the Spirit: heologies of the Early
Pentecostal Movement (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2003).
6
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 1-76, chapters 1-3.
270 T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274

Jewish Christianity.7 Varied tendencies of early Jewish Christianity are noted

within nuances of Evangelical theological emphases, as for example, what
Reed characterizes as the “strong” Christological “differentiation between natures.”
And he cites numerous examples within the particular emphases and leanings
of the Keswick movement, including E. W. Kenyon’s emphasis on the name
“Jesus,” the metaphorical underpinnings of the Holiness movement, and so
forth. Although going beyond the scope of Danielou and Longenecker, Reed
suggests that such uses of “Jewish categories” in the history of the church
“recur in renewal movements,”8 and, thus, it should not be surprising that they
would resurface within Pentecostalism. Ultimately, the critical question to be
asked is that, if Jewish Christian emphases were legitimate, including varia-
tions of Name heology and suspicions regarding creedal development, in
contra-distinction to Greek categories, why can’t such a paradigm “assist in the
task of interpreting Oneness Pentecostalism within a larger theological frame-
work” today?
he other, perhaps more significant and broader, historical detail is the cen-
trality of what Reed refers to as the obvious “christocentric” tendencies of
Evangelicalism and the “discernible strand” of “Jesus-centrism” within that
tradition which impacted the early proponents of Oneness Pentecostalism. As
a practical and devotional focused theology, Jesus-centrism is depicted as a
“truncated” view of God which obscures and neglects Christ’s “identity within
the Trinity.” In this way, therefore, Reed hopes to explain the source and ratio-
nale for Oneness theology, basically, as the “proclivity” toward a sort of “chris-
tocentric reductionism” somewhat prevalent within Evangelical Christianity,
and most notably within what has been termed early ‘radical’ Evangelicalism.9
What is seen as giving rise to the movement, therefore, are these truncated
views within segments of Evangelicalism, which, when taken up, possibly
distorted or even misunderstood, and often radicalized, were championed by
these early Pentecostals. From this perspective, Oneness theological nuances
really weren’t new at all, nor were they, therefore, ‘revelations,’ regardless of
7
Jean Danielou, he Development of Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicea, vol. 1, he
heology of Jewish Christianity, ed. and trans. John A. Baker (London: Darton, Longman &
Todd, 1964), 7-9, 148, 151, 407, 46, 154-156; Richard N. Longenecker, he Christology of Early
Jewish Christianity, Studies in Biblical heology 17 (Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, 1970),
41-46, 128. Important references are made, also, to similar thought in works of Wilhelm
Bousset, Hans-Joachim Schoeps, and J. N. D. Kelly.
8
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 69, 244, 233ff; Reed implies that a strong differentiation between
natures hints of inevitable Nestorianism.
9
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 33-34; cf. Edith L. Blumhofer, he Assemblies of God: A Chapter in
the Story of American Pentecostalism, vol. 1 (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1989), 15ff.
 T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274 271

how they were perceived by the participants. “On the eve of the Oneness ‘rev-
elation,’ ” Reed argues, “most of the doctrinal elements were in place. Patterns
and themes had already been developed and debated in Holiness, Evangelical
and Pentecostal circles.”10
Along with the common historical implication of theological naiveté and,
perhaps, innocence, underlying this emphasis, the bottom line is that the
movement — like it or not, and as enigmatic as it may seem — is the undeni-
able product of Evangelicalism. Whether this is the self-conscious or self-
reflective identity of Oneness Pentecostalism isn’t explored. But clearly, as the
early proponents examined the theological horizon, they interpreted the var-
ied elements they saw within Christianity as evidence of the Spirit’s work of
restoration within sincere, humble hearts, culminating in the Pentecostal out-
pouring. In this rudimental fashion they would have considered the events
and influences which led to the reestablishment of Jesus’ name baptism no less
supernatural, and no less biblically accurate, than the Spirit’s leading them
back to Pentecost.
As proof of these influences upon the Oneness movement, Reed emphasizes
the Oneness citation of, and agreement with, key Evangelicals of the period
representative of this same proclivity and identification with elements central
to the Oneness issue, especially “Name heology.” Frank J. Ewart, though,
is the Oneness proponents who often cited such writers as E. W. Kenyon,
William Phillips Hall, John Monroe Gibson, and Arno C. Gaebelein, whereas
others rarely did. And he is the Oneness proponent cited by Reed considerably
more frequently than any other.11
hese influences are referred to by Reed as the “legacies of evangelicalism,”
but are characterized more precisely as imbalances of theology within Evan-
gelicalism which Oneness Pentecostals took for the truth and adapted as their
own version of “the faith once delivered to the saints.” In other words, they
simply were truly and radically christocentric and Jesus-centered, but in a fash-
ion which, from their own perspective, was no real, or serious, departure from
the subculture of Evangelicalism in which they were submerged and from
which they emerged as a distinct movement.

