Talk:Charles Fox Parham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

[edit] Dispute Tags

I placed a "dispute" notice here because the assertions that Parham was a KKK member and other charges need a proper and acceptable source to reference to.

The historical accuracy and POV of this article really needs some work. Stating that someone in one of his meetings was the first person to speak in tongues since NT times is riduculously POV.Coffeeboy 19:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care enough about this topic to hunt out a WP:RS, but I have a well-referenced paper presented at an academic conference (on linguistics) that suggests that is the case. Rather than calling it "ridiculously POV", you might wish to consider that "truth is stranger than fiction". --Limegreen 22:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Much of what people hold as truth is disputed by others: the creation, evolution, that green tea heals all manner of ailments, and that exercise will heal many eye problems. We are not here to dispute the validity of "speaking in tongues"; we are here to write what was said to have happened, as originally written by those who were there. Sources repeating that this is what are too numerous to name. The only way to dispute it is to find someone who said it did not happen at that particular moment, then give their point of view as well. Raina 01:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The validity of speaking in tongues is not in question, it is the claim that this was the first person to have done so in approximately 2000 years. There are plenty of groups that practiced it including the Anabaptists. Coffeeboy 18:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I did not know about the Anabaptists (in fact, this surprises me), but I know that various forms of "tongues" have been practiced for centuries among those of many different religions. Raina 08:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Parham was indeed a member of the KKK. I am going to remove the dispute tag and the npov tags because I rewrote the entire article and gave 6-7 references, including a credible news source. Эйрон Кинни (t) 23:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue of tongues is not something that was started in post NT times by the Parham people. The 3rd Century had a group called the Montanists who were the antiquated equivalent group of the Pentecostals. They also had the same issue of confounding scripture with personal experience and elevating them above scriptural and sound objectivity. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC) _______________________

It is good to question.

I had written my comments based upon reading I had done, but the books were not mine. The following are a few Internet sites I found tonight regarding the subject. (I have edited them in order to avoid copyright problems):

1. www.israel3.com/article501.html [Em] 1910, o pastor Charles Fox Parham, . . . membro da KKK (Ku Klux Klan) Translation: "In 1910, Pastor Charles Fox Parham, an assumed racist, became a member of KKK (Ku Klux Klan)"

2. www.alumcreek.org/Bible%20Studies/HSAP.doc "Parham . . . to be part of the KKK."

3. www.spirithome.com/histpen1.html ; other. "Parham . . . was an example . . . problems . . . throughout Pentecostalist history : racism, authoritarianism, and sexual scandal."

4. http://www.jewishdefenseleague.org/pdf/terror_johnson1.pdf "In 1907, he [Parham] was accused of sodomy in San Antonio, Texas, . . . While the charges were later dropped, . . . Parham . . . confession: . . . did not remember what might have happened in his sleep."

5. http://www.bible.ca/tongues-encyclopedia-pentecostal-preachers.htm#parham "In 1907, Parham was arrested and charged with sodomy . . . and lost all credibility. . . ."

6. http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/pentecostal/moralfrauds.html "In 1907, Parham was arrested and charged with sodomy. . . . Parham was also a racist."

7. http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/Baptism/910.htm "Parham . . . was involved in racism, . . and sexual scandal."

8. http://enterhisrest.org/entry_directions/his_rest_03.pdf "First, . . . Parham’s ministry . . . rocked by public scandal. Then one of . . . Seymour’s . . . workers . . . made off with the . . . mailing lists for [the]publication, setting up her own publication (with the purloined mailing list – still calling it The Apostolic Faith!) . . . . [No more] Seymour-authorized copies of the Azusa Street magazine went forth, . . . attendance fell off and the . . . Los Angeles work fell into decline."

I keep finding more and more references, but I will stop there. Raina 07:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan was in decline from 1868 to 1870, and was destroyed in the early 1870s by President Ulysses S. Grant's vigorous action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act), according the Wikipedia .org. The Klan wasn't revived until 1915. According to Wikipedia's bio on Charles Fox Parham, he didn't the join the Klan until 1910. The Klan didn't come into existance till 5 years later.

_______________________

= I have been interested in the Klan for years and have read the writings of many authorities on the Klan. One of the things they have emphasized is that from the beginning of the Klan, they have never died out at any time from their beginning. If I have time, I will find some of such writings. Raina

_______________________

== The following are exerpts from the first Internet site ("Klu Klux Klan": http://www.iupui.edu/~aao/kkk.html) I came across this morning. I don't have time to do further research at this time, so this will suffice for now. (Emphasis mine)

The section is "The KKK's First Death."

