CHARLES PARHAM: Racial Roots of the Pentecostal Movement

INTRODUCTION
Two men sat with their hats in their hands in the office of a prominent Pentecostal pastor
in Michigan. They explained that they had been unhappy with a spiritual brother and as a result
they formulated and spread lies about him. Among the lies they told were that he had been
unfaithful to his wife. Now, the man was dead. Suicide, based on aftermath of the lies they had
forged about him.

“How can we fix this?” They asked their pastor. In response the pastor walked to a closet
and pulled out a feather pillow. He handed the pillow to one of the men. Then he gave the pair
this instruction:
“Drive to Chicago. Go to the Chicago tower.3 Go up to the top floor and pour all the
feathers in this pillow out the window. Then, go down to the ground and retrieve all the
feathers.”

“Pastor!” one of the men exclaimed, “We would never be able to retrieve all the
feathers!”

“Yes,” the pastor acknowledged. “You will also never fix all the mess you have created
through your lies and deceit.”

This is the task we with which we find ourselves confronting. Many people have spread
falsehood about Charles and Sarah Parham and their family. We will only be able to retrieve
some of the ‘feathers’, but we will pick up the ones that we are able. For more than one
hundred years those who have been interested in the Apostolic Faith or Pentecostal Movement
have been subjected to storylines about Charles Parham that are fundamentally unethical. No
man or woman should be held hostage by unproven claims, predisposed to support a
denominational agenda. Volumes have been written about Charles Parham. Nearly all of them

3 https://www.willistower.com/history-and-facts

Page | 6

are filled with spurious claims about his personal life. We are not proposing that anyone is
above scrutiny. What we are saying is that no one should be ill-famed based on undocumented
or unprovable allegations. Further, any claim against a person that derives from their sworn
enemies (especially political or religious foes) should be regarded with great suspicion and
presented as such. For example: When visiting websites and the subject is Charles Parham you
get a disclaimer ostensibly accusing the Parham’s of being racists.4 Strangely, there is no such
disclaimer for William Branham who was part of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).5 None of the Assemblies
of God’s racist hall of shame who hold the same ideology as the KKK are gaslighted in that same
manner.6 No disclaimers for them. The point is the disclaimers are a part of continued diatribe
of innuendo started by the all-white Texas Syndicate and propagated by religious hate groups
like the Assemblies of God (AG)7, the United Pentecostal Church (UPCI)8 and many others.
Christian magazines like Charisma routinely print articles allowing Charles Parham to be libeled
as “infamous” while they routinely promote others with sordid pasts.9
Scripture Supports the Idea of Innocent Until Proven Guilty

While legitimate legal processes declared the Parham’s innocent, religious bigots and
xenophobes have conducted a campaign to smear, libel and slander the Parham’s in the fugazi
Court of Public Opinion. Charles and Sarah Parham have been denied a fair defense of
unfounded charges against their family, persons, lives, and character. This author has no legal
education but regards it reasonable to give the Parham’s an opportunity for a fair-minded and
impartial defense as protected in the Bill of Rights10. Further, where appropriate give the

4 https://theopolisinstitute.com/leithart_post/spirit-of-segregation/
5 https://william-branham.org/site/books/pbtwh
6 https://www.cambriapress.com/pub.cfm?bid=96
7 Ethics in the Age of the Spirit. Race, Women, War and the Assemblies of God. Howard N. Kenyon. 2019.
8 https://theoldblackchurch.blogspot.com/2018/10/is-there-racism-in-united-pentecostal.html
9 Charisma. Why the Azusa Street Revival Ended. J. D. King. 2016. J.D. King is the director of the World Revival Network and
associate pastor of World Revival Church.
10 Sixth Amendment. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of
the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,
and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/

Page | 7

benefit of the doubt, show mercy, and expect that those who are genuinely filled with the Holy
Ghost are imperfect but forgiven.11 As Citizens of Heaven, we are cleansed by the blood of Jesus
Christ.12 Citizens of the United States of America hold to a cardinal principle of justice that every
person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is
established beyond a reasonable doubt.13 The presumption is not a mere formality. It is a
matter of the most important substance. “Although the United States Constitution recognized a
right to a jury trial in criminal cases, the states demanded a constitutional amendment to
guarantee a jury trial in civil cases as well, leading to the creation of the Seventh Amendment.”14
Thankfully these are fundament rights afforded all Citizens.15 Trial via media circus is purely evil.
those who employ such methods should by right be treated in a manner equal to those who
use mob justice and lynching.16
“When Job’s life was in turmoil, his friends assumed he had done wrong and was being
divinely punished. Many allegations were made against his character, though each was
incorrect. The book ends with God chastising Job’s friends for their rush to judgment. Even as
wild allegations were made against Jesus, the legal expert Nicodemus spoke: “Does our law
condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing (John 7:51)?”17
“If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his
brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.”18