10
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 50, 135. Although these themes are covered throughout the first
section (seventy six pages), they’re revisited periodically throughout the research. Also, Reed
prefers “Evangelicalism” over “fundamentalism.”
11
Citations from early key Oneness leaders G. T. Haywood and Andrew D. Urshan, as well
as regionally influential Frank Small in Canada, are substantial. Citations from other early lead-
ers are minimal.
272 T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274

As Reed presents the theological highlights of the movement later on in the

book, these historical insights help the observer make sense of the Oneness
logic, especially their view of and approach to Scripture, since the devotional
elements which shaped their thinking and their practical theology are seen as
deriving, in a rather unsuspecting or uncritical way, from their social and spir-
itual immersion in related Holiness and Keswick networks. Of course, caution
is essential in avoiding an over-emphasis on intra-movement, socio-cultural
factors as determinative in explicating issues, just as deprivation socio-economic
theories are inadequate explanations for Pentecostal origins in general.12 It’s
also interesting that “In Jesus’ Name” shifts the emphasis from the pejorative,
from the typical, ‘from God’ dimension of the Oneness position, and, more
significantly and more controversially, from its ‘anti’ and ‘non’ Trinitarian core,
to a more ecumenical emphasis of commonality. It may very well be that the
result of this approach has had a disarming affect which, at the very least,
contributes to a greater comprehension, if not an increasing acceptance, of the
movement.
Turning to the historical section (Part II), Reed’s presentation of the his-
torical detail regarding the emergence of the movement in chapters 6-9 is
exceptional and deserves the widest possible reading. He first investigates a key
historical question, the relationship of William Durham’s theological innova-
tions to the Oneness issue, as introductory background to the understanding
of Oneness origins. Durham’s message splintered Pentecostalism and led to
the formation of the Assemblies of God, but the significance of his thought for
Oneness Pentecostals is often missed. Reed makes some valuable progress
along these lines, although further insight into Durham’s impact upon Ewart,
Haywood, Goss, and others, remains a primary consideration, as does the
significance and priority of individual influences upon the movement as a
whole. Ewart’s important role, for example, will be better understood only as
the content and influence of his early, primary source materials are distin-
guished from his much later, and more widely available, sources. But Ewart
is undoubtedly the one most influenced by Durham. And several aspects of
Durham’s thought were made to order for the Oneness controversy which
followed, notably the prominence of “identification” with Christ which pri-
oritized the “pattern” in Acts 2:38, and the linking the spiritual life closely
with apostolic precedence and water baptism.13

12
Robert Mapes Anderson, he Vision of the Disinherited: he Making of American Pentecostal-
ism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 6, 4.
13
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 88ff.
 T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274 273

Although Reed has an excellent grasp of the historical dimensions of his

study, he pay minimal attention to some issues, such as early Oneness organi-
zational development. Reed’s analysis also leaves inconclusive one of the
on-going ‘sore-spots’ in the Oneness-Trinity controversy, the ‘Bell issue,’ or
the first AG Chairman, E. N. Bell’s flip-flop regarding baptism in Jesus’ name.
he challenge is to make sense of Bell’s actions in 1915, first as he strongly
resists the movement, predicting that it’s at its “high water mark,” then gets
(re)baptized, joyfully joining in with them, only to totally renounce them
again before summer’s end.
he major sections of the research, the background, the history, and, finally,
the theological analysis, are equally comprehensive, with evaluations of early,
later, and very recent pertinent theological content. he bulk of the citations
are of more recent works, such as those of John Patterson, S. G. Norris, and
Gordon Magee, although important samplings of early works are also included,
mostly from Ewart, Haywood, Urshan, and Small,14 but evaluated in some-
what of a ‘sound bite’ fashion rather than as a whole. But the classification of
Oneness theology, including Reed’s discussion regarding ‘modalism,’ is han-
dled extremely well, as are the theological issues, the range and significance of
which are adequately presented.
he inclusion, though, of an expanded chapter to deliberate Oneness new
birth issues is less convincing and commensurate with the overall treatment,
being a basic reworking of a recent, much more pejorative and less valuable
work by Fudge, Christianity Without a Cross.15 Unfortunately, concluding in
this way inordinately shifts attention to more marginal elements within lim-
ited segments of the Oneness movement. As Reed comments on the back
cover of Fudges’ book, “One of the hoped-for outcomes of this study is that it
will assist a minority tradition within the UPC [United Pentecostal Church]
to regain its forgotten and suppressed voice.”16 Yet, according to Kenneth Gill,
Fudge has failed to substantiate his own hypothesis.17 Nevertheless, the final
chapter then moves the discussion along to the fundamental questions with
which Reed had started, definitional parameters and the ‘heresy’ charge. He
summarily rejects the charge and characterization of ‘heresy’ bolstered by deci-
sive historical and theological expertise.

14
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 226-337.
15
homas A. Fudge, Christianity without the Cross: A History of Salvation in Oneness Pentecos-
talism (Parkland, Fla.: Universal Publishers, 2003).
16
Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”, 5, 308ff (chapter 14).
17
Kenneth D. Gill, “Book Reviews, homas A. Fudge, Christianity without a Cross,”
PNEUMA: he Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 26:1 (2004): 149-50.
274 T. L. French / Pneuma 31 (2009) 267-274

As a comprehensive study of Oneness Pentecostalism, “In Jesus’ Name” is an

absolute must-read which clearly sets out the story of the movement as a “third
stream of Pentecostalism” (besides the classical and neopentecostal or charis-
matic renewal streams) and as an expansive worldwide expression of Pentecos-
tal faith in its own right. Although at tension with the broader movement due
to its rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity, Reed demonstrates that its theol-
ogy cannot rightfully be labeled heresy, nor its significance dismissed out of
hand. As an outstanding, landmark study of the Jesus’ Name movement it will
remain a key resource for the foreseeable future for observers of this worldwide
Pentecostal phenomenon.
Copyright of Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies is the property of Brill Academic
Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.