Daniel Isgrigg’s new book, Aspects, answers a 40-year-old question of mine

This post runs “academic”. Non-nerds are welcome to ride along; feel free to skim or skip – the blog vs. podcast advantage.

The question

Something has bugged me for years. It was a core concern in my graduate research, my dissertation, and the book that followed.¹ Was there any official connection between a certain black Pentecostal denomination and a certain white one, as everyone assumed? Such a notion, arcane as it may seem, deeply affected denominational attitudes and actions for much of the 20^th century. Enter Pentecostal scholar Daniel D. Isgrigg.

First, some background. The Pentecostal denomination, the Assemblies of God (AG), has framed my life and heritage. A great organization in so many ways, I struggled for years with how white it was. Not just white. Think lily white. A growing number of Spanish-speaking churches lay mostly hidden, and hardly any African Americans were to be found. All this was in stark contrast to AG fellowships (as they are called) outside of the U.S., where persons of color are predominant – by far.

In recent decades, however, this AG whiteness has given way to the whole spectrum of human colors. Likely by the end of this decade, the U.S. fellowship will be majority minority – with over half of those who attend AG churches in the U.S. being persons of color. Through immigration of AG believers from the world over and strategic effort by AG leadership, growing numbers of ethnic churches, leaders, and members within the U.S. fellowship have kept the AG from decline as has befallen most other U.S. denominations.

For all its whiteness when I was growing up, the AG was born out of a truly countercultural phenomenon – the fledgling Pentecostal movement at the beginning of the 20^th century was radically and racially inclusive. In the middle of the Jim Crow era, the Black-led 1906 Azusa Street revival provided the springboard for worldwide expansion and unparalleled intercultural diversity in the U.S.

And yet, the U.S. AG for years thought it had a black counterpart in the Church of God in Christ (COGIC). Based in Memphis and founded by Charles H. Mason, COGIC has long been the largest Pentecostal denomination in the U.S.

Among all the Pentecostal organizations – black and white – U.S. AG leadership saw a special relationship between themselves and COGIC. In the 1980s, I labeled this idea the “Sisterhood Myth”.² While that concept has since become less relevant, it did frame the AG approach toward Black Americans in the U.S. for its first 75 years of existence.

But for all I could tell, this notion of COGIC as black counterpart to the AG was really and truly a myth, meaning there was little if any substance to it. Everything hinged on a handful of vague sources. I extracted what I could from primary source materials available to me but could only conclude that any official relationship between COGIC and AG was sketchy at best.³ Yet I couldn’t prove it beyond doubt.

Primary source materials can be hard to come by. They tend to come to light only over time and through much effort. Between the 80s when I did my research and now, new evidence about old information has surfaced. Thus, the value of archived materials.

The Pentecostal movement in the U.S. has been blessed by several archives. The Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center was a huge resource for me – as it was to scholars like Edith Blumhofer, scholars who gleaned from and added to archived materials. Oral Roberts University, where Daniel Isgrigg served as archivist and is now an associate professor, is another great resource.

In Isgrigg’s new book, Aspects of Assemblies of God Origins: Exploring Narratives, Theologies, and Issues from the Early Years,⁴ he tackles this very question I have long been wrestling with. Taking a fresh look at several critical issues, he examines the AG’s evangelical identity, its eschatological influences, and its concerns about theology and education. I was also interested in what Isgrigg has to say in his chapters on the “finished work” teaching, social engagement, and further research.

In his opening chapter, Isgrigg identifies different ways writers have researched and interpreted the denomination’s history, what scholars call its historiography. I found his survey quite helpful. You can read this chapter for the details. He lists Edith Blumhofer, a mentor of mine and of whom I have written elsewhere, as the standard for AG critical history.⁵ I’m honored to say Isgrigg recognizes my work on ethics here as well.

But my primary interest was in chapter 2, “Aspects of the Name”, which focuses on my question. Here, Isgrigg sheds much needed light on the COGIC/AG relationship.

The story

Before the AG was formed – in a 1914 meeting in Hot Springs, Arkansas – Pentecostals not affiliated with already-established holiness-turned-Pentecostal organizations began coalescing out of need for fellowship and accountability. Many had been part of the Christian & Missionary Alliance (C&MA) in the Northeast and others with Charles Parham’s Apostolic Faith Movement (APM) in the South and Midwest.

When Parham ran into character issues, some of the APM folks separated, led by Howard Goss and others. They were also greatly influenced by the “finished work” teaching of William Durham. Some leaders started using the name “Church of God.” But as it was a name already used by other groups, they added “in Christ.”

And that is how this very loose network of ministers and church leaders came together in Hot Springs – as the “Churches of God in Christ” along with other Pentecostals such as from the C&MA. There they chose “Assemblies of God” as an umbrella name for all “Churches of God in Christ, Assemblies of God, and various Apostolic Faith Churches and Full Gospel Pentecostal Missions and Assemblies of like faith.”⁶

What has been understood from the mid-20^th century on, is that this loose-knit white COGIC organization had somehow been part of Mason’s COGIC.⁷ Starting in 1950, none other than the esteemed J. R. Flower, for many years AG General Secretary, taught that the name “Church of God in Christ” came from an agreement between Mason and Goss in 1910. Flower based the story on something from Goss’ diary.

