William Seymour Wore a Box on His Head

[BarryK]

I recently leared that, back in the day, at Azuza St, William Seymore often would sit in the meeting with a box over His head, while everybody else was prayng, singihg, propheysing, etc, etc, and then only remove IF God told him to and start speaking. sometimes he wuold sith thru the whole meeting with the box on his head, other times he would take the box off at the approiate time and speak.

What would happen in your congeration if you walked in one sunday, sat down, and put a box on your head and did not take it off untill God told you to?

just wondering

BK

 

[tturt]

Know what you mean. I read that several years ago and thought about it.

If a minister just pauses a few minutes to hear exactly what Jehovah God wants to do that day, some people get restless.

Oh - I must add, I was one of the restless ones until I finally realized what he was doing.

 

[Mixolydian]

From what I've read, he didn't put a box on his head, he stuck his head into a stack of boxes which had been stacked to create a pulpit. Basically, he sat behind his "pulpit" and leaned his head forward in prayer. The rest of the account is accurate as far as the eyewitness reports go.

An excellent book on the history of Azusa Street is "The Azusa Street Mission & Revival" by Cecil Robeck.

An excellent book on the origins of modern pentecostalism and the life of Charles Parham, the teacher of the Baptism to Seymour, is "Fields White Unto Harvest" by James Goff.

 

[BarryK]

Know what you mean. I read that several years ago and thought about it.

If a minister just pauses a few minutes to hear exactly what Jehovah God wants to do that day, some people get restless.

Oh - I must add, I was one of the restless ones until I finally realized what he was doing.

Indeed!!!
not only that the box on head thing is "weird" ( that is in quotation marks intentionally)

in some of the AG and other pentacostal churches i visited over the past few years, if someone speaks in toungs they are given both the evil eye and the cold shoulder 9 and sometimes the left foot of fellowship) nevermind somone doing the box on head thingy thing

 

[Big Drew]

From what I've read, he didn't put a box on his head, he stuck his head into a stack of boxes which had been stacked to create a pulpit. Basically, he sat behind his "pulpit" and leaned his head forward in prayer. The rest of the account is accurate as far as the eyewitness reports go.

An excellent book on the history of Azusa Street is "The Azusa Street Mission & Revival" by Cecil Robeck.

An excellent book on the origins of modern pentecostalism and the life of Charles Parham, the teacher of the Baptism to Seymour, is "Fields White Unto Harvest" by James Goff.

Yep...I was about to mention the same thing.

 

[MPaul]

There are very few eyewitness accounts of the Azusa Street Revival. I think the best is the diary of Frank Bartleman, which has some descriptions of it, and which is published under various names. These publications usually include newspaper reports on the revival from Los Angeles, all derogatory. Bartleman's diary is a wonderful example of how a Pentecostal person lived at that time. The early Pentecostals surely were different than they are now – but they had very strict ways, and maybe, that had something to do with it. Books by early Pentecostals are also wonderful experiences.

Bartleman's account does not resemble that given to start this thread at all. Non-Pentecostals often teach on Pentecostalism, both the theology and history, in a manner that distorts everything. For instance, John MacArthur teaches that Parham made Seymour stand in the hallway of a school outside a classroom, because Parham was prejudiced against blacks. In truth, Texas had a law that blacks could not attend schools with whites. To get around the law, Parham told Seymour to stay in the hallway and take the class. Thus, Seymour took the class and Parham was not arrested. Bartleman reports that at the Azusa Revival, the color barrier was eliminated and everyone was equal.

(Much is made of the fact that Seymour learned from Parham before the Revival, in order to force the origins of Pentecostalism as being out of the holiness movement, and to force the position that Pentecostals are Arminian in theology. However, Parham rejected the Revival and was banned from it. Holiness theology was the first thing debated in the Revival and rejected in favor of progressive sanctification, as advocated by the Baptist preacher, William Durham. The truth is, the Revival was a movement of the Holy Spirit, who directed what happened there – but non-Pentecostals do not believe this is possible, as the Holy Spirit does not act that way anymore, and there can only be worldly explanations, as set out by a systematic logic grounded in scholarship. Therefore, the Revival was the product of the Holiness movement and Pentecostals are Arminian, because Seymour knew Parham, and at one time learned from him -- And therefore, Seymour sat at the Revival with a box on his head like a clown. Actually, the vast majority of Pentecostals refuse to be a part of the predestination debate, and if forced to take a position, they note that both Calvinists and Arminians are right).