11 See Zachariah 7:9-10.
12 The cleansing power of the blood of Jesus. The blood of Jesus has two-fold cleansing power! Read how in this enlightening article.
Elias Aslaksen. See 1 John 1:7-9.
13 See Job 33:9.
14 https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/trial-by-jury.html
15 See II Corinthians 7:11
16 See Matthew 17:24
17 https://drjimmann.com/2018/10/04/bible-even-points-to-idea-of-innocent-until-proven-guilty/
18 1 John 4:20

Page | 8

Innocent if Not Proven Guilty

A man, or woman is presumed innocent if not proven guilty by a legitimate court of their
peers.19 The opportunity for them to legally defend themselves is paramount.20 The
presumption of innocence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and to require
the acquittal of a defendant. In a trial of any kind, it should be expected that the defendant, has
the benefit of that presumption of innocence, and you are not to convict of a particular charge
unless you are persuaded of guilt of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.21 History is full of
false witnesses, liars and perjurers.22 “From Cain to Potiphar’s Wife to the pig and chicken laws
of the Lex Salica of Clovis I.”23 “Bearing false witness is mentioned many times in the Bible,
exclusively as something terrible. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” is the
ninth of the Ten Commandments that Moses brought back with him from his encounter with
God on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:16). False witness, or spreading a false report, is associated with
being allied with the wicked (Exodus 23:1), willing to do violence to others (Psalm 27:12), and
sowing discord among brothers (Proverbs 6:19). The Bible calls bearing false witness lying
(Proverbs 14:5) and compares a man who bears false witness against his neighbor to a violent
weapon (Proverbs 25:18). Lies harm people.24

19 https://www.fairtrials.org/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/the-presumption-of-innocence/
20 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_counsel
21 The First Circuit has repeatedly stated that “reasonable doubt is a fundamental concept that does not easily lend itself
to refinement or definition.” United States v. Vavlitis, 9 F.3d 206, 212 (1st Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Campbell,
874 F.2d 838, 843 (1st Cir. 1989). For that reason, the First Circuit has joined other circuits in advising that the meaning of
“reasonable doubt” be left to the jury to discern. United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006, 1024 (1st Cir. 1993) (“[A]n
instruction which uses the words reasonable doubt without further definition adequately apprises the jury of the proper
burden of proof.” (Quoting United States v. Olmstead, 832 F.2d 642, 646 (1st Cir. 1987)); accord United States v. Taylor,
997 F.2d 1551, 1558 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“[T]he greatest wisdom may lie with the Fourth Circuit’s and Seventh Circuit’s
instruction to leave to juries the task of deliberating the meaning of reasonable doubt.”). The constitutionality of this
practice was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1994). It is not reversible error to
refuse further explanation, even when requested by the jury, so long as the reasonable doubt standard was “not ‘buried as
an aside’ in the judge’s charge.” United States v. Littlefield, 840 F.2d 143, 146 (1st Cir. 1988) (quoting Olmstead, 832 F.2d
at 646).
22 False Witness: A Lawyer’s History of the Law of Perjury. Richard H. Underwood University of Kentucky College of Law,
runderwo@uky.edu Fall 1993.
23 False Witness: A Lawyer’s History of the Law of the Law of Perjury. Richard H. Underwood. University of Kentucky
College of Law. 1993.
24 Brooks Ayers Isn’t Alone: 8 Famous Lies and the Liars Who Told Them. History has proven, the truth always comes out. NATALIE
FINN. NOV 12, 2015.