From then on, this is what was understood. No formal association existed between Mason’s mostly Black COGIC and this white COGIC “branch” except some form of “gentleman’s agreement.” The list of church historians who have affirmed this in their writings is extensive. But no one had a source outside of Flower’s 1950 reference. As Isgrigg writes, “Today, this narrative has become almost universally accepted and is used to assert that the AG abandoned the ‘parentage’ of Mason to form a white organization.”⁸

Isgrigg then explains how, on closer scrutiny, this whole story falls apart. Goss’s diaries for that period are available, but neither the diaries nor any other of Goss’s available materials reference anything remotely like what Flower understood. Goss’s own ordination papers are not even signed by Mason. Only Goss’s biography (by his wife) refers to a “gentleman’s agreement” in the most ambiguous of terms.

Isgrigg references my book at this juncture. I saw Goss’s vague language as him intentionally trying to “downplay the actual association” with Mason. But I also note that it is “extremely difficult” to know the actual nature of that agreement.⁹ Isgrigg concludes that Flower “misconstrued Goss’s claim of a ‘gentleman’s agreement.’ Yet the whole narrative and all of the scholarship asserting this origin story is based upon this mischaracterization.”¹⁰

There is much more that Isgrigg has to say on this matter and, if this interests you, I highly recommend Isgrigg’s book. This section alone is worth the academic price of the book (academic meaning “not cheap”), but it is all worthwhile and belongs on the shelf of every student of the field.

As I wrote in Ethics in the Age of the Spirit, there are other reasons to believe that such a connection between AG and COGIC does not make sense, theological differences being of prime concern. This may seem trivial to modern readers, but there were clear distinctions in those days between holiness-Pentecostal groups such as COGIC and Church of God, and Finished Work Pentecostals such as AG. This theological difference is key to why these Hot Springs ministers had not affiliated with any of the white holiness-Pentecostal groups.¹¹

Isgrigg’s conclusion, to which I wholeheartedly agree, is that the only thing shared between Mason’s COGIC and the AG predecessors was the name. Isgrigg adds that the AG was “majority white,”¹² meaning not exclusively white in the beginning. Two years later another theological split occurred over the “Oneness” doctrine, after which the AG seems to have become all white, or at least non-black, the theological differences being a correlation, not a causation in AG whiteness.

The real story

Given Isgrigg’s findings, the rise of the Sisterhood Myth is even more surprising. As I write in my book, “the cry of many [AG] missionaries and leaders [midcentury] was, we have reached the world but have ignored the American black.”¹³ Why, I ask? To which I answer, the Sisterhood Myth.

The myth arose prior to and apart from Flower’s 1950 assertion. It was publicly affirmed by every AG general superintendent between 1925 and 1993, thus well before Flower’s claim. Oddly Flower himself never described a special relationship between AG and COGIC.¹⁴ And yet, what Flower did claim – that there was an agreement between Mason and Goss – gave rise to a distinct yet related idea, that the AG separated from COGIC, mostly due to race.

With Isgrigg’s debunking of the Mason-Goss story, we must consider two concerns:

1. In the past, scholars have asserted that the AG was born out of racist intent. The AG may have excluded blacks from ministry and church attendance, as I have demonstrated. But that is not the same as saying the denomination came into existence due to racism. Scholars, take note.
2. In the future, others may be tempted to say that the racist card has therefore been overplayed in AG history. Here, I urge caution. While Flower’s notes from the 1950s may have spawned unfounded generalizations, let’s similarly not misuse Isgrigg’s correction.

Although the formation of the AG may not have been due to overt racism, the denomination quickly aligned itself with the prevailing racist winds of the nation, especially after 1916. Isgrigg writes, “It is a legacy of separation, privilege, and unfortunate cultural accommodation that was not soon remedied in the AG.”¹⁵

Was the AG more racist than other church organizations? Not necessarily, but as I write in Ethics, that is nothing to celebrate. We who call ourselves People of the Spirit should never accept the excuse of being no worse than others.

Non-nerd takeaway: Bad actions rise out of bad evidence. Misunderstandings lead to harmful consequences. We think, therefore we act. When we think wrongly, we act wrongly. The AG assumed it had a special relationship with COGIC; thus, it forgave itself for excluding Black Americans.

I recommend Isgrigg’s website: https://danieldisgrigg.com/. George P. Wood has a great conversation with Isgrigg on his book on the Influence Podcast: Revising Assemblies of God History. And check out my Resource Page. If this post interests you, sign up for free for my twice-weekly blog.

Photos: Isgrigg’s book; Mason Temple Church of God in Christ, Memphis, TN

---

1. Ethics in the Age of the Spirit: Race, Women, War, and the Assemblies of God (Pickwick Publications, 2019). ↩︎
2. Ethics, 133-137. ↩︎
3. Ethics, 55-59. ↩︎
4. Pickwick Publications, 2024. ↩︎
5. For a snapshot on Blumhofer’s impact, see Mother’s Day Taught Me that Women Belong in the Pulpit. ↩︎
6. Taken from the constitution and bylaws of that very meeting. ↩︎
7. Mason’s COGIC did include whites and even had a white branch for a season starting in 1916. ↩︎
8. Aspects, 16. ↩︎
9. Isgrigg, Aspects, 19, is referencing my book, Ethics, 57-59. ↩︎
10. Aspects, 20. ↩︎
11. There were reports of Mason attending – or at least approving – the Hot Springs gathering, a story Isgrigg and I both wrestle with, to no definitive conclusion. ↩︎
12. Aspects, 26. ↩︎
13. Ethics, 133. ↩︎
14. Ethics, 134. ↩︎
15. Aspects, 26. ↩︎