 

[BereanStudent]

According to history , William Seymour shook things up and had fruit that came out his ministry. He was not perfect though. I think a box over a person's head is strange but if it was a sign of humility ,then it was a good thing.

 

[BarryK]

According to history , William Seymour shook things up and had fruit that came out his ministry. He was not perfect though. I think a box over a person's head is strange but if it was a sign of humility ,then it was a good thing.

indeed,today we are way too afraid to "shake things up", and yes it is strange, but then again, just about everyithng we read in scripture is "strange" that is according to mans worldview

todays AG (and many of its like minded offshoots) would have a kiniption ( did i spell that right?) if somebody did the box-on-head thing.
there are many "penticostal" congerations that frown of the use of supernatural languages, and discourage prayng for the sick to be healede, nevermind the dother manifestations of The Gifts of The Holy Spirit.

why do you think this is so?

P.S. I was a "BereanStudent" as well, waaaayyyy back before the changed the name to "Global University"

 

[BereanStudent]

indeed,today we are way too afraid to "shake things up", and yes it is strange, but then again, just about everyithng we read in scripture is "strange" that is according to mans worldview

todays AG (and many of its like minded offshoots) would have a kiniption ( did i spell that right?) if somebody did the box-on-head thing.
there are many "penticostal" congerations that frown of the use of supernatural languages, and discourage prayng for the sick to be healede, nevermind the dother manifestations of The Gifts of The Holy Spirit.

why do you think this is so?

P.S. I was a "BereanStudent" as well, waaaayyyy back before the changed the name to "Global University"

I think the phrase that you are refering to is conniption fit.

In answer to your question , I think it has to do with having something to lose. Established Churches like to play it safe.

 

[BarryK]

I think the phrase that you are refering to is conniption fit.

thanks

[bereanStudent]
In answer to your question , I think it has to do with having something to lose. Established Churches like to play it safe.
[/quote]

probally so, and that is a shame.
to "play it safe" is often another way of saying "people pleasing"
as fo me, I hae nothing to loose, after all I am a dead man dont ya know

Galatians 2:20 (KJV)
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I have nothing to loose, no men to please, no pride to protect, no shame to cover.

If I am doing what The Holy Spirit tells me to do and it looks "foolish", it aint me who looks bad, in the eyes of man, its God who looks "foolish", and he can handle it because he is totallly secure in His own idendity and his own self image, unlike us "church people"

 

[His_disciple3]

I recently leared that, back in the day, at Azuza St, William Seymore often would sit in the meeting with a box over His head, while everybody else was prayng, singihg, propheysing, etc, etc, and then only remove IF God told him to and start speaking. sometimes he wuold sith thru the whole meeting with the box on his head, other times he would take the box off at the approiate time and speak.

What would happen in your congeration if you walked in one sunday, sat down, and put a box on your head and did not take it off untill God told you to?

just wondering

BK

I don't know about this guy with the Box on his head , but will you take off those glasses if God tells you to??

 

[BarryK]

I don't know about this guy with the Box on his head , but will you take off those glasses if God tells you to??

if i wore glasses, i surely would.
Father wants TOTAL obiedense, not partial obiedence, (partial obiedence is NOT obiedience) Father wants INSTANT obiedence, not "drawn out, let me consult my riends, and then lets form a committee and take a vote on if first" obiedence. that type of process is a far far cry form obiedence

you may want to go and google "William Seymore" and the "Azuza Street Revival" and learn more about the guy with the box on his head

[EDIT: This may be a good place to start checking it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hI1oOf_8R8 :END EDIT]

 

[LinkH]

When I first read it, I thought of him having his head in a crate used as a bench or something. Then I saw a reinactment video with him having a shoebox on his head, sitting down. Maybe he was prostrate before the Lord praying for much of the time.

Mixolidian, do you have a primary source that says he put his head in the stack of boxes used to create a pulpit?

One of the good things about Seymour doing this is that it helped keep him out of the way of the meeting for much of the time. The Bible does not teach that we are supposed to have one man, 'the pastor' who speaks in church all the time while everyone else is silent. Consider this verse

I Corinthians 14:26
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together , every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

The early Pentecostals at Azusa would seem to have come close to the teachings of this chapter in practice. But maybe most of them weren't aware of the scripture behind it, and it did not become a central part of Pentecostal practice.