Page | 9

A false witness is one who stands up and swears before others that something untrue is
true, especially with the intention of hurting someone else or ruining his reputation.25 This is a
crime called Perjury. “Whoever (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or
person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered,
that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration,
deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or
subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration,
certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746
of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does
not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by
law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is
applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United
States.”26
This type of crime happened to David (Psalm 27:12), Jesus (Matthew 26:60; Mark 14:56),
and Stephen (Acts 6:13). When the wicked Queen Jezebel wished to procure a vineyard for her
sulking husband, King Ahab, she employed two false witnesses. Naboth, the rightful owner of
the vineyard, was seated in an honorable place on a day of fasting, but “then two scoundrels
came and sat opposite him and brought charges against Naboth before the people, saying,
‘Naboth has cursed both God and the king.’ So, they took him outside the city and stoned him
to death” (1 Kings 21:13). What the “scoundrels” said against Naboth was absolutely untrue;
they were bearing false witness with impunity and with the queen’s blessing. As a result, an
innocent man was killed. When a person is righteous and his enemies can find nothing with
which to blame him, bearing false witness is a common weapon. The lies told by a false witness
come from the sinful human heart—along with murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft,

25 4 Famous People Convicted of Perjury. ETHAN TREX. AUGUST 26, 2010
26 June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 773; Pub. L. 88–619, § 1, Oct. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 995; Pub. L. 94–550, § 2, Oct. 18,
1976, 90 Stat. 2534; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.

Page | 10

slander, and evil thoughts (Matthew 15:19). Jesus said that man is defiled by these evil things
that come from the heart.”27
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is
always on those bringing the charge to satisfy that defendant is guilty of the crime with which
he/she is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to the defendant. It is
always the government’s burden to prove each of the elements of the crime charged beyond a
reasonable doubt by the evidence. The defendant has the right to rely upon the failure or
inability of the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt any essential element of a
crime charged against him/her.28 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation.29
Since the false arrest of Parham was in Texas, we investigated that legal action.
Unfortunately, the State of Texas has made the spotlight for leading the way with a glut of
wrongful convictions, executions and mishandling of cases.30 The problem in Texas has been
prevalent for more than 100 years.31 Texans are historically all too tolerant of the innocent
being exploited. There are too many cases of innocent people being accused of crimes that they
did not commit.32 To be an accomplice, accessory or aide and abet the persecution of someone
not convicted of a crime as in the case of Charles Parham is corrupt.33 Those who conspired
against the Parham family in a secret cabal perpetrated by those we have dubbed The Texas

27 https://www.gotquestions.org/false-witness.html
28 This instruction does not use a “‘guilt or innocence’ comparison” warned against by the First Circuit. United States v.
DeLuca, 137 F.3d 24, 37 (1st Cir. 1998); United States v. Andujar, 49 F.3d 16, 24 (1st Cir. 1995). A “guilt and non-guilt”
comparison is “less troublesome,” but still “could risk undercutting the government’s burden by suggesting that the
defendant is guilty if they do not think he is not guilty.” United States v. Ranney, Nos. 01-1912, 01-2531, 01-1913, 2002
WL 1751379, at *5 (1st Cir. Aug. 1, 2002).
29 For the rationale of Self-defense, see: Boaz Sangero, Self -Defense in Criminal Law 11 – 106 (Hart Publishing, 2006).
30 https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent
31 https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/resources/pattern2003/html/patt4cfo.htm
32 https://sddefenseattorneys.com/blog/famous-wrongful-conviction-cases/
33 Accomplices, Accessories, Aiders, and Abettors
How criminals are defined–from accomplices to aiders and abettors to conspirators–depends on their participation in the crime.
Micah Schwartzbach, Attorney

Page | 11

Syndicate acted in a manner that is unconscionable.34 This organization did what was all too
common in Texas history; attempt to lynch an innocent man.35
Real witnesses have a responsibility to first hear all evidence and then give fair and
impartial consideration.36 If you have a reasonable doubt as to a defendant’s guilt of a particular
crime, it is your duty to acquit him/her of that crime.37 Once acquitted the matter is over.38 This
is a civility we must afford all mankind. As followers of Jesus Christ, we are commanded to
conduct our lives in such a manner that we are not judgmental.39 Charles and Sarah Parham
have been denied this civility.40 The outrageous accusations against them based on the word of
their political enemies in collusion with unknown contrived witnesses met only the lowest
standards.41
This treatise will attempt to begin to set the record straight. There is no effort to hide any
truth, but there is a deliberate endeavor to lay to rest lies, innuendo, libel, slander, backbiting
and all other works of the flesh.42 Included in the works of the flesh are hatred, contentions,
jealousy, outburst of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissentions, heresies, envy, murderers, revelries,
etc. Apostle Paul warned that those practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God!43
There are fundamental questions raised about the activity and character of the Parham’s
detractors and accusers. We are not here to judge them, but we will not shy away from an
honest assessment of their actions. Aiding and abetting against an innocent person was and
remains criminal activity. “Under the Texas penal code, if you help another person commit a
crime or knew about it, you may wind up in jail. Examples: You purposely helped facilitate a