The leaders of the Klan realized that the order's end was at hand, at least as any sort of organized force. It is widely believed that Forrest ordered the Klan disbanded in January 1869, but the surviving document is rather ambiguous (some historians think Forrest's 'order' was just a trick so he could deny responsibility or knowledge of Klan atrocities). Whatever the actual date, it is clear that as an organized body across the South, the KKK had ceased to exist by the end of 1869. That did not end the violence, however, and as atrocities became more widespread, Radical legislatures throughout the region passed harsher laws, imposed martial law in some Klan-dominated counties, and actively hunted Klan leaders. . . . Hundreds of Klansmen were arrested but few actually went to prison. These laws probably dampened the enthusiasm for the Klan, but they can hardly be credited with destroying it. The fact was, by the mid- 1870's white Southerners had retaken control of most Southern state governments and didn't need the Klan as much as before.

When I have time, I will pull out some of my other resources. Raina 16:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

________________________

In continuation of my statement above: It was written here, by an unidentified person, that "under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act), according the Wikipedia .org. The Klan wasn't revived until 1915." While the above is true, I contend that officially ending the Klan on paper and to the general public did not actually end the Klan. I just happened to run across the following, in two Wikipedia articles, as I was looking for something else (emphasis mine):

. . . . Edward Douglass White (3 November 1845 – 19 May 1921), American politician and jurist, was a United States Senator, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the ninth Chief Justice of the United States. He was best known for formulating the rule of reason standard of anti-trust law. Along with Hugo Black, he is one of two Supreme Court justices known to have been members of the Ku Klux Klan.[1] . . . .

. . . .In 1915, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Edward Douglass White fondly recounted to Thomas Dixon that he had been a member of the Klan.[1] . . . .

Raina 15:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

________________________

Truth can be very hard on people. Many churches and church members would rather live in and teach fallacies than truth, yet the L-rd declards that He is Truth. We should, then, value it far above our feelings and discomfort. The page definitely deserves the dispute now. With these edits, done by a nameless person, likely a sock puppet, who has only made two contributions (both to this page)with this number, I join in that dispute.

Furthermore, it was not Parham who started the Los Angeles Apostolic Faith Mission; it was William Joseph Seymour. From William Seymour, an article in Wikipedia:

William Joseph Seymour (2 May 1870 - 28 September 1922) was an African American minister, and an initiator of the Pentecostal religious movement.
Born the son of freed slaves in Centerville, Louisiana, Seymour developed a belief in glossolalia ("speaking in tongues") as a confirmation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. As a consequence of teaching this, he was removed from the Los Angeles parish where he had formerly ministered. Looking for a place to continue his work, he found a run-down building in downtown Los Angeles located on Azusa Street, and preached his doctrinal beliefs there.
The result was the Azusa Street Revival. Seymour not only rejected the existing racial barriers in favor of "unity in Christ", he also rejected the then almost-universal barriers to women in any form of church leadership. This revival meeting extended from 1906 until 1909, and became the subject of intense investigation by more mainstream Protestants....

Raina 00:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

_________________________

Parham was certainly not the founder of the Los Angeles apastolic mission. It was founded by William Seymour and Frank Bartleman. Bartelman's autobiography, before going off into a ramble about the brethern movement is very clear on the role of Parham, and his doctrine that was in keeping with the views of the KKK. Rick Joyner, in his biograpy of Parham notes that he visited the mission, but it was about one year after the mission was started. He was however a mentor to Seymour. Joyner also notes the KKK connection.

I'll fill in more details once I get all the info together, but it seems to me fairly clear the roles that Seymour, Bartleman and Parham played in the Azusa Street revival, and the formation of the Pentecostal movement.

mykuhl

It seems obvious that Parham was the key influence to Seymour's establishment of Pentecostalism. In addition, it's not right to call this article biased against Parham, merely because it cites information that paints him in an unfavorable light. There is no doubt that Parham was racist and a member of the KKK. I would like to mention that the abuse of the NPOV rule has created only favorable content in articles with varying levels of controversy. It is not right to cry "bias" whenever one sees an article mentioning something factual about someone we like or admire. The Mormon articles on Joseph Smith are perhaps the most extreme examples of this abuse. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