 

[MPaul]

[EDIT: This may be a good place to start checking it out: :END EDIT]

I think this is absolutely disgusting hearsay testimony and it degrades all true Pentecostals. So more than 100 years after the Azusa Street Revival, a person comes forth with hearsay testimony on what happened during the Revival and a video is actually made from the account. And it resembles no eyewitness account, but it makes a great TV show and it brings forth the witness with the hearsay to prominence. It teaches Pentecostals to use any screwball method of reasoning whatsoever to confirm the validity of their history and experiences.

I just looked up some of the Bartleman testimony on Azusa Street to make some fast quotes now. Funny, in his reports he did not witness anything like the video. But this is not hearsay testimony. It is an account that has been accepted from the beginning as what happened there.

From Frank Bartleman's diary, published by Bridge Publishing, Inc. under the name Azusa Street, 1980.

p.57 – Brother Seymour was recognized as the nominal leader in charge. We had no pope or hierarchy. We were “brethern.” We had no human programme. The Lord Himself was leading. ..

p.58 - Brother Seymour generally sat behind two empty shoe boxes, one on top of the other. He usually kept his head inside the top one during the meeting, in prayer... No subjects or sermons were announced ahead of time, and no special speakers for such an hour. No one knew what might be coming, what God would do. All was spontaneous, ordered of the Spirit. We wanted to hear from God, through whoever he might speak. We had no respect of persons...

p.59 - We had no prearranged programme to be jammed through on time. Our time was the Lord's. We had real testimonies, from fresh heart-experience. Otherwise, the shorter the testimonies, the better. A mighty power of God. We did not have to get our cue from some leader. And we were free from lawlessness. We were shut up to God in prayer in the meetings, our minds on Him. All obeyed God, in meekness and humility. In honor we 'preferred one another.' The Lord was liable to burst through anyone... Someone might be speaking. Suddenly the Spirit would fall upon the congregation. God himself would give the altar call. Men would fall all over the house, like the slain in battle, or rush for the altar enmasse, to seek God. The scene often resembled a forest of fallen trees.... Presumptuous men would sometimes come among us. Especially preachers who would try to spread themselves, in self-opinionation. But their effort was short lived...

p.64 – Demons are being cast out, the sick healed, many blessedly saved, restored, and baptized with the Holy Ghost and power...There is much 'slaying power' manifest...

There is another place where Bartleman notes that Seymour never even spoke in tongues at the Revival -- the book is 180 pages, and I can't find the quote just now, but perhaps, I'll post it later.

 

[BarryK]

Originally Posted by BarryK

[EDIT: This may be a good place to start checking it out: :END EDIT]
​

I think this is absolutely disgusting hearsay testimony and it degrades all true Pentecostals. So more than 100 years after the Azusa Street Revival, a person comes forth with hearsay testimony on what happened during the Revival and a video is actually made from the account. And it resembles no eyewitness account, but it makes a great TV show and it brings forth the witness with the hearsay to prominence. It teaches Pentecostals to use any screwball method of reasoning whatsoever to confirm the validity of their history and experiences.

I just looked up some of the Bartleman testimony on Azusa Street to make some fast quotes now. Funny, in his reports he did not witness anything like the video. But this is not hearsay testimony. It is an account that has been accepted from the beginning as what happened there.

From Frank Bartleman's diary, published by Bridge Publishing, Inc. under the name Azusa Street, 1980.

p.57 – Brother Seymour was recognized as the nominal leader in charge. We had no pope or hierarchy. We were “brethern.” We had no human programme. The Lord Himself was leading. ..

p.58 - Brother Seymour generally sat behind two empty shoe boxes, one on top of the other. He usually kept his head inside the top one during the meeting, in prayer... No subjects or sermons were announced ahead of time, and no special speakers for such an hour. No one knew what might be coming, what God would do. All was spontaneous, ordered of the Spirit. We wanted to hear from God, through whoever he might speak. We had no respect of persons...

p.59 - We had no prearranged programme to be jammed through on time. Our time was the Lord's. We had real testimonies, from fresh heart-experience. Otherwise, the shorter the testimonies, the better. A mighty power of God. We did not have to get our cue from some leader. And we were free from lawlessness. We were shut up to God in prayer in the meetings, our minds on Him. All obeyed God, in meekness and humility. In honor we 'preferred one another.' The Lord was liable to burst through anyone... Someone might be speaking. Suddenly the Spirit would fall upon the congregation. God himself would give the altar call. Men would fall all over the house, like the slain in battle, or rush for the altar enmasse, to seek God. The scene often resembled a forest of fallen trees.... Presumptuous men would sometimes come among us. Especially preachers who would try to spread themselves, in self-opinionation. But their effort was short lived...

p.64 – Demons are being cast out, the sick healed, many blessedly saved, restored, and baptized with the Holy Ghost and power...There is much 'slaying power' manifest...