34 A defendant is never to be convicted on suspicion or conjecture.
https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/resources/pattern2003/html/patt4cfo.htm
35 https://www.lynchingintexas.org/
36 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16
37 Reasonable Doubt. WILL KENTON. September 28, 2021. Reviewed by ROBERT C. KELLY. Fact chec ked by ARIEL COURAGE
38 Arrests That Don’t Result in Criminal Charges. Janet Portman, Attorney
39 Matthew 5:7.
40 https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/justice-denied-americas-continuing-neglect-our-constitutional-right-
counsel
41 What Do States Owe People Who Are Wrongfully Convicted? STATELINE ARTICLE March 14, 2017. Scott Rodd
42 Galatians 5:19-21.
43 I Corinthians 6:9.

Page | 12

crime by assisting, encouraging, directing or hiding the truth. You solicit someone else to engage
in a crime on your behalf. The law does not care that you did not directly participate in a
crime.”44
Our response is not meant in the same manner as the unfounded allegations of the
Parham’s enemies. Rather, this written account is presented as the rightful defense everyone
should be granted. These historical facts and information are not intended as indictments. Yet,
they may present that way in areas where the historical record implicates the character and/or
motive of those who have born false witness.45 For our part, we have given the historical
record. We cannot answer for the action of others. We can and will continue to assert that we
are not those people. It is fair an honorable that we should be purveyors of truth. We are not of
those who would purposely bring hostility to any group, race or gender. We are for all women,
called of God, to walk in their calling.

To the horrible abuse by those claiming Christ, even further presenting to have been
born of the water and Spirit, we offer no excuses. The actions of such are indefensible. We offer
only sorrow at their reprehensible actions. That officials and leader of religious organizations,
denominations, their proxies and surrogates would do these things in the name of God are
embarrassing blemishes to the Body of Christ.46 We join in solidarity with all minorities
(including women, African American’s, Japanese, Native Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, all
people of Africa and others) especially those who have been maligned by these religious
groups. We desire that these minorities realize that we are not wiling that anyone should use
falsehood to torment anyone as these have done and apparently still practice in too many
cases. Further, we will not be those who make excuses for those who have committed criminal
and civil offenses based on the color of one’s skin, race, or one’s gender. In this treatise we take

44 Understanding a charge of aiding and abetting On Behalf of Juan L Guerra Jr & Associates | Nov 19, 2019
45 Exodus 23:1.
46 Jude 1:12.

Page | 13

a stand for those who have been slandered, libeled, defamed in any manner. We continue to
take such as stand in their defense. To God be the Glory!

Page | 14

CHAPTER ONE

APOSTOLIC FAITH

“There are no small parts, only small actors”47

47 Konstantin Stanislavski.

Page | 15

Charles Fox and Sarah Eleanor Parham waltz onto the pages of history because
of the Topeka Outpouring.48 “The Parham’s importance to the Apostolic Faith
and Pentecostal movement is clearly recognized, particularly their central role
in establishing the doctrine of tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. What detractors
fail to recognize is that the Pentecostal movement for the volatile first-generation period, and
indeed throughout much of its subsequent history, has been freewheeling; indeed, much of its
dynamic growth can be attributed to this interpretive freedom. What mattered was the crux of
the Pentecostal message – the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Spirit baptism was understood by all
in the Apostolic Faith Movement [AFM] and Pentecostals adopted this as their identifying
badge, and the consensus formed quickly that this experience came to a believer with the
accompanying biblical sign, speaking in tongues.49 As a result, Parham’s position as the initial
Pentecostal theologian and the most prominent spokesman of the pioneering generation
cannot be obscured.”50

READ it ALL in Legacy: Charles Fox & Sarah Parham and the Racial Roots of the Pentecostal Movement