Pick up any book on modern day revivals and included will be an account of the 'Azuza Street Revival' at the beginning of the 20th century in Los Angeles.
This occurrence in church history is usually painted in bright colours and spoken of as a genuine move of God.
The account of the happenings at the old, rundown African Episcopal Methodist Church building in Azuza Street, was reported by Frank Bartleman, a Chrisian newspaper reporter. His account of those happenings became a book called, ' Another Wave Rolls In. Frank's account was very 'sugar coated' and he tendered to view what was happening through 'rose tinted glasses'. This unfortunate view of Azuza St. has been repeated in books & sermons done through the years.
The main figure in these events was a black, one eyed, holiness preacher named William J Seymour, who had come to Los Angeles from a Bible School in the South, where the students had experienced, the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.' This college was headed up by a Baptist minister, who had received the baptism, by the name of Charles Parham. He will pop up in this story a little later.
William Seymour started meetings at Azuza St, where crowds of spiritually hungry Christians gathered to seek the baptism with the evidence of tongues. Frank Bartleman's description of the meetings were anything but the truth. Many newspaper reporters were present along with many of the City's evangelical ministers, who were horrified by what they saw.
The meetings were carried on without any guiding hand; in fact, they were described by objective onlookers as 'bedlam'. Seymour spent his time in the meetings with his head in a fruit crate that doubled as the pulpit, leaving the proceedings to do what they wished. It was reported that people ran around the building shouting at the top of their voices. Others, rolling around the floor with bodily jerking movements. Many of the visiting ministers reported demonic manifestations happening, which were allowed to go on without any intervention by Seymour or anyone else. Many times, Police were called to come and stop the loud noise and 'madness' that was going on.
Enter Charles Parham. When Charles arrived at the Azuza St meetings, he could not believe what he saw. He immediately took control and brought sanity and order into the situation. Over a period of time, things began to fizzle out and the meetings were closed.
The Azuza Street meetings became the 'birthplace' of the modern Pentecostal Movement with this new doctrine of the 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues'.
What can be learnt from this 'so called revival' that is so often held up as a significant move of God?
Looking at what really went on, it was not a real revival in any sense of the word. It was a series of meetings that were overly emotional, demonstrations of the 'flesh' and worst of all, demonic in nature. Azuza St cannot be compared with the Welsh Revival or the Hebrides Awakening under the ministry of Duncan Campbell. In these revivals, people were convicted of sin, lives changed for the good and most of all, God was glorified.
The new and novel doctrine of 'initial evidence of tongues' in relation to the baptism in the Holy Spirit, raises questions as to its validity and scripturalness.
.
Those involved in the Azuza St meetings assumed that the supernatural occurrences which took place were from God. This is most dangerous. There are other 'sources' of the miraculous & supernatural besides God. John said to 'test the spirits as to whether they be of God'.
It is my personal opinion that the Pentecostal Movement was built on a fraudulent foundation and continues to move in a mixture of truth & fraud, even to today.
I invite questions & discussion on this subject.
Final note. The writer of this post spent 20 years in the Pentecostal Movement. Seven years as a pastor. I saw the good and the bad of it.
The account you quoted makes several historical claims about Azusa Street, but from a Catholic standpoint the more important issue is not whether the meetings were noisy, disordered, or poorly supervised, but whether the
doctrines that emerged from them align with the apostolic faith. The Church teaches that private reports - whether favourable like Bartleman’s or critical like contemporary newspapers - cannot serve as a doctrinal foundation. What
can be evaluated is the claim that the “baptism in the Holy Spirit” must be evidenced by tongues. Saint Paul explicitly rejects this idea: “Do all speak with tongues?” (1 Cor 12:30, RSV‑CE). The Catholic Church therefore cannot accept the Pentecostal doctrine of “initial evidence,” because it contradicts Scripture and the Church’s constant teaching that the Spirit distributes gifts “as he wills” (1 Cor 12:11).
The description of disorder, emotionalism, and possible preternatural manifestations at Azusa Street - if accurate - would simply confirm the Church’s perennial warning that not every spiritual phenomenon is from God. Saint John commands: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). Likewise, Saint Paul insists that authentic worship must be marked by order, not confusion: “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace… all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Cor 14:33, 40). These are not optional guidelines; they are apostolic norms. So, if the events at Azusa Street lacked discernment, structure, and pastoral oversight, that would not be a surprise to those holding fast to Catholic theology, which has always insisted that spiritual experiences must be judged within the Church, not left to spontaneous interpretation.
At the same time, the Catholic Church does not conclude from historical irregularities that
every grace associated with Pentecostalism is fraudulent. The Church teaches that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church” (Lumen Gentium 8), and that the Holy Spirit can genuinely move in the hearts of those who sincerely seek Christ. But the Church also insists that authentic renewal must be rooted in the apostolic faith, the sacraments, and ecclesial authority - not in novel doctrines or uncontrolled manifestations. True revival, in Catholic understanding, is marked by repentance, holiness, fidelity to doctrine, and the glorification of God, as seen in Acts 2:42–47.
So, the Catholic evaluation is more nuanced than your post. The Church rejects the doctrinal innovations that arose from Azusa Street, especially the claim that tongues are the necessary sign of the Spirit. She also warns that disorderly or sensational phenomena must be approached with caution. But she does not dismiss every Pentecostal experience as “fraudulent,” nor does she deny that God may have worked in the lives of individuals present. Instead, she applies the same criteria she has used for two millennia: Scripture, apostolic tradition, moral fruits, and ecclesial discernment. Only what aligns with these can be confidently affirmed as the work of the Holy Spirit.