There is another place where Bartleman notes that Seymour never even spoke in tongues at the Revival -- the book is 180 pages, and I can't find the quote just now, but perhaps, I'll post it later.

[[/QUOTE]

hmm, let me try this again

QUOTE]
Originally Posted by BarryK

[EDIT: This may be a good place to start checking it out: :END EDIT]

perhaps you are unfamiliar with the word "may" and the word "start".

i dont know where you seemed to have gotten the idea that the video i found is the end all of the matter.

by the way, a shoebox is about 12 or thirteen inches tall, and about 5 to 6 inches wide.
is it possible that Bro Seymore was prostrate with his head IN the box, rather than the box ON his head?

either way, the question from the OP remains, what would happen if this type of behaviour happened in your congeration on any given sunday morning?
​

 

[BereanStudent]

The Old Time Gospel Ministry: The Revivals

The Azusa Street meetings were characterized by supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit with many signs and wonders. Much of the time as these things were taking place, Brother Seymour sat with his head inside an old shoe box praying and seeking God to move in even greater ways.[SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE]

 

[BereanStudent]

An Azusa Street Timeline

Seymour was not what most people would think of as a Black pentecostal preacher. He was usually a meek man with a direct style that was not often stylized or tricked-up; he could, however, become suddenly and volcanically emotional at times, in and out of the pulpit. He saw himself more as a teacher than a preacher, yet his mark was as a preacher and not as a teacher. He'd sometimes sit at the meetings with his head in a shoe box, to cut himself off from the hysteria surrounding him, apparently for two reasons: (1) to keep from becoming visually disoriented (he was blind in one eye); (2) so he could concentrate on prayer and thought, so that he would be most open to speaking in the Spirit. The people in attendance were already in a state of excited agitation long before Seymour spoke, thanks to what went on before him each night. When his thunder suddenly struck on such nights, it must've been more than most people could take.

 

[BereanStudent]

There are many examples of books and online websites which all give the same report about Seymore and his head in a box.

 

[Mixolydian]

Well, I will say BarryK, that your avatar makes me laugh. It brings back memories of late night college escapades seeing who could keep the person on the other end of Gene Scott's 1-800 donation number on the line longer before being hung up on.

He was one crazy pastor. I'd mention his most famous song that he'd have his band play over and over again, but this post would get censored if I named the title.

 

[MPaul]

There are many examples of books and online websites which all give the same report about Seymore and his head in a box.

There are even more books and websites that note that Christopher Columbus defied the teaching of the Church that the world was flat in his pursuit to sail west according to scientific knowledge. It's just fun representing Christians that way.... except no one believed the world was flat since 300 B.C. Columbus defied the current scientific knowledge, which had miscalculated the size of the earth as a sphere, and when review boards noted it would be impossible to adequately supply a ship for the voyage and winds would be too severe on going further out to control the ship.... Columbus merely noted that the Holy Spirit had told him to sail west as a fulfillment of prophecy, including the preaching of the gospel throughout the world. But the truth is little known, as the books and web sites with the fiction abound. Oh my gosh, the truth is the exact opposite of popular conception. Now, how did that happen?

Where is the objective evidence that Seymore held a shoe box over his head during the revival, or that he had anything more than a nominal role of leadership at the meetings??? < staff edit > < staff edit > < staff edit > So Seymour sat behind two 12" shoe boxes, bent over into the top one and prayed?? < staff edit > < staff edit > < staff edit > I don't think that is the best interpretation of the eyewitness accounts. But the video linked to has him holding a much larger box over his head. Actually, it appears he sat behind two wooden type shipping boxes, more or less as a desk, and when he leaned over to pray, his head would rest on the top one -- much like leaning one's head behind a pew in church in front of where one is sitting to pray. < staff edit > < staff edit > < staff edit > < staff edit >
Anyone who has experienced the true outpouring of the Holy Spirit knows it is nothing like what is being represented to degrade Seymour. < staff edit > < staff edit > < staff edit > < staff edit >