_______________________

Limegreen, I am sure you must mean well, but when you wrote that "William Seymour, having observed the phenomonen in Topeka, took the phenomenon to Los Angeles, but was locked out of the Apostolic Faith Mission because of their rejection of speaking in tongues. This lead to the development of the Azusa Street Revival. When Parkham came to visit Seymour in Los Angeles," it was in error. Reread the history -- it was a different church he was locked out of. When Seymour came to LA, he started the Apostolic Faith Mission, staying there until he died, at which time his wife headed the church. He was not locked out, and the Apostolic Faith Mission never rejected tongues but embraced it. The Apostolic Faith Mission was on Azusa Street and initially contained the so-called "Azusa Street Revival." When Parham (not Parkham) came to visit it, it was he who left it. Raina 16:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you must mean well. Good faith includes not being too condescending.
If you re-read your original edit of my edit [1], you'll see that you removed the wiki-link to Seymour and removed the link as to why Seymour was relevent to Parham (Seymour having been in Topeka before LA). I'm happy to accept that it was a different church that he was locked out of (I really have no idea about any of this). However, as you are someone who seems very interested in these pages, you might work to add some references to them. Good luck! --Limegreen 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I am very sorry, Limegreen. It was in no way my intention to be patronizing; I have no reason to be so.
When I did my last edit, I was more careful than I was with the previous one, in an attempt to make sure that what was relevant and factual remained.
As I mentioned earlier, the books I had used for research were borrowed several years ago, and I no longer have access to them. I have, however, found several sites (some of which are listed above) on the Internet that say basically the same things.
Parham was just not that important, in my humble opinion, to merit a lot of mentions in historical writings; his importance seems to be limited to only those who wish to make a point with regard to his influence, whether positive or negative.
Again, I apologize for coming across as condescending toward you. Raina 04:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Your last edit worked better, and my only source was a webpage, so I apologize for my mistake. I'm not to familiar with this history, so I can't comment on Parham's significance in the grand scheme of things. As a linguist, his involvement in the revival of glossolalia seems notable, but beyond that I wouldn't know. --Limegreen 06:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem -- and thank you! Raina 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


I have a copy of the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, Regency/Zondervan, 1988. The author of the articles PARHAM, CHARLES FOX and APOSTOLIC FAITH (BAXTER SPRINGS, KANS.) is James R. Goff, Jr. Ph.D., University of Arkansas - Fayetteville; Lecturer in History, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina.

He mentions the sodomy charge, but not the KKK. Apparently, the sodomy charge happened in the summer of 1907 in San Antonio, Texas. The charges were dropped by the authorities.

It is also stated that the bad press against Parham came from a man named Wilbur Voliva, about whom I know nothing.

The bibliography includes a book called Life of Charles F. Parham by S. Parham (1930).

Hope this helps.


This story gets stranger and stranger. Apparently Wilbur Glenn Voliva and John Alexander Dowie promoted the Flat Earth theory in their Zion City ministry. Both Parham and John D. Lake seem to have had some connection, though it may have been tangential.

How many of the founders of Pentecostalism, if any, agreed with the Flat Earth theory of the Dowie movement, is uncertain. But they must have known about it.


I have just had a look through James R Goff's, Fields White unto Harvest: Charles F Parham and the Missionary Origins of Pentecostalism University of Arkansas Press, (1988). In it there is referenbce to Parham's racial ideology (particularly segregation and supprt of the Crow laws) which by contemporary standards would be labelled racist however he notes that it was nothing out of the ordinary. Goff concludes that "his concern was paternalistic but, in the context of the day, he could hardly be considered a 'racist' (p 107-108).

Regarding the KKK Goff does not make any claim that Parham was a member although he does state (p 157) that Parham's experience at Asuza Street hardened his views and by the 1920s "Parham felt no qualms at offering high praise for the reorganized Ku Klux Klan ... Parham admired many Klan leaders but considered their efforts ultimately fruitlesssince they lacked a purely spiritual agenda".

Hope this helps.

Mightyfish

I am always troubled by opinions and speculation being presented as though they were fact. I found very little verifiable information in this article and it immediately presented itself as a citation of opposition instead of an historical accounting. There are too many might have beens, could have beens, and possiblies to give any credibility to this article.

[edit] Plagiarism

This former version of the article was plagiarized from http://charles-fox-parham.biography.ms/. So, I rewrote it, with references and footnotes. Эйрон Кинни (t) 00:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It was not plagiarized. I wrote it after consulting several works. Raina 06:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The page content was copied from Wikipedia (which is acknowledged in the small print at the bottom of the page -- actually an image rather than text, however). And please assume good faith, everybody can make mistakes!
--Limegreen 22:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I apologize. I was mistaken, I did not see the fine print. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you.Raina 04:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The former. Эйрон Кинни (t) 20:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baiting and switching

I took these comments out:

"For these comments, Parham has been deemed a racist." and "Another widespread belief relating to Parham's racial attitudes is that he was a Klansman."

These comments are reflective of a tactic known as weasaling[2]. The use of the words in a seemingly neutral fashion only to pre-emptively prop up a POV stance. In this instance the stance is decidedly against the data that suggests that Parham was a racist. The facts alone (which are left in the article) are sufficient to speak for themselves, and do not need preliminary " say it ain't so" commentary. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove it if you want. It doesn't matter to me, but I'd just like to make clear I was trying to be neutral on that issue. Aaрон Кинни (t) 03